Insurgents in control

[Ted Striker]

The most recent poll results from April 2005 show that 46% of Iraqis feel the invasion has done more harm than good, 33% feel it has done more good, 16% say it is about the same.

If you check the numbers, you'll see that the Kurdish numbers prop up the "good" numbers and bring down the "bad" numbers.

Bottom line is that life is worse than it was under Saddam, like it or not.

So what are you guys going to do about the situation in Sudan? Should we invade? Do they have nukes? Does it matter that alot of children are dying there?

Thanks

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gallup-iraq-findings.htm

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
So what are you guys going to do about the situation in Sudan? Should we invade? Do they have nukes? Does it matter that alot of children are dying there?

I wouldn't complain.

You, OTOH, I don't think we'd hear the end of it.

[Ted Striker]

So you wouldn't care that an Army that is already overextended is stretching itself even further?

Why stop with Sudan? Next we should go after Uzbekistan. Wait those are our pals until the kick us out next week. Then after that maybe Georgia. Wait they are our pals too. Next maybe...

Maybe the Canadian Army will take care of Sudan for us.

Thanks

[notyoueither]

And you babble endlessly on about strawmen?

[Ted Striker]

You actually made an argument (for once, even though it was based on nothing but speculation -- talk about an imagination and no knowledge of reality) that Iraqis were better off. After that, I showed that wasn't the case and that Iraqis don't think they're any better off, except for the Kurds.

All this "better off" stuff happened supposedly because we "took care of Saddam." That was supposed to one good thing that came out of this war but even that didn't happen.

So "taking out Saddam" was a good enough justification even though it didn't really do any good.

On top of that, there are plenty of leaders around the world who mistreat their people, and you have no problem with that, even though you have no problem overextending an army that is already overextended.

Follow along son I know this is alot harder than 11th grade social studies class. And stop being gutless by staring at Viki's butt and just ask her out.

Thanks

[notyoueither]

You used an opinion poll in a war zone to 'show' what? That you are a fool? Can you get Mr. Gallup's opinion on the validity of that poll?

But, I agree. The end of sanctions, where food and medicine can get to the common Iraqi without having to go through Saddams milking regime is of little consequence. It must be, since you are ignoring claims pre war that people, yes Ted, actual people, were dying due to sanctions.

Getting rid of Saddam sure did no good, yessireebob. Sanctions are still in place. Secret police are still killing people at the behest of the government, and Iraq is no closer to an election than at any point in 50 years, at least!

[notyoueither]

How did they conduct that poll? Did they get all the cell phone users? Maybe they substituted goat calls...

[Ted Striker]

Your reaction to the poll indicates it was a good poll. It's why you're so scared of it. Especially since you spent the last 8 minutes searching Google for you own poll to refute mine, and you didn't find it. You got excited when you saw the 2004 poll, but then you realized that was an old poll so doesn't really reflect the current situation. So finally since you can't find anything to counter the results, you'll next try to unsuccessfully dismiss it, since you're desparate and backed yourself into a corner.

In any case, under Saddam people were dying from sanctions, except the Kurds, and I never denied this (another lie/strawman you made up), now they die from car bombs. Those that are alive, most of them don't have jobs. Sweet tradeoff.

You're a funny guy notyoueither, you try to amuse yourself by setting mouse traps but then you get furstrated when you step in them.

Watch your step champ.

Thanks

[notyoueither]

Actually, raket skientist, polling is not what it once was (like the one where Dewey beat Truman ). Now, complicate that by trying to conduct one in a war zone...

If you are relying on polls for your legitimacy, I would suggest you buy this rather nifty bridge that I have available for a very reasonable price.

[Ted Striker]

It's cool man, I know you're afraid, but we can get through this one if your're brave. notyoueither's Mom: "It's just a poll honey, it won't hurt you."

I'll buy that bridge with the money I made from the Weapons of Mass Destruction I found in Iraq.

Thanks

[Berzerker]

I think their mistake was thinking that the American population had got over Vietnam, and learned from it

The lesson of Vietnam was: dont get caught up in civil wars. Its the politicians who have trouble figuring that out, not the American people.

[Ted Striker]

Word

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Oh damn, he threw in the obligatory 'I don't think the US should pull out, but everything they've done is ****', so I guess he's covered.

Well, unlike you, I tend to actually think about national policy, as opposed to reading off bumper stickers.

Who would have ever figured international relations and politics, might be a complicated thing. I mean, if they let moronsl like Bush run them, they can;t be that hard, can they?

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Actually, raket skientist, polling is not what it once was (like the one where Dewey beat Truman ). Now, complicate that by trying to conduct one in a war zone...

If you are relying on polls for your legitimacy, I would suggest you buy this rather nifty bridge that I have available for a very reasonable price.

Sorry NYE, but that poll really got you good, and the "brave face" afterwards is sort of pityful.

If you want a better explination here it is:

Saddam was an evil mudering bastard, but under him, you knew what you had to do to die. You also knew what you had to do to live, ie, keep your mouth shut and mind your place.

You also in general had electricity and water regulalry, if not all the time.

Right now, in large sections of Iraq the trains don;t run on time, figuratively speaking, and dying has become a hell of a lot more random.

Your average Iraqi probably did not equate freedom with hoping not to get blown up by a car bomb, shot in a random skirmish, or by skitish security men/soldiers, or dying when going to pray, or more commonly getting robbed or kidnapped because crime is out of control.

See, what you graps even less is that all dictatorships like Saddam's last because people, not everyone, but enough, support them. Otherwise, Saddam would have been overthrown by the Iraqis, just like his neighboring dictator in Iran was.

So certainly, large numbers of Iraqis were happy the day Saddam fell, thought far less than you would imagine outside of the Kurdish areas. MOst were expecting the invaders to at least install order. The US failed rather spectacularly in that, so that more Iraqis have died in the last 2 years form violence than probably died from the end of the '91 uprising until 2003 by Saddam's hand.

Why would your average Iraq think then that the invasion was such a wonderful thing then, if "democracy" is a rather teneous thing at best, and right now the country falling apart seems just as likely an outcome?

[Sava]

we've got to stay the course!