Modification of Geneva Conventions

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It has nothing to do with a"debating technique". Dalakhani can correct me if I am misinterpreting his beliefs in any way. From reading his posts, his position appears to be that since no side is "all good" and no side is "all evil" then that means that there is no real right or wrong and everyihng is a grey area. If that is not his position, then he can say so and he can give some specific examples of things that are "black and white."

I think a lot of what i have said is taken and run with without any real interpretation. Perhaps it is my lack of command of the language. Never did i say that i disagree with what US intelligence had to do. I pretty much said that when i said "all is fair in love and war". My only point is that the US isnt above all of the things we accuse all of the other countries of.

This black and white thing is funny to me though. It shows how little people know about the history of the region. Terrorism is a terrible thing and the act of terrorizing is truly an evil thing. But what has led to the current situation is what i mean when i say that there is grey area.

The war in Iraq was unjust. Thus, the thousands of innocent civilians that died were wrongly killed. Could that be deemed as an act of terrorism? Depends on which way you look at it. Thats what i meant when i said "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter". We view our soldiers over there as fighting for the freedom of the iraqi people. Many Arabs feel that those same soldiers are oppressive. Who is right or wrong? It depends on which way you see it.

Does that make things any clearer?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I think a lot of what i have said is taken and run with without any real interpretation. Perhaps it is my lack of command of the language. Never did i say that i disagree with what US intelligence had to do. I pretty much said that when i said "all is fair in love and war". My only point is that the US isnt above all of the things we accuse all of the other countries of.

This black and white thing is funny to me though. It shows how little people know about the history of the region. Terrorism is a terrible thing and the act of terrorizing is truly an evil thing. But what has led to the current situation is what i mean when i say that there is grey area.

The war in Iraq was unjust. Thus, the thousands of innocent civilians that died were wrongly killed. Could that be deemed as an act of terrorism? Depends on which way you look at it. Thats what i meant when i said "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter". We view our soldiers over there as fighting for the freedom of the iraqi people. Many Arabs feel that those same soldiers are oppressive. Who is right or wrong? It depends on which way you see it.

Does that make things any clearer?

Yes, that clarifies your position somewhat.

With regard to our invasion of Iraq, I still don't understand why people in the Middle East would be angry about it. If the Iraqi people did not want us to invade, then I would understand why people in the Middle East would be angry. But that's not the case. The vast majority of Iraqis wanted us to come in and "liberate" them and get rid of Saddam. All the polls does in Iraq within a year of the invasion showed that.

I can understand why Americans would be angry about us invading Iraq, but for people in the Middle East to have been angry makes no sense. If the Iraqi people were suffering under Saddam and they wanted us to "liberate" them, then nobody in the Middle East should have been upset at the time. The polls done in Iraq even a year after we invaded showed that the huge majority of Iraqis were happy that we came despite the fact that some people got killed and the country was still in bad shape.

Why would you view Iraqis as victims of US agression, if Iraqis don't see it that way at all?

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, that clarifies your position somewhat.

With regard to our invasion of Iraq, I still don't understand why people in the Middle East would be angry about it. If the Iraqi people did not want us to invade, then I would understand why people in the Middle East would be angry. But that's not the case. The vast majority of Iraqis wanted us to come in and "liberate" them and get rid of Saddam. All the polls does in Iraq within a year of the invasion showed that.

I can understand why Americans would be angry about us invading Iraq, but for people in the Middle East to have been angry makes no sense. If the Iraqi people were suffering under Saddam and they wanted us to "liberate" them, then nobody in the Middle East should have been upset at the time. The polls done in Iraq even a year after we invaded showed that the huge majority of Iraqis were happy that we came despite the fact that some people got killed and the country was still in bad shape.

Why would you view Iraqis as victims of US agression, if Iraqis don't see it that way at all?

Rupert,
Please provide a link to the polls you cite.
Thank you.
DTS

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Rupert,
Please provide a link to the polls you cite.
Thank you.
DTS

I don't have a link to the polls. These were polls that were done about a year after the invasion. They were failry well publicized at the time. They were done by independent media groups. All the polls done pretty much showed the same thing. They showed that about 70% of the citizens of Iraq were glad that we came. The thing that was so significant to me about it was that the people were glad we came despite the fact that things were still really bad there and the people had suffered a lot.

The polls that have been done more recently are not nearly as favorable but that's because the insurgency has been really bad and things are really bad over there. The people are starting to wonder if it was all worth it or not. The people were originally expecting the same thing that we were. They figured that after Saddam was gone that everything would be great. It hasn't happened thanks to the insurgency.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't have a link to the polls. These were polls that were done about a year after the invasion. They were failry well publicized at the time. They were done by independent media groups. All the polls done pretty much showed the same thing. They showed that about 70% of the citizens of Iraq were glad that we came. The thing that was so significant to me about it was that the people were glad we came despite the fact that things were still really bad there and the people had suffered a lot.

The polls that have been done more recently are not nearly as favorable but that's because the insurgency has been really bad and things are really bad over there. The people are starting to wonder if it was all worth it or not. The people were originally expecting the same thing that we were. They figured that after Saddam was gone that everything would be great. It hasn't happened thanks to the insurgency.

Ain't it sad that just when you think you've got the monkey by the nuts, a coconut falls out of the tree and knocks you out. Not that I'm referencing the esteemed "macaca" senator from Virginia.
Here's a question that I'll preface with one of my favorite quotes, "those that ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them."

Here's the question...
How did Americans react when an invading force attempted to dictate our decision to have independence, and sought through armed conflict, on American soil, to instill subserviance to their demands?

Follow up...
Would we expect the Iraquis to respond differently?

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Ain't it sad that just when you think you've got the monkey by the nuts, a coconut falls out of the tree and knocks you out. Not that I'm referencing the esteemed "macaca" senator from Virginia.
Here's a question that I'll preface with one of my favorite quotes, "those that ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them."

Here's the question...
How did Americans react when an invading force attempted to dictate our decision to have independence, and sought through armed conflict, on American soil, to instill subserviance to their demands?

Follow up...
Would we expect the Iraquis to respond differently?

Ok, let me just say this... if you really believe that the Iraquis LIKED to be tortured by Hussein, then you have another thing coming. I have several friends who serve and ALL of them told me that the Iraqi people were GRATEFUL that we were there. They lived a life that we as Americans in today's world know nothing about. I think we tend to take for granted the freedom that we have and our ability to decide things for ourselves. The Iraqi people did not have that luxury.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Ok, let me just say this... if you really believe that the Iraquis LIKED to be tortured by Hussein, then you have another thing coming. I have several friends who serve and ALL of them told me that the Iraqi people were GRATEFUL that we were there. They lived a life that we as Americans in today's world know nothing about. I think we tend to take for granted the freedom that we have and our ability to decide things for ourselves. The Iraqi people did not have that luxury.

I think different soldiers in different areas are going to have different accounts. There are large numbers of people that did NOT appreciate what the US did.

And lets not turn on the spin machine. We didnt go there to provide freedom to the Iraqi people. Our main purposes for war, as outlined to congress and the UN were because of the non-existant wmds and the non-existant ties to Al Qaeda. Now, the oil and the reconstruction money had NOTHING to do with it .

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Ain't it sad that just when you think you've got the monkey by the nuts, a coconut falls out of the tree and knocks you out. Not that I'm referencing the esteemed "macaca" senator from Virginia.
Here's a question that I'll preface with one of my favorite quotes, "those that ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them."

Here's the question...
How did Americans react when an invading force attempted to dictate our decision to have independence, and sought through armed conflict, on American soil, to instill subserviance to their demands?

Follow up...
Would we expect the Iraquis to respond differently?

That was a totally different situation. We were trying to gain independence from Britain. In the case of Iraq, the people had no means to overthrow Saddam. We were their only chance. As I said, the vast number of citizens supported us. The problem was that if you have even 1% of the citizens who are against you and are well-armed and are getting support from outsiders and are waging a guerilla war against you, you're in trouble.

There were a lot of outsiders from Syria, Iran, etc who did not want us to suceed in Iraq. They were helping with the insurgency. These outsiders don't have the best interest of Iraq at heart. They don't want Iraq to be free. They don't want there to be free elections.

What are we doing that's bad over there? We want to get the hell out of there. We want the people to be able to have free elections and be free. The vast majority of people there want the same thing. It's not like we're trying to force them to do something that they don't want to do. The vast majority of people there want to have free elections and they want to be free. Under Saddam they had no freedom. If you spoke about Saddam they would kill you.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, that clarifies your position somewhat.

With regard to our invasion of Iraq, I still don't understand why people in the Middle East would be angry about it. If the Iraqi people did not want us to invade, then I would understand why people in the Middle East would be angry. But that's not the case. The vast majority of Iraqis wanted us to come in and "liberate" them and get rid of Saddam. All the polls does in Iraq within a year of the invasion showed that.

I can understand why Americans would be angry about us invading Iraq, but for people in the Middle East to have been angry makes no sense. If the Iraqi people were suffering under Saddam and they wanted us to "liberate" them, then nobody in the Middle East should have been upset at the time. The polls done in Iraq even a year after we invaded showed that the huge majority of Iraqis were happy that we came despite the fact that some people got killed and the country was still in bad shape.

Why would you view Iraqis as victims of US agression, if Iraqis don't see it that way at all?

Who is doing the polls and who is being asked Rupert? Polls can be spun a million different ways. Such is the way of propaganda. Not to say that there werent many people that werent people that were elated to have US intervention but at the same time i think those polls are pretty worthless.

I think Iraqis ARE the victim of US aggression. It is clearly obvious to most that the war was a bad idea. Who were the victims? More than anything, it was the Iraqi citizen. Death by the thousands. Many homeless. Some starving. Lives completely uprooted. I think there victimization goes without saying.

Of course the other victims are the soldiers fighting over there and their families. They had no choice either.

As far as why the other Arab states are angry, many view this as another humiliation to the Arab world. It is yet another example of Western powers dictating the course of action in what they view as a regional struggle.

[GenuineRisk]

The following is from Andrew Sullivan's website. Guys, whatever terrorists might do to captured soldiers, it does not justify us torturing enemy combatants. We must never cede the moral high ground. And yet Bush does so. Shame on all of us, for tolerating it-- we are putting future soldiers in danger by going along with this. Anyway... most of it is the reservists; the last sentence is Sullivan's (I put the reservist's words in between quotation marks)

What We've Lost

15 Sep 2006 04:38 pm

A reserve soldier who fought in Iraq writes:

"I was deployed in my reserve unit (USMCR) as part of operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield. Marine infantry, and we were on the front lines, supposedly to guard a gunship base, but really, though, the gunships guarded us.

Not too much later, it was time to take prisoners. One of the platoons went north, and when they came back, there were stories about how Iraqi soldiers lined the roads, trying to surrender. I spent a week guarding Iraqi men in a makeshift prison camp, a way-station really, and more than I could count. They didn't look like they were starving or dehydrated. Apparently, once the ground war began, they just pitched their weapons and headed south at first opportunity. The more I've thought about it, the more I realize that they knew bone deep that they'd get fair treatment. We gave them MREs (with the pork entree's removed) but almost immediately some Special Forces guys arrived and set up a real chow line for them. We gave each man a blanket, (I kept an extra as a souvie) and I think I saw a Special Forces doc giving some of them a once over.

Once, only once, one of them got all irritated and tried to get in one of the Corporal's faces, loud. (I was a lance-corporal). He wouldn't back down, so the Corporal gave him an adjustment, a rifle butt-stroke to his gut, not hard, but he went down. The Corporal sent me for the medic. The guy was ok, and now calm (or at least understanding the situation), and hand-signed that he was out of smokes and really, really needed one... Not a bad guy, just stressed-dumb and needing a smoke. None of the others prisoners in the camp even registered it.

We went north to mop up not long after that. I saw the Iraqi weapons: rocket launchers a little smaller than semi-trailers, hidden in buildings, AKs in piles, big Soviet mortars and anti-tank mines, everywhere but unarmed. They had food too. Pasteurized milk to drink, but most gone bad by then. Some of the mortar rounds were still in crates. They had long trenches that were hard to see in the dunes, bunkers with maps, fire-plans laid out, and blankets, all placed with decent vantage for command and control. They even had wire laid for land-line communications. The point is, they could have fought. Not won, no they couldn't have won, but they could have fought. Instead, they chose to surrender.

Looking back, I think that one of the main drivers in these men's heads was that they knew, absolutely, that they'd get fair treatment from us, the Americans. We were the good guys. The Iraqis on the line knew they had an out, they had hope, so they could just walk away. (A few did piss themselves when someone told them we were Marines. Go figure.) Still, they knew Americans would be fair, and we were.

Thinking hard on what I now know of history, psychology, and the meanness of politics, that reputation for fairness was damn near unique in world history. Can you tell me of any major military power that had it? Ever? France? No. Think Algeria. The UK? Sorry, Northern Ireland, the Boxer Rebellion in China... China or Russia. I don't think so. But America had it. If those men had even put up token resistance, some of us would not have come back. But they didn't even bother, and surrendered at least in part because of our reputation. Our two hundred year old reputation for being fair and humane and decent. All the way back to George Washington, and from President George H.W. Bush all the way down to a lance-corporal jarhead at the front.

Its gone now, even from me. I can't get past that image of the Iraqi, in the hood with the wires and I'm not what you'd call a sensitive type. You know the picture. And now we have a total bust-out in the White House, and a bunch of rubber-stamps in the House, trying to make it so that half-drowning people isn't torture. That hypothermia isn't torture. That degradation isn't torture. We don't have that reputation for fairness anymore. Just the opposite, I think. And the next real enemy we face will fight like only the cornered and desperate fight. How many Marines' lives will be lost in the war ahead just because of this ******* who never once risked anything for this country?"

This president must never be forgiven for what he has done to the reputation of this country.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The following is from Andrew Sullivan's website. Guys, whatever terrorists might do to captured soldiers, it does not justify us torturing enemy combatants. We must never cede the moral high ground. And yet Bush does so. Shame on all of us, for tolerating it-- we are putting future soldiers in danger by going along with this. Anyway... most of it is the reservists; the last sentence is Sullivan's (I put the reservist's words in between quotation marks)

What We've Lost

15 Sep 2006 04:38 pm

A reserve soldier who fought in Iraq writes:

"I was deployed in my reserve unit (USMCR) as part of operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield. Marine infantry, and we were on the front lines, supposedly to guard a gunship base, but really, though, the gunships guarded us.

Not too much later, it was time to take prisoners. One of the platoons went north, and when they came back, there were stories about how Iraqi soldiers lined the roads, trying to surrender. I spent a week guarding Iraqi men in a makeshift prison camp, a way-station really, and more than I could count. They didn't look like they were starving or dehydrated. Apparently, once the ground war began, they just pitched their weapons and headed south at first opportunity. The more I've thought about it, the more I realize that they knew bone deep that they'd get fair treatment. We gave them MREs (with the pork entree's removed) but almost immediately some Special Forces guys arrived and set up a real chow line for them. We gave each man a blanket, (I kept an extra as a souvie) and I think I saw a Special Forces doc giving some of them a once over.

Once, only once, one of them got all irritated and tried to get in one of the Corporal's faces, loud. (I was a lance-corporal). He wouldn't back down, so the Corporal gave him an adjustment, a rifle butt-stroke to his gut, not hard, but he went down. The Corporal sent me for the medic. The guy was ok, and now calm (or at least understanding the situation), and hand-signed that he was out of smokes and really, really needed one... Not a bad guy, just stressed-dumb and needing a smoke. None of the others prisoners in the camp even registered it.

We went north to mop up not long after that. I saw the Iraqi weapons: rocket launchers a little smaller than semi-trailers, hidden in buildings, AKs in piles, big Soviet mortars and anti-tank mines, everywhere but unarmed. They had food too. Pasteurized milk to drink, but most gone bad by then. Some of the mortar rounds were still in crates. They had long trenches that were hard to see in the dunes, bunkers with maps, fire-plans laid out, and blankets, all placed with decent vantage for command and control. They even had wire laid for land-line communications. The point is, they could have fought. Not won, no they couldn't have won, but they could have fought. Instead, they chose to surrender.

Looking back, I think that one of the main drivers in these men's heads was that they knew, absolutely, that they'd get fair treatment from us, the Americans. We were the good guys. The Iraqis on the line knew they had an out, they had hope, so they could just walk away. (A few did piss themselves when someone told them we were Marines. Go figure.) Still, they knew Americans would be fair, and we were.

Thinking hard on what I now know of history, psychology, and the meanness of politics, that reputation for fairness was damn near unique in world history. Can you tell me of any major military power that had it? Ever? France? No. Think Algeria. The UK? Sorry, Northern Ireland, the Boxer Rebellion in China... China or Russia. I don't think so. But America had it. If those men had even put up token resistance, some of us would not have come back. But they didn't even bother, and surrendered at least in part because of our reputation. Our two hundred year old reputation for being fair and humane and decent. All the way back to George Washington, and from President George H.W. Bush all the way down to a lance-corporal jarhead at the front.

Its gone now, even from me. I can't get past that image of the Iraqi, in the hood with the wires and I'm not what you'd call a sensitive type. You know the picture. And now we have a total bust-out in the White House, and a bunch of rubber-stamps in the House, trying to make it so that half-drowning people isn't torture. That hypothermia isn't torture. That degradation isn't torture. We don't have that reputation for fairness anymore. Just the opposite, I think. And the next real enemy we face will fight like only the cornered and desperate fight. How many Marines' lives will be lost in the war ahead just because of this ******* who never once risked anything for this country?"

This president must never be forgiven for what he has done to the reputation of this country.

GR,
Thanks for putting this up.
It's kind of ironic that I disagree with Sen John McCain on many issues, I really DO agree with him when he states "We must preserve the moral high ground". It give credibility to the United States as much as that torch held by the beautiful lady in New York harbor does.

Anyway, last report I saw said that Sen Frist was going to block the debate on the bill that McCain, Warner and Graham presented.
DTS

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

GR,
Thanks for putting this up.
It's kind of ironic that I disagree with Sen John McCain on many issues, I really DO agree with him when he states "We must preserve the moral high ground". It give credibility to the United States as much as that torch held by the beautiful lady in New York harbor does.

Anyway, last report I saw said that Sen Frist was going to block the debate on the bill that McCain, Warner and Graham presented.
DTS

The same Senator Frist that said, after viewing videotape of Terri Schiavo, "I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office," he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."? THAT Senator Frist?

He's such a good lapdog for GW. Here, Fristy! Here's your treat! Good boy, blocking debate! Good boy!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The same Senator Frist that said, after viewing videotape of Terri Schiavo, "I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office," he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."? THAT Senator Frist?

He's such a good lapdog for GW. Here, Fristy! Here's your treat! Good boy, blocking debate! Good boy!

I thought the same thing about Terry Schiavo. she seemed to respond when they would talk to her and pat her on the head. I'm far from a pro-lifer. I actually support Dr. Kevorkian. But I thought it was absolutely wrong for them to starve her to death. Her family was willing to take care of her. I thought the whole thing was disgraceful.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The same Senator Frist that said, after viewing videotape of Terri Schiavo, "I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office," he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."? THAT Senator Frist?

He's such a good lapdog for GW. Here, Fristy! Here's your treat! Good boy, blocking debate! Good boy!

Yup,
Same guy who lead the Fed interference in a family matter during a time of crisis, by passed Florida law and made it federal.
Same guy.
Guess he can't bring "flag burning", gay marriage, or any other diversions to current issues before the senate, and the election is coming in 49 days...
guess he's got to do something.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Who is doing the polls and who is being asked Rupert? Polls can be spun a million different ways. Such is the way of propaganda. Not to say that there werent many people that werent people that were elated to have US intervention but at the same time i think those polls are pretty worthless.

I think Iraqis ARE the victim of US aggression. It is clearly obvious to most that the war was a bad idea. Who were the victims? More than anything, it was the Iraqi citizen. Death by the thousands. Many homeless. Some starving. Lives completely uprooted. I think there victimization goes without saying.

Of course the other victims are the soldiers fighting over there and their families. They had no choice either.

As far as why the other Arab states are angry, many view this as another humiliation to the Arab world. It is yet another example of Western powers dictating the course of action in what they view as a regional struggle.

The war looks like it was a bad idea now. Things are not good over in Iraq at all. But hypothtically, let's suppose that the insurgency wasn't so strong. Let's suppose things would have gotten under contorl after a couple of years the way we thought and everyone was living in realtive peace right now in Iraq. Would you still be upset about the invasion or would you be happy about it and figure that they are much better off in a free Iraq with no Saddam?

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The war looks like it was a bad idea now. Things are not good over in Iraq at all. But hypothtically, let's suppose that the insurgency wasn't so strong. Let's suppose things would have gotten under contorl after a couple of years the way we thought and everyone was living in realtive peace right now in Iraq. Would you still be upset about the invasion or would you be happy about it and figure that they are much better off in a free Iraq with no Saddam?

Technically, after 9/11, Bush was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. It sucks.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Technically, after 9/11, Bush was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. It sucks.

I don't think he was damned if he didn't. There was no real compelling case to go into Iraq at that time. I'm not saying that there wasn't any good reason to go into Iraq. There were some good reasons but there was nothing that was absolutely compelling. I don't think Saddam was that big of a threat at the time. I am partially speaking in hindsight though. If they really thought he was getting close to developing nuclear weapons(we now know that he wasn't), I can see why they thought they needed to go in.

I remember at the time when I heard they were talking about going into Iraq, I was kind of surprised. I totally understood them going into Afghanistan and I totally favored that. I didn't know why they wanted to go into Iraq but I figured they must know what they're doing. I figured that they must know something that I don't know. It turns out that they didn't.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think he was damned if he didn't. There was no real compelling case to go into Iraq at that time. I'm not saying that there wasn't any good reason to go into Iraq. There were some good reasons but there was nothing that was absolutely compelling. I don't think Saddam was that big of a threat at the time. I am partially speaking in hindsight though. If they really thought he was getting close to developing nuclear weapons(we now know that he wasn't), I can see why they thought they needed to go in.

I remember at the time when I heard they were talking about going into Iraq, I was kind of surprised. I totally understood them going into Afghanistan and I totally favored that. I didn't know why they wanted to go into Iraq but I figured they must know what they're doing. I figured that they must know something that I don't know. It turns out that they didn't.

I remember there being press about how there was a possiblity of nuclear weapon development. Let's just say that we decided to NOT invade instead of taking the current path that we did and it turned out that there WAS in fact nuclear weapons being developed and we had a similar situation to 9/11 happen AGAIN, wouldn't you think that Bush would have been damned if he didn't? I do.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, that clarifies your position somewhat.

With regard to our invasion of Iraq, I still don't understand why people in the Middle East would be angry about it. If the Iraqi people did not want us to invade, then I would understand why people in the Middle East would be angry. But that's not the case. The vast majority of Iraqis wanted us to come in and "liberate" them and get rid of Saddam. All the polls does in Iraq within a year of the invasion showed that.

I can understand why Americans would be angry about us invading Iraq, but for people in the Middle East to have been angry makes no sense. If the Iraqi people were suffering under Saddam and they wanted us to "liberate" them, then nobody in the Middle East should have been upset at the time. The polls done in Iraq even a year after we invaded showed that the huge majority of Iraqis were happy that we came despite the fact that some people got killed and the country was still in bad shape.

Why would you view Iraqis as victims of US agression, if Iraqis don't see it that way at all?

Hey Rupert-

I am watching Mclaughlin group right now and there were two new polls done amongst the Iraqi people.

Poll 1:

Do you see attacks on American soldiers as justified?

61% said YES

Poll 2:

Do you see the US military as a stablizing force?

78% said NO



Now, do you still think they want us there??????

[timmgirvan]

I know it's not this simple but, people voted leaders in-leaders want US in to secure the country. BADA-BING BADA BOOM!