What the heck is going on over there?!?

[Clashman]

I also see no evidence that bring UN troops in will change this matter. Again they are terrorist nationalists.

Have we even explored the possibility these guerriallas may be seeming partial to the UN deliberately? Perhaps they realize the UN will be lax in taking action in iraq giving them more leg room to take control. Perhaps they realize they can foster relationships with numerous corrupt leaderships amonst the UN's nations.

Yeah, well until you can back that up with anything I'm going to have to stick by the reporting by the people in Iraq rather than your idle speculation.

 

[PatrickL]

You may want to consider how british army is operating in South Iraq and the good job they are doing.

Problem with US troops is they think they need to bring USA everywhere instead of simply looking around them and act with pragmatism.

 

[Legion]

I also see no evidence that bring UN troops in will change this matter. Again they are terrorist nationalists.

Have we even explored the possibility these guerriallas may be seeming partial to the UN deliberately? Perhaps they realize the UN will be lax in taking action in iraq giving them more leg room to take control. Perhaps they realize they can foster relationships with numerous corrupt leaderships amonst the UN's nations.

Yeah, well until you can back that up with anything I'm going to have to stick by the reporting by the people in Iraq rather than your idle speculation.

lol you call what i have said idle speculation though you agree they have said nothing of substance? Again they have never quantified support so you are left to take them at their word and assume terms like "many" and "a lot" are representative of real people. Since you have no way of judging their objectivity you are stuck with simply taking their "idle speculation" at face value. I would also like to point out what you have posted doesn't lend credence specifically to your beliefs. There are numerous conclusions that can be drawn once you sift through the author's personal bias. Democoder among other have either hinted at this or directly stated this.

 

[Clashman]

lol you call what i have said idle speculation though you agree they have said nothing of substance?

I never said they're reporting lacked substance, and in fact I would say the opposite. Nothing you have posted takes away at all from what they say. The words "vast" and "many" are used because you damn well know that it is not possible for a reporter on the ground to quantify what they are seeing to the degree that you are requiring. However, when I post poll results that show at least 2/3 of Iraqis view the U.S. as occupiers and not as liberators, that doesn't count for anything.

By the way, found another poll, and it looks as if Iraqis would in fact feel more comfortable with the UN in charge rather than the US.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0911-01.htm

Asked whether in the next five years the US would "help" Iraq, 35.3 per cent said yes while 50 per cent said the US would "hurt" Iraq. Asked the same of the UN, the figures were almost reversed, with 50.2 per cent saying it would help and 18.5 per cent the opposite.

Reguarding US and British troops, some 31 per cent wanted them to leave in six months and a total of 65.5 per cent in a year. Some 25 per cent said they should stay two years or more.

But I'm sure you'll find a way to say that "well, polls can be manipulated". But the fact of the matter is that you just don't want to believe that the left could possibly be right.

 

[Legion]

I never said they're reporting lacked substance, and in fact I would say the opposite.

Of course you would say the opposite as agreeing with the to lack of qualification of their allegations would mean you'd have to admit your preconceived notions are unsupported.

Nothing you have posted takes away at all from what they say. The words "vast" and "many" are used because you damn well know that it is not possible for a reporter on the ground to quantify what they are seeing to the degree that you are requiring.

No, i just happen to realize damn well that terminology such as this is subject to the bias of the observer. Your author's never provide a reason to conclude that "many" or "vast" amounts of people support what they have suggested. The articles themselves expect you to take their allegations at face value. Futhermore, once you sift through their personal bias, examine facts and motives, you are left to come to varying conclusions on the matter. Nothing they have posted substantiates your position exclusively.

nothing these author have claimed devalues claims on the opposing side of the argument.

However, when I post poll results that show at least 2/3 of Iraqis view the U.S. as occupiers and not as liberators, that doesn't count for anything.

I would find it a bit odd that you would post such a thing as listing an article stating objective polling can't be conducted. If you used that article to dispute other assertions on poll positive toward US motives then you are jointly disputing claims to the counter.

But I'm sure you'll find a way to say that "well, polls can be manipulated". But the fact of the matter is that you just don't want to believe that the left could possibly be right.

I do find it odd that you made a similiar argument against another reference poll in this thread on the basis that the polls can not be objective.

 

[Clashman]

I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth. Russ referenced polls that he said showed that Iraqis didn't want the U.S. to leave. I looked up the polls and pointed out they weren't nearly as pro-U.S. are Russ had initially indicated.

Of course you would say the opposite as agreeing with the to lack of qualification of their allegations would mean you'd have to admit your preconceived notions are unsupported.

Whereas it's much easier in your position. You don't seem to need any sort of evidence to back up your preconcieved notions. If the evidence I have put forward doesn't show that that people in Iraq don't like the U.S. and harbor significant support for the guerrillas, nothing short of Bush coming out and admitting it ever will.

 

[Silent_One]

Clashman quoted:

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/6763724.htm
The two cell leaders said their fighters primarily were former Iraqi army officers and young Iraqis who had joined because they were angry over the deaths or arrests of family members during U.S. raids in the hunt for Saddam Hussein and his supporters.

The cell leaders themselves said they were guided by a blend of Islamist teachings and pan-Arab nationalism. Both spoke disdainfully of "Wahabbis," as hard-line Sunni Muslim followers are called. Abu Mohammed said there was no contact with members of al Qaida at his level; Abu Abdullah broke off the interview before the question could be asked. But he said his fighters were too valuable to participate in suicide missions, a hallmark of al Qaida, and he rejected the label of terrorist.

The men are taught to seek only military targets, and to spare civilian lives when possible. For this reason, he said, he condemns the car bombs that killed dozens of innocents recently at the Jordanian Embassy, the United Nations base in Baghdad and the Imam Ali shrine in the Shiite Muslim holy city of Najaf

But he missed this part:

"We are Islamist in that we are protecting our religion. We are nationalist in that we are protecting our country," Abu Mohammed said. "We don't care about our lives. We care about the lives of our fellow Iraqis."

Abu Mohammed's cell relies on the Baghdad branch for information on convoy routes, checkpoints with the least security and areas with high American soldier traffic. Baghdad leaders arrange each attack and sometimes send members afterward to stand at the scene posing as onlookers to count casualties. A report then goes to the Diyala leaders, Abu Mohammed said.

One attack, he said, was scrapped at the last minute because a van carrying an Iraqi family pulled next to the targeted convoy and could have been hit by mistake. Typically, however, most attacks are carried out, and Iraqis who happen to be around are "sacrificed," he said.

A couple of thoughts - it seems that suicide missions are not dismissed because of it is repugnant, but because "his fighters were too valuable to participate", ie - if he had more fighters that he could "sacrifice", suicide missions would not be out of the question. As for "We care about the lives of our fellow Iraqis" while those "who happen to be around are "sacrificed," tell that to the people who families have been destroyed by fromer Baath Party officials. Those families want revenge for the killng fields. It's hard for them to distinguish between "scarifice" and suicide missions from Baath party members or terrorists.

Now there certainly are those who wish the US would leave and indeed hate the US - the question is where is the support for US presence and where is it not.

In Die-Hard City, G.I.'s Are Enemy
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/04/international/middleeast/04FALL.html?pagewanted=1

Loathing for the American occupiers looms everywhere in this hardscrabble city, where Saddam Hussein won strong support in exchange for privileges and patronage. Hatred laces the conversations. It hangs from the walls. It burns in the minds of children. As nowhere else in Iraq, Falluja bristles with a desire to confront the American soldiers, to kill them and to celebrate when they fall.

Although large number of Iraqis elsewhere are cooperating with the Americans, for the soldiers trying to pacify this Hussein stronghold, the road seems long and hard.....<snip>...Falluja lies in the heart of what is known as the Sunni Triangle, an area stretching west and north of Baghdad that was the foundation of support for Mr. Hussein. It is this area where most attacks on American soldiers have been carried out. They began in the spring and have continued since. On Monday, a bomb near Tikrit, Mr. Hussein's hometown 100 miles north of here, killed another American soldier, Reuters quoted the United States military as saying.

In other parts of the country, in the north and in the south, Iraqis often welcome the Americans as their liberators and as their tutors in fostering democratic rule. .

In places like Falluja, people often had a direct stake in Mr. Hussein's rule, receiving preferential treatment in hiring and larger salaries.

 

[Legion]

I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth. Russ referenced polls that he said showed that Iraqis didn't want the U.S. to leave. I looked up the polls and pointed out they weren't nearly as pro-U.S. are Russ had initially indicated.

To what are you refering? One of your articles did openly state polling wouldn't turn out an objective response. If so both of your so called polls are invalidated regardless of what you said.

Whereas it's much easier in your position.

Oh? What is my position?

You don't seem to need any sort of evidence to back up your preconcieved notions.

Lol i have simply asked you to substantiate your assertion.

What are my preconcieved notions? How have i not validated them?

If the evidence I have put forward doesn't show that that people in Iraq don't like the U.S. and harbor significant support for the guerrillas, nothing short of Bush coming out and admitting it ever will.

What evidence? You have put forth biased reporting which has not qualified any large amount of people supporting terrorists. Secondly you haven't provide any evidence that the UN's role in the matter would return superior results. You have provided only speculations and opinions.

 

[Clashman]

What kind of evidence do you need? 10's of thousands of people demonstrating against the occupation, numerous first-hand accounts, several opinion polls obviously aren't enough. So please, set some sort of reasonable guidline upon which I can mount my case.

 

[Legion]

What kind of evidence do you need? 10's of thousands of people demonstrating against the occupation, numerous first-hand accounts, several opinion polls obviously aren't enough. So please, set some sort of reasonable guidline upon which I can mount my case.

We aren't seeing 10's of thousands of people demonstrating against an american occupation in favor on a UN one are we? where do you get this notion there were "10's of thousands" of Iraqi's demonstrating against the occupation? Did some one count them all? Would you please site me a source for this information in a reputable news source and not from indy media sources? Several opinion polls certainly aren't enough especially when your own sources invalidate the possibility of objectivity of both the pollee and the poller. One could also find you prooccupation opinion polls. Your "evidence" hasn't substantiate your assertion that less deaths would occur under UN direction with the same number of troops. You haven't provided a reason why the UN would feel obligated to reconstructing Iraq when many of its members didn't feel obligated to liberate its populace to begin with. If you cut through the reporters bias and look at the facts you can come to a varying number of different conclusions nothing points specifically to yours.

There would more than likely be a division within the UN as what do to. You'll probably find that it would be difficult to come up with 150,000 troops let alone 250,000. I wouldn't be suprised to see that nations in favor of invading Iraq would become the soul contributors to reconstructing the nation.

 

[Clashman]

We're seeing 10's of thousands protesting against the US occupation, period. That can be taken as evidence of widespead discontent with the occupation, as well as sympathy for the guerrillas.

The fact that NO poll can be completely objective doesn't completely discount what was reported in both of them. The fact that it was a relatively right-wing polling group that found those results should, in fact, throw things in my favor a little bit.

Your "evidence" hasn't substantiate your assertion that less deaths would occur under UN direction with the same number of troops.

Actually, it does. It shows that at least in some ways the anger is directed specifically at the American occupation of Iraq. You have provided ZERO evidence, not even from a subjective poll, that would indicate it would be more so. If you can find a poll that does in fact show that Iraqis are pleased with the occupation, I would be more than happy to see it.

You haven't provided a reason why the UN would feel obligated to reconstructing Iraq when many of its members didn't feel obligated to liberate its populace to begin with.

Many of it's members didn't feel "obligated" because the vast majority of their populations were opposed to participating in a U.S. war against Iraq. As an anti-war person myself, I think I can speak with some authority when I say that many of those opposed to the war would be much more willing to contribute troops to a UN reconstruction mission. I also provided concrete evidence by pointing to the case of India, which had said it was willing to contribute up to 30,000 peacekeeping troops to a post-war reconstruction of Iraq if it was under the guidance of a UN mandate.

But if these aren't good enough for you, I'm going to repeat my question here: What kind of evidence do you need in order to lend some credence to what I'm saying?

 

[Legion]

We're seeing 10's of thousands protesting against the US occupation, period.

Can you please substantiate this using anything other than indy media news groups?

That can be taken as evidence of widespead discontent with the occupation, as well as sympathy for the guerrillas.

Can you show me a link that discusses 10's of thousands of people protesting US occupation?

Clashman there are radicals in every cultural. In western cultures we have Leftist like Green Peace whom among them there are ecoterrorists. The fact these people exist says nothing about their countries' opinions' concerning their behavior.

IT is predictable that there will be terrorist support within these areas that have bene prodominately in favor of sadam in the past. Read the information that Silent_One post that you omitted from your previous posts. Even the author of that piece agrees with this. Lets get this straight. These are not guerillas. These are terrorist many of whom, by your articles admittion, are religiously motivated by muslim radicals.

The fact that NO poll can be completely objective doesn't completely discount what was reported in both of them. The fact that it was a relatively right-wing polling group that found those results should, in fact, throw things in my favor a little bit.

Clashman i think you even can admit that wasn't what your author was saying. He clearly stated his feelings that "NO" objective polling could be done at this time. As you said you would rather stand by the reasoning of people who are there rather then speculation. So please, don't turn to polls that never mention their sample or sample size to try and substantiate your claims.

Actually, it does. It shows that at least in some ways the anger is directed specifically at the American occupation of Iraq. You have provided ZERO evidence, not even from a subjective poll, that would indicate it would be more so.

Actually no it doesn't. You have posted mainly opinion pages that do not quantify their claims with figures.

Clashman i am sure in some way somewhere there is anger directed at americans but that doesn't support your assertions. I am sure i could find you some one somewhere who is hostile to the UN.

Clashman exactly what should i provide evidence for? The onus is on you to substantiate your claims. Democoder, Silent_One, Russ, among others have shown you how you could easily come to other conclusions based on the "evidence" you have presented and facts surrounding the scene.

Many of it's members didn't feel "obligated" because the vast majority of their populations were opposed to participating in a U.S. war against Iraq.

Clashman please prove that the vast majority of their populations were against the war. Secondly this doesn't answer the issue of a lack in desire to aid in the reconstruction.

As an anti-war person myself, I think I can speak with some authority when I say that many of those opposed to the war would be much more willing to contribute troops to a UN reconstruction mission.

So you propose to speak for all those who were against the war though you have no idea what percent of the world population you make up?

I also provided concrete evidence by pointing to the case of India, which had said it was willing to contribute up to 30,000 peacekeeping troops to a post-war reconstruction of Iraq if it was under the guidance of a UN mandate.

No you havne't Clashman, they offered it that doesn't mean they'd give it. Also it doesn't mean they'd feel the same obligation under UN administration. On top of that it doesn;t mean they'd keep their soldiers there for the whole period required.

But if these aren't good enough for you, I'm going to repeat my question here: What kind of evidence do you need in order to lend some credence to what I'm saying?

Of course they aren't good enough clashman. They are mainly opinion based of the skewed perception of the those reporting. I could provide you with articles promoting the opposing position which would lead to a stale mate. You aren't posting anything that points specifically to your conclusion.

 

[Silent_One]

Legion wrote:

I could provide you with articles promoting the opposing position which would lead to a stale mate. You aren't posting anything that points specifically to your conclusion.

Iraq's Silent Majority
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/318fryjh.asp

THE Coalition Provisional Authority had just reopened a bridge and lifted the curfew, while coalition forces were steeping themselves in cultural sensitivity training in preparation for Ramadan. Then over the next few days, a Black Hawk helicopter was forced down north of the capital, a deputy mayor was assassinated, and four police stations and the International Red Cross were blown up. Outside of Baghdad, another car bomb by another police station exploded in Fallujah, an Abrams tank was attacked near Balad (45 minutes north of Baghdad), and a multinational force patrolling central Iraq was ambushed. This chain of murderous events had begun with a half dozen rockets slamming into the al Rashid hotel in Baghdad, where Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was staying, at 6 A.M. on Sunday, October 26. The rockets struck a few hours before I was to check into the hotel, accompanied by a team of editors and scholars that my outfit, the Aspen Institute Berlin, had organized. By week's end, the barrage of attacks had left 50 dead and more than 200 injured.

If you have read the commentary about Iraq over the last few months, you might wonder to what extent analysis is shaped by the pro- and antiwar leanings of various authors. Read the hawks and you'll learn that 150 newspapers have been established, that Nike is donating soccer balls for Iraqi kids, and that reconstruction of the country's dilapidated infrastructure is underway. Three Arab companies have just won contracts to build the country's cell phone system.

On the other hand, read the antiwar crowd and you'll get a heavy dose of schadenfreude, talk of the administration's having underestimated the "complexity" of it all, and anxiety about the spreading "chaos." Already, after the most recent violence, a new round of positioning and punditry has begun. The president says the thugs are desperate, and the mission is still on track. The critics say it's America's new Vietnam. Which version is true?

In fact, there continues to be substantial progress in Iraq. If you like quantifying things, you can easily measure it in numbers. Ten thousand schools have reopened, for instance, and enrollment is up 25 percent. Iraq's 23 universities have begun to develop new social science and humanities curricula. It seems Saddam never had much use for philosophy or literature. The lights in Iraq are on again, with generators pumping at prewar levels--4,500 megawatts since August. Meanwhile, coalition forces have already recovered more than $1 billion in cash from the bad guys, aka "former regime loyalists."

Sit with Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of the army's 4th division based out of Kirkuk, and you'll have more numbers to work with. Odierno will tell you his troops now disarm more than 60 percent of the "improvised explosive devices" they encounter. IEDs, as they are called, are currently the weapon of choice among terrorists, who will leave these unpredictable contraptions lying in or near the road, sometimes barely concealing them, to detonate under trucks, humvees, and buses. The general says he has met 728 times with Iraqi civic, religious, and political leaders. In Kirkuk, in Northern Iraq, 80 percent of the predominately Kurdish population is pro-coalition, says Odierno, 15 percent is ambivalent, and 2 to 3 percent are actively involved in anti-coalition violence. It sounds plausible. At any rate, as we are whisked around in the bubble of our militarily chauffeured SUVs--where there's hardly a chance to scratch the surface--every kid on the street who can catch your eye is waving and smiling ear to ear. Saddam's henchmen had butchered some 180,000 Kurds, and here in Kirkuk, the mayor tells us, the Americans have finally done the right thing.

There are hopeful signs elsewhere that Iraq's silent majority is beginning to find its voice, albeit with a little help from their friends. Jana Hybaskova, the Czech ambassador to Kuwait (she's the first female ambassador ever to that country), explained to our group how she managed to rally ordinary citizens in Basra to stand up to a small group of local radicals. We met her for dinner at the not-very-indigenous Blue Elephant, a Thai restaurant on the beach at the Kuwaiti Hilton. Hybaskova travels frequently to Basra to support a local hospital the Czechs are now running. When local militants sought recently to shut the hospital down, ostensibly because of the corrupting influence of the non-Muslims in charge, Hybaskova ran around town talking to people and ginned up enough support to force the militants to back off. Stories like these are surely good news, but they frequently don't play that way. When Ambassador Hybaskova asked a Prague television journalist who covered the hospital stand-off why the failed radical leader got most of the attention, she was told "this was the story."

Right now in Western and Arab media alike, violence in Iraq is the story. True enough, parts of Iraq have become violent and dangerous places. The terrorists cannot defeat coalition forces militarily, but they can seek to drive America out by eroding public support in the United States. And they can continue killing Iraqis to scare off those who wish to work with us. The terrorists have a strategy. That's why we need a convincing counterinsurgency strategy. Iraq is not Vietnam, but it could become Israel if the new nation remains plagued by terrorism and perpetual insecurity.
As our team prepared to leave Baghdad, coalition forces were ready to expand the "green zone" in the capital, the most stable part of the city to date. By moving directly in to clean up some of the toughest neighborhoods, the idea is to take the enemy head on. "Fireworks are sure to begin," says a coalition official. In other words, if we do this right, things will get bloodier before they get better.

On our way out, an Iraqi businessman told us, if we solve the security problem, all Iraqis "will kiss the Americans." On our first day inside the country, a convoy for our group hit an explosive, damaging two Humvees. On the last day as we flew out, our C-130 was forced to evade a shoulder-launched missile. More security in Iraq? It's high time.

 

[Clashman]

After reading this last post it is obvious that you are unwilling to even lay down the criteria on which I can make my case. It is pointless arguing with you.

As a last note, some of the protests I was referring to. If you want more, a quick google or yahoo search is sure to find them:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031021/wl_nm/iraq_dc_1
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031021/ts_nm/iraq_protest_dc_4
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._mideast_afp/iraq_us_shiite_demo_031008173520
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1029/p06s01-woiq.html
http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,184136-1-9,00.html
http://www.arabia.com/newsfeed/article/english/0,14183,389723,00.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0415-01.htm
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/101003_protest_at_us_terrorism.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/96818.html

 

[Clashman]

Legion wrote:

I could provide you with articles promoting the opposing position which would lead to a stale mate. You aren't posting anything that points specifically to your conclusion.

Iraq's Silent Majority
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/318fryjh.asp

Well, I would really expect a general accountable to the Presidential Administration to be completely honest if he felt things weren't going well.

 

[Legion]

After reading this last post it is obvious that you are unwilling to even lay down the criteria on which I can make my case. It is pointless arguing with you.

No you are just simply ignoring the criteria as you can't satisfy it.

Your protest links aren't all concerned with protesting US occupation nor do they assert a UN occupation would yeild different results. Never do i see a mention of these suppose tens of thousands you have mentioned protesting US occupation. Futhermore the reporters seem to exclude religious motivation for much of the opposition. Do these people represent the majority of Iraqs? Are they all protesting about the same thing? Are they really protesting for what the author claims?

 

[pax]

Any measure of Iraqi resistance or acceptance of US presence should be first split along ethnic lines. Of course the Sunnis want the US out they are the big losers in the war so far. Shia's are ambivalent but Im not counting on enthusiastic support from them as they feel they have been burned in the past tho their newly found freedom should certainly help the US cause over time. Kurds are not a prob.

It remains to be seen who gets the blame for the security issue if it keeps getting worse. There the need for the Iraqis to assume their own security ASAP. Best thing to is to have US troops out of the job of day to day patrolling and security of most of Iraq outside of western positions.

Itll be a long winter but if the 200 000 promised Iraqi soldiers are recycled into a new army and deployed by spring things should improve by next summer...

 

[Clashman]

Your protest links aren't all concerned with protesting US occupation

Just because they aren't "End the occupation" protests doesn't mean that they aren't concred with protesting the U.S. occupation. When Britain controlled India, the Indians staged numerous protests that while on the surface may not have been "End the British Occupation" protests, nevertheless were protests against the British Occupation. Things like the Sepoy rebellion, protests on the production of salt, etc, may not seem like anti-occupation events, but they were designed to tackle the British occupation of Iraq. Such is the case with the dog sniffer, which is my guess what you were referring to, as they almost exclusively were "Anti-Occupation" or "Anti-U.S." protests.

nor do they assert a UN occupation would yeild different results.

That wasn't the point of posting them. The point was to show opposition to the U.S. occupation. Support, (or at least relative support), was shown in other sources.

Never do i see a mention of these suppose tens of thousands you have mentioned protesting US occupation. Futhermore the reporters seem to exclude religious motivation for much of the opposition. Do these people represent the majority of Iraqs? Are they all protesting about the same thing? Are they really protesting for what the author claims?

Now you're just making shit up. Let's count the numbers there:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._mideast_afp/iraq_us_shiite_demo_031008173520
5,000 Shias
http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,184136-1-9,00.html
10-12,000
http://www.arabia.com/newsfeed/article/english/0,14183,389723,00.html
3,000
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0415-01.htm
20,000
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/101003_protest_at_us_terrorism.htm
10,000 Shias
http://www.iht.com/articles/96818.html
10,000 Shias and Sunnis

And that's from 5 minutes of googling before heading to work.

Regarding the rest of your diatribe, I wasn't there and neither were you. So there's no point in second guessing what was reported by the people who actually were there unless you can come up with some contrary evidence.

Regarding how other countries feel about the UN, check it out:
Europe opposes war, (More back under UN):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2747175.stm
Turkey opposes sending troops:
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/photos/6700050.htm

More on the Iraq poll:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1022-12.htm

Over 55 percent give a negative rating to "how the US military is dealing with Iraqi civilians." Only 20 percent gave the US military a positive rating.

By a margin of 57 percent to 38 . 5 percent, Iraqis indicate that they would support "Arab forces" providing security in their country.

When asked how they would describe the attacks on the US military, 49 percent described them as "resistance operations." Only 29 percent saw them as attacks by "Ba'ath loyalists."

When asked whom they preferred to "provide security and restore order in their country," only 6 . 5 percent said the US. Twenty-seven percent said the US and the UN together, 14 . 5 percent preferred only the UN. And the largest group, 45 percent, said they would prefer the "Iraqi military" to do the job alone.

The vast majority of the pieces I posted were not opinion pieces, but were credible news reports, press releases, and eyewitness reports, (these are different than the armchair reportings of Friedman). Every reporter has their own personal slant, but I think it is rediculous to simply discount their reportings over the likes of people who have not actually been in the country to judge the mood of the people, or an Iraqi exile with close ties to the administration.

 

[RussSchultz]

There were "tens of thousands" or even "hundreds of thousands" that showed up at "anti-war" protests here in the US. They certainly didn't represent the majority.

I'm not discounting that these (and those) people feel strongly about their views, but I am suspicious of whether or not those views are widely held.

As to why? This man explains it better than I can. http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/archives/2003_11_01_healingiraq_archive.html#106802883205716753

 

[Silent_One]

The vast majority of the pieces I posted were not opinion pieces, but were credible news reports, press releases, and eyewitness reports, (these are different than the armchair reportings of Friedman). Every reporter has their own personal slant, but I think it is rediculous to simply discount their reportings over the likes of people who have not actually been in the country to judge the mood of the people, or an Iraqi exile with close ties to the administration.

Your funny. Friedman is far from armchair reporting. You man not agree with him but he has far more experence and credentials than some of the reporters who wrote the articles you linked. True, he wrties opinion pieces, and does not (in general) write eyewitness reports, but he does have the ability to connect the dots and put fresh ideas on the table when most so-called reporters can't see the facts in front of their face. He lived in the middle east for years. You would do well to heed your own advice and not "simply discount their reportings over the likes of people who have not actually been in the country".