Terrible News/ people of Iraq...

[pax]

Sorry but if the civilian contractors were stupid enough to travel unescorted in the middle of Saddams constituency then they reaped their own negligent stupidity.

Any westerner shouldnt go there without an armed convoy. Even tv reporters dont go there unescorted.

 

[indio]

Pot calling the kettle black...

Who? Indio and yourself progressing a view that most iraqi's are against US occupation and are willing to fight against it or Russ' stating indio has a preconceived notion, or perhaps both?

Do you believe most iraqis are for US occuption?


According to that survey
Q15 - A. People have different ideas about what Iraq needs at this time. How about
you? How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

CPA =
Somewhat disagree + strongly disagree = 56.3%

more? ok
How much confidence do you have in The CPA?
not very much + none at all = 61%
US UK forces?
not very much + none at all = 55%

Q26 - Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly
oppose the presence of Coalition Forces in Iraq?


somewhat oppose + strongly oppose = 50.9 %

Strongly oppose is the single highest meaningful result.
Strongly support was the smallest.
I do have serious reservations about the surveys wording.I think it is slanted. However every question pertaining to opinions about the CPA or US forces show a majority negative opinion. We call that a trend.
If that's your idea of pro-american, Howard Dean should win the Republican nomination in a landslide.[/b]

 

[RussSchultz]

Sorry but if the civilian contractors were stupid enough to travel unescorted in the middle of Saddams constituency then they reaped their own negligent stupidity.

Any westerner shouldnt go there without an armed convoy. Even tv reporters dont go there unescorted.

They were the armed escort. Do you spend any time to get the facts?

 

[indio]

i have my theory , he has his. my theory is backed up by results.

I can not see how.

What is your theory and how has it been supported by these events?

There about as groundless as those people hanging from that bridge. That must have been a figment of my imagination. All the dead are just figmants of my imagination. They really love us. They loved us in beriut. they weren't cheering in palestine either.

I don't see the vast majority of Iraqis committing these atrocities so i can not see how you can claim through sarcasm the Iraqis hate us. Did you really expect there not to be resistance from Saddam loyalists? You appear to have a very black and white and highly simplisitic view of cause and effect.

They were incredibly saddened deep down inside when they were dragging soldiers in the streets in Somalia. Were are the results of what is asserted on the other side? I have one question. How is all this alleged pro-american activity being displayed?

How is it evidence of mass sympathy and support for the terrorist cause?

I haven't seen it.

have you been looking?

Pile on top of that every mid-east expert I have seen on TV or heard on radio in the last 10 years has said the region hates US .

What was the context in which the statements were made? Who were they saying hates us? You can't possibly believe everyone in the middle east hates americans. I doubt any "expert" would make such a blatant and generalized statement.

Then there's the article in Time magazine that clearly details the antiamerican sentiment in the mid-east. There is ample evidence supporting the way I see it.

There has always been antiamerican sentiments. This hardly support the view the vast majority of people from the ME hate americans and support terrorism against america.

Where is the other sides evidence?

There is plenty of evidence residing in the fact its obvious most Iraqis are not condoning or supporting terrorism against the US.

Were is the example of pro-american activity? I'm still waiting.
I didn't say anyone was pro-terrorist , I didn't say anyone was pro-insurgent I said 90% of the people in the middle east hate our guts. What are you two unable to differentiate between those to ideas? Hating someone is not grounds for murder , its a motive. That does not mean 90% in Iraq are going to try and commit terrorism or murders. What is so hard to grasp about the middle east has a culture of hate america .If you rememeber not so long ago we had a culture of "hate the communists". I wish you all would stop trying to stretch the meaning of my words.

 

[Legion]

Do you believe most iraqis are for US occuption?

Does being against occupation mean one supports armed resistance? Does bubbling in a certain answer convey the reason why the answer was bubbled?

somewhat oppose + strongly oppose = 50.9 %

so the number comes to around 50% are opposed to it where as 50% are for it? Of those who were "somewhat" opposed can you tell me why any of them feel the way they do? Are only of those 25% willing to support or condone terrorism? I'd say that is doubtful. So, more than likely you have 75% of the populas against armed violence.

Strongly oppose is the single highest meaningful result.

How so? In your figures you couple strongly oppose and some what oppose only then can you claim figures higher than 50%. There is little or no point in doing this as it misrepresents those who are "somewhat" opposed or have "not very much" confidence. We do not know as to why they feel the way they do nor do we know why those who are strongly against US intervention bubbled what they did.

Opinions on the matter are subject to change and polling should definately continue.

Strongly support was the smallest.

Yet, "somewhat support" and "strongly support" come to nearly 50%.

I do have serious reservations about the surveys wording.I think it is slanted. However every question pertaining to opinions about the CPA or US forces show a majority negative opinion.

Oh come on. That is just a stretch on your part. First off when you say majority one of your statistics is only 50.9% opposed. Thats hardly the majority and any statistical analysis would tell you the figure could go either way. These polls do not analyze or provide means for people to explain why they bubbled what they did. Grouping "somewhat" and "not very much" categories with "strongly" opposing categories is rather absurd.

We call that a trend.
If that's your idea of pro-american, Howard Dean should win the Republican nomination in a landslide.[/b]

You must make this a conservative vs liberal issue? How soon libers forget Clintonian military escapades.

 

[Legion]

Were is the example of pro-american activity? I'm still waiting.

Compliance with US intervention, working to rebuild the nation, etc, etc. Need people provide shows of appreciation for them to be appreciative? What flemsy reasoning.

I didn't say anyone was pro-terrorist , I didn't say anyone was pro-insurgent I said 90% of the people in the middle east hate our guts.

And how the do you know this? Because some voice on the radio said so? Provide me a reputable source that backs your assertion.

What are you two unable to differentiate between those to ideas?

Why aren't unable. We are just unwilling to choke on your blatant and absurd generalizations you know you haven't even the slightest capacity to support.

Hating someone is not grounds for murder , its a motive. That does not mean 90% in Iraq are going to try and commit terrorism or murders.

It doesn't even mean 10% are. Considering you can't support the notion that the vast majority of Iraqis hate Americans or for that matter would condone such behaviors as terrorism you argument remains unsupported and highly opinionated.

What is so hard to grasp about the middle east has a culture of hate america .

The fact you over generalize and do not support your arguments.

If you rememeber not so long ago we had a culture of "hate the communists". I wish you all would stop trying to stretch the meaning of my words.

We are not stretching your words. You are.

 

[pax]

Sorry but if the civilian contractors were stupid enough to travel unescorted in the middle of Saddams constituency then they reaped their own negligent stupidity.

Any westerner shouldnt go there without an armed convoy. Even tv reporters dont go there unescorted.

They were the armed escort. Do you spend any time to get the facts?

I did read and cbc article said there were 4 civilian contractors in 2 suvs. Where the escort?

And do you think one or 2 of the guys with pistols would be enough? Assuming a couple of them had handguns? An armed escort could have many levels but to me itd mean a couple jeeps loaded with gi's at the least considering the area.

 

[zidane1strife]

I see. Americans are too stupid to think for themselves, while the rest of the world is full of free thinkers.

Do you know how arrogant that sounds?

The gm comment is from a poll on europe, and their anti-gm public, so no, we’re not special, the whole world is in a similar state...

People are the same world wide, we just have different goals, motivations and means of achieving our goals.

Indeed, but let’s be real here, you've seen what's taken place throughout history, and even in modern times, arrogant would be to deny humanity's folly... yet as we proceed, new kin may very well arise... and the dawn of a new era shall arrive should such a day come...

There is plenty of evidence residing in the fact its obvious most Iraqis are not condoning or supporting terrorism against the US.

I don’t condone or support terrorism against anyone, does that mean I’m in favor of all those dictatorships? NO, it means I have human morals, my believes do not condone such actions, and from what I’ve heard neither do theirs. The fact is most seem to have human morals.

 

[Legion]

Sorry but if the civilian contractors were stupid enough to travel unescorted in the middle of Saddams constituency then they reaped their own negligent stupidity.

Any westerner shouldnt go there without an armed convoy. Even tv reporters dont go there unescorted.

They were the armed escort. Do you spend any time to get the facts?

I did read and cbc article said there were 4 civilian contractors in 2 suvs. Where the escort?

And do you think one or 2 of the guys with pistols would be enough? Assuming a couple of them had handguns? An armed escort could have many levels but to me itd mean a couple jeeps loaded with gi's at the least considering the area.

Out of curiosity what armaments would have protected these people from a the bomb they hit?

 

[RussSchultz]

Pax: the 4 people killed were the armed security escort. They worked for a company out of North Carolina (i think) called Blackwater Security.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/03/31/civilian.deaths.ap/index.html

 

[RussSchultz]

Legion: you need to bone up on the facts, also. The convoy in question was attacked with handgrenades and small arms fire. I've read some reports that the occupants were pulled from the damaged vehicles, doused in gasoline, then set ablaze.

 

[zidane1strife]

Blackwater Security

Blackwater? IIRC, I heard they recruit mercenaries, including people from other countries, and give them decent salaries... but this info verification.

 

[Legion]

Blackwater Security

Blackwater? IIRC, I heard they recruit mercenaries, including people from other countries, and give them decent salaries... but this info verification.

so..?

 

[linthat22]

If it's not in English how would they understand what is said? .... Isn't it a given to understand how people think and feel you must be able to communicate effectively. i think a common language is a precursor to that.

Thrown rocks, evil looks, spitting. There's plenty of ways more direct and eloquant to convey hatred than saying "I hate you".

Don't forget getting smacked in the face with a flip-flop

 

[indio]

We are just unwilling to choke on your blatant and absurd generalizations you know you haven't even the slightest capacity to support.

Are you even reading what I'm writing . I have supported my assertions. I supported them with the visible actions of the Iraqis people on camera.
It is you who have not provide any evidence to support you positions. I'm still waiting. You know and I know there is no way to prove definitively how any group of people feel. However there is plenty of human wreckage that leans heavily towards my view point. You have yet to display the RESULTS realized from your viewpoint. Were are the results? Were is the evidence? I'm still waiting.
Let's make a deal for every press clip you can find be it print or video that Is from an Iraqi and is pro-american . I will provide 9 anti-american quotes from an Iraqi and they have to all be from diferent Iraqis. Then we can decide by the perponderance of the evidence and speculative nonsense. You know it will not be a contest. I'm sure you will blame the lack of postive iraqi comments on the liberal media or senstionalism or something.

Compliance with US intervention, working to rebuild the nation, etc, etc. Need people provide shows of appreciation for them to be appreciative?

Who is complying ? Who is rebuilding? Show us some media of Iraqis rebuilding and not foreign workers rebuilding. I'm not saying they need to be showing appreciation either and never did . Once again you vainly trying and attempt to insert your own definitons.Who said I need them to show appreciation? To date there is no consistant , discernable , tangible pro-american activity in Iraq. Contining your denial of the steady stream of images and reports coming from Iraq doesn't help your cause. The statements I made are generalizations. Reality reflects my generalsations and not the opposing one.
Saddam Loyalists? You have got to be kidding. That's the old propaganda I need to update your talking points.

 

[Clashman]

so the number comes to around 50% are opposed to it where as 50% are for it?

Actually, only about 40% are for it. 10% "Difficult to say".

So, more than likely you have 75% of the populas against armed violence.

Even if only 5% supported the guerrillas, that's still a base of support of over 1 million people. Do you really think there's any way you could neutralize that with a military force, short of committing massive atrocities that would likely turn the other 22 million against you? I mean, looking at the cold, hard, facts, how many Iraqi guerrillas do you think we've killed so far? It seems to me that it can't be much more than the number of U.S. troops killed so far. Even if it was 1,000, (which I highly doubt), and even given what is likely to be a grossly underestimated CENTCOM number of 5,000 total guerrillas as of November, (the CIA estimates it at 50,000); they'd still likely be at over 50% operating capacity, (this is assuming another 30% have been captured, and that they haven't recruited anybody new).

 

[zidane1strife]

Their salaries are higher than those of GIs, and many are from other countries, IIRC.

Now, true this might not be a problem, but some may find it so.

 

[indio]

so the number comes to around 50% are opposed to it where as 50% are for it?

Actually, only about 40% are for it. 10% "Difficult to say".

So, more than likely you have 75% of the populas against armed violence.

Even if only 5% supported the guerrillas, that's still a base of support of over 1 million people. Do you really think there's any way you could neutralize that with a military force, short of committing massive atrocities that would likely turn the other 22 million against you? I mean, looking at the cold, hard, facts, how many Iraqi guerrillas do you think we've killed so far? It seems to me that it can't be much more than the number of U.S. troops killed so far. Even if it was 1,000, (which I highly doubt), and even given what is likely to be a grossly underestimated CENTCOM number of 5,000 total guerrillas as of November, (the CIA estimates it at 50,000); they'd still likely be at over 50% operating capacity, (this is assuming another 30% have been captured, and that they haven't recruited anybody new).

well based upon that survey 17.3 % of the populace find attacks on colitions forces acceptable. With a popultion of 25 million , after you extract elderly woman and young children the number of people that find violence acceptable is 2 million. The median age in Iraq is 18 . Guess what? That's prime age for brainwashing and promoting violent action.

 

[Legion]

Actually, only about 40% are for it. 10% "Difficult to say".

40% of those polled you mean to say.

Even if only 5% supported the guerrillas,

Support the terrorists you mean.

that's still a base of support of over 1 million people.

Point? That would leave over ten times that amount who aren't supporting it. That hardly boils down to mass support.

Do you really think there's any way you could neutralize that with a military force,

Support covers a wide range of behaviors which may include only being in support in terms of "spirit" or thought.

Do you honestly think there are 1,000,000 willing terrorists in Iraq? If so the death tolls don't reflect it.

I mean, looking at the cold, hard, facts, how many Iraqi guerrillas do you think we've killed so far? It seems to me that it can't be much more than the number of U.S. troops killed so far. Even if it was 1,000,

Do you have any figures? Point? The number of dead certainly do not reflect the notion as high as 5% of the populas is willing to commit acts of terrorism.

(which I highly doubt), and even given what is likely to be a grossly underestimated CENTCOM number of 5,000 total guerrillas as of November, (the CIA estimates it at 50,000); they'd still likely be at over 50% operating capacity, (this is assuming another 30% have been captured, and that they haven't recruited anybody new).

Do you have any real figures providing the estimated number of terrorists within Iraq?

It appears obvious the vast majority of people in Iraq do not suppor these terrorists.

 

[indio]

Legion do you believe Iraqi people wanted the US occupy? If not it's a foriegn invasion. The US is an invading army . How can you call Iraqis that oppose that invasion terrorists? Legally according to the Geneva Convention use of chemical , and biological weapon are allowed in defense against an invading army. Is the Geneva Convention are terroristic document? Your trying to reinvent the terminology of 400 years of warfare.