<p>
</p>
<p>And yet, when asked this question:
67% of Iraqis said YES</p>
<p>But to do it this way? Did they ask that question? </p>
<p>Where did you get that percentage and did they ask it of people who lost husbands, wives, babies, brothers, sisters, grandparents</p>
<p>Considering we have to buy good propaganda in Iraq, me wonders at the survey</p>
<p>This was not conducted by the administration and the survey also shows a lot of negative attitudes about the US, but I was wrong in my number above, it actually is 77% of the population who thinks it was worth it. This is up from 2004 when 61% said it was worth it.
<a href=“http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_rpt.pdf[/url]”>http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_rpt.pdf</a></p>
<p>…And, according to that poll, 87% want a timetable for US withdrawl. 47% actually support attacks on US troops. I think something somewhere may have gone wrong when HALF the country wants to blow us up. A high-minded idea with a crappy execution is still crap.</p>
<p>Back to square one on this, I guess the mission has been accomplished. Today Bush has asked for funding for “permanent” bases in Iraq, which was the mission all along, i.e. occupation and control of the oil fields (Iraqi freedom, give me a break). </p>
<p>Given this administration’s complete lack of understanding of the dynamics involved here, the establishing of anything remotely resembling permanent bases will simply give the “terrorists” more fuel to justify and pursue their cause.</p>
<p>This is all consistent with the present comments that future presidents will need to solve this and that this will not be over during the tenure of this administraion. It is further consistent with there being no exit strategy as there was no strategy to exit. The course was to occupy and Dumbya is finally letting that cat out of the bag with this request for funding of permanent bases. (Gee I wonder if Haliburton gets that no bid contract.)</p>
<p>About that “mission accomplished” thing, the last I checked, Saddam was no longer in power. That’s all that referred to, no one pretended the rest would be that quick (quicker than it has been maybe, but not that quick.)</p>
<p>Saddam’s still alive, you know. We could put him back in power if you think the world would be a better place for it.</p>
<p>As for the terrorists in Iraq (as opposed to insurgents, Iraqis, mostly Sunnis, who want the US to leave), it appears they’re fleeing Iraq in strong numbers.</p>
<p>BTW, aren’t those numbers on Iraqi’s approving of attacks on US troops a bit dated? Even with the recent rise in violence, most have decided that it’s better to invest in the political process than fight.</p>
<p>After all the fighting isn’t about political power at all. It’s what you could expect in a part of the world where thieves have their hands cut off, gays are hung and fathers slaughter their daughters for actions that wouldn’t get Buffy grounded from her credit card here. Blood feuds and revenge killing and reprisals for attacks before and since Saddam was deposed. It’s a harsh part of the world that still believes in an eye for an eye.</p>
<p>When hundreds of thousands are killed by people working for Saddam, people, guys in the neighborhood, not a faceless government, remember, it’s not surprising that the attacks we’re seeing break out or that they’re hard to control.</p>
<p>BTW, Brown and Root, the company that Halliburton acquired, got thousands of no bid contracts from Democrats as far back as FDR. They’re one of the world’s larges engineering companies and the main one the US has turned to for military projects for over 60 years.</p>
<p>Cheney’s an influencial man, but I doubt he had that much influence on FDR.</p>
<p>Strick, when this administration shows the least bit of concern for tragedy in Darfur, a humanitarian and human rights crisis 10x that of Saddam, then, just maybe, I might buy even a tenth of the Bush rhetoric.</p>
<p>The Bush apologists never cease to amaze me. No matter how many laws he breaks, lies he tells, etc., the sheeple continue to stand by their man.</p>
<p>Tammy Wynette…lots of them!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You mean as much as Clinton did for Rowanda? </p>
<p>I take it you don’t read the papers. The US is pressing the UN and NATO get in involved. The problem is that no one thinks it’s going to be an easy job.</p>
<p>On the first point, see this: <a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021701935.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021701935.html</a></p>
<p>and this: <a href=“Bloomberg Politics - Bloomberg”>Bloomberg Politics - Bloomberg;
<p>On the second, see this: <a href=“http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairmo/articles/20060220.aspx[/url]”>http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairmo/articles/20060220.aspx</a></p>
<p>It’s a bit funny that some folks are upset when the US went it alone in Iraq and are as upset when the US won’t go it alone in Darfur. No one’s stepping up for this one. </p>
<p>Isn’t the one thing we could agree to that the US should not be the world’s policeman?</p>
<p>BTW, it’s not so much that we’re standing by anyone as we’re always amazed at how ignorant some of his critics seem to be.</p>
<p>That’s a bit patronizing, Strick, since I clearly read the papers (although not the Moonie Times; but then again, I don’t watch Fox “news” either). Calling someone ignorant because they don’t agree with your views doesn’t do much to advance conversation either.</p>
<p>The situation in Darfur is nothing at all like the siuation in Iraq was before the US invasion. No matter how evil Saddam was, Iraq was a secular country, where women went to school, had jobs. Yes, he hacked heads, but the crisis, if Bush was really talking about human rights, is infinitely worse in Darfur than it ever was in Iraq.</p>
<p>Does the fact that Darfur is not sitting in a strategically beneficial position for the US, from a geopolitical standpoint, of course, have anything to do with the lack of compassion and help? </p>
<p>Kind of a big, fat DOH!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I suppose posts like this do “advance conversation”:
When are you going to provide any substance to substantiate your views? If you want anyone to believe that you read the newspapers or pay attention to the news, prove it. Allegations of the administration ignoring Darfur when they have been attempting to lead the UN to action despite resistance from other UN members is evidence of ignorance in my book.</sarcasm></p>
<p>I probably should have said uninformed rather than ignorant, sorry.</p>
<p>The fact remains that your comments on Darfur clearly don’t fit with the reported facts and blaming your lack of knowledge on someone else watching FOX news is rather absurd given that I quoted the Washington Post and Bloomberg, two sources considered left of center. The fact is this information is out on nearly every outlet. </p>
<p>So how is your contention on Darfur is rather silly? The problem there has nothing to do with whether the place has oil or not, its the same as in Rowanda in the previous administration. No one cares. Heck, the only reason Clinton intervened in Bosnia was that refuges were pooring into Europe for a change and the Europeans expected us to solve their problems. </p>
<p>In this, as you can see, Bush is pushing the international community to act. Out of compassion. There are already 7,000 troops in Darfur, but they’re from African nations. Not unreasonable for Africans to try to settle their own problems, particularly since no one in Europe or anywhere else would. Why should we do it instead?</p>
<p>The bigger question is what does Darfur have to do with Iraq? Frankly, I remember hearing a lot of crap out of the left when the US intervened in Liberia and Haiti comparing those humanitarian efforts to Iraq. Nothing further from the truth. Traditionally former colonial powers are considered responsible for problems in their colonies. Liberia was founded by the US and it was our problem. Haiti was France’s but they asked us to deal with it for them because they didn’t have the logistical capability to intervene. </p>
<p>Let me rephrase this last bit. We go to the UN and NATO with Iraq which everyone agreed was a problem and when they won’t do anything, we go it alone. You **<strong><em>. We go to the UN and NATO with Darfur which everyone agreed was a problem and when they won’t do anything, we don’t either. You </em></strong>. </p>
<p>Do us a favor. Pick one.</p>
<p>Leaving the sheeple to talk amongst themselves…</p>
<p>Facing argumets well supported with facts seems to have that effect on some people.</p>
<p>My regrets, btw, the word ***** shown in astrisks was not meant to be offensive.</p>
<p><a href=“http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-03-15T165632Z_01_L15356542_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-SHIITES.xml[/url]”>http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-03-15T165632Z_01_L15356542_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-SHIITES.xml</a></p>
<p>yeah, its going swell</p>