No, THIS is what going crazy must feel like.

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 18:21
VIEWED: 13059
PAGE 12 of 15

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 4, 2007 8:10 AM

Quote:
Signy- Before the war, 85% of American were convinced that Saddam was responsible for 9-11. Why do you suppose that was? Did it happen by accident?

Auraptor- Where the HELL did you get that information?

Uh... the news?

Quote:
Washington Post poll is based on telephone interviews with 1,003 randomly selected adults nationwide, and was conducted Aug. 7-11, 2003.

How likely is it that Saddam Hussein (INSERT ITEM) ? Would you say that it is very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely?

was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks?
Very- 32 Somewhat -37

has provided assistance to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network
Very- 51 Somewhat-31
was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction Very- 62 Somewhat- 22

You can read the rest here- www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.
htm or you can google up "opinion poll" + saddam + september 11

Quote:
I call B.S.! A full YEAR before we went to Iraq, we were invading Afghanistan. But even IF Americans were convinced of that nonsense, it doesn't mean that the Bush Administration was responsible for those beliefs. Hell, I wasn't of that mind set, and I'd been following this all along.

But not apparently following what your fellow citizens were thinking.

Quote:
Signy-But let's set that aside for the moment. Was it really necessary to invade?

Auraptor- Finally, a legitimate issue! I can see both sides to this issue, and I could even accept 'some' view points which did not advocate for war.

Signy-The same goes for the Democratic statements. Let's assume that many of them believed that Saddam had WMD, or wanted WMD. Again- what to do about it?

Auraptor-Some Dems talked a big game, but seems now that few think it was all that big an security issue. The fact is, we spent 8 yrs not doing much of anything , except enforcing the no fly zones, attacking a time or two with cruise missles

True, it wasn't a big, bold, dramatic move, but it DID work. Saddam didn't have WMD, and he didn't have missiles capable fo reaching the USA or even regional targets. Wasn't that good enough for us?

Quote:
Should we have ? kinda late to be asking that now, isn't it?

Is it ever too late to learn from mistakes? Mistakes were made at all levels. It seems to me that one of the things we COULD do- SHOULD do- is figure out how we got into this mess so we don't repeat the same mistake in the near future.

www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-20-bushwar-usat_x.htm

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

CITIZEN

Sunday, February 4, 2007 11:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But not apparently following what your fellow citizens were thinking.

Since when has he ever cared about anyone elses opinion.

Oh, and please don't feed the Trolls.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, February 4, 2007 11:30 AM

Why can't we drop flower bombs and shower them with love? I want them all over for dinner and then we can play XBox when we're done and not go to church.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CITIZEN

Sunday, February 4, 2007 11:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I want them all over for dinner

Fine but you're paying.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, February 4, 2007 12:12 PM

Hell, *I* would pay.

Feedin em's cheaper than bombin em, innit ?

"Yeah, I'd like to order three million happy meals.. and can I get box of nuggets and a coke, thanks..."

KHYRON

Sunday, February 4, 2007 12:19 PM

Not necessarily. You need to feed them every day, but only need to bomb them once.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 4, 2007 1:53 PM

I'd question whether a 1,003 randomly called people is a valid cross section of a country of 300 million. I'd also contest how one arrives at the conclusion that Saddam "was responsible" for 9/11 when more replied with 'somewhat' than ' very' likely. Especially when more said Saddam was 'very' than 'somewhat' likely to provided assistance to OBL. That's not the same as being 'responsible' for 9/11. But here's the key point....of those polled, most indicated that Saddam was 'very' likely to be developing wdm, which falls exactly in line w/ the Senators views and intel which we had before the war. Saddam having WMD and the STRONG LIKELYHOOD that he'd share some info / material with al Qaeda was a risk that this administration was not WILLING to take. The thought of doing NOTHING here was the worse option. And at the time, most Americans , even Democrat Senators, agreed.

Saddam sent 30 + scuds into Israel during the 1st Gulf War, when Israel had absolutely nothing to do w/that war. Actions like that by Sadddam were reason enough to fear that he might do other things, like give assistance to terrorist groups.

The only mistakes I think we made were going into Iraq too lite, and not clamping down on the vandalism and lawlessness following U.S. forces entering into Baghdad at the fall of Sadddam's army. I still think we're not being as proactive as we need to fight the insurgency.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

KHYRON

Sunday, February 4, 2007 2:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'd question whether a 1,003 randomly called people is a valid cross section of a country of 300 million.

A bit off topic, but this has always been a problem I've had with "representative" samples. Take 1000 buckets of water from different parts of the ocean and pour them into a large pool. How representative of the ocean can this pool possibly be?

I'm reminded of something I saw on TV while I was living in Germany in 2002 during the elections. One of the news channels showed a poll that said the CDU all of a sudden had a huge lead over the SPD, and that this was based on a representative sample of the entire country. It later turned out that the poll was taken mainly in Bavaria, which is traditionally very much pro-CDU.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 4, 2007 3:36 PM

Quote:
I'd question whether a 1,003 randomly called people is a valid cross section of a country of 300 million.

This wasn't the only poll. which is why I suggested that you do some googling on your own. Many polls which collectively samples many people said the same thing.

Quote:
I'd also contest how one arrives at the conclusion that Saddam "was responsible" for 9/11 when more replied with 'somewhat' than ' very' likely.

Considering that Saddam had NOTHING AT ALL to do with 9-11, don't you find it a bit disconcerting that 30-some percent thought he was personally responsible and an additional 40-some percent connected him to 9-11?

Quote:
Especially when more said Saddam was 'very' than 'somewhat' likely to provided assistance to OBL. That's not the same as being 'responsible' for 9/11.

Since Saddam was not providing any assistance to ObL (it was Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) how did a vast majority of people suddenly decide that Saddam was connected to al Qaida? Do you think it was the "liberal press" which decided to paint a Saddam/ al Qaida connection?

Quote:
But here's the key point....of those polled, most indicated that Saddam was 'very' likely to be developing wdm, which falls exactly in line w/ the Senators views and intel which we had before the war. Saddam having WMD and the STRONG LIKELYHOOD that he'd share some info / material with al Qaeda was a risk that this administration was not WILLING to take. The thought of doing NOTHING here was the worse option. And at the time, most Americans , even Democrat Senators, agreed.

And they were wrong on all counts. Saddam was not developing WMD, in fact he had them destroyed. He had no working contacts with al Qaida- he distrusted them completely and saw them as potential threat to his regime- so why would he assist them? And if he didn't have WMD but assisted terrorist groups in the ordinary way (small arms, money, training) that certainly doesn't seem like a big enough threat to trip an invasion.

But Auraptor, you keep talking about "doing NOTHING" when in fact something was being done, and successfully done at that. Why do you keep ignoring the inspections, the embargo, and the no-fly zones? Please explain to me why you so persistently ignore/ dismiss those activities. Were you unaware of them? Did you not trust their effectiveness? In your view it's as if they never happened. Why?

Quote:
Saddam sent 30 + scuds into Israel during the 1st Gulf War, when Israel had absolutely nothing to do w/that war. Actions like that by Sadddam were reason enough to fear that he might do other things, like give assistance to terrorist groups.

So we invaded because we were afraid of what Saddam MIGHT do?

Quote:
The only mistakes I think we made were going into Iraq too lite, and not clamping down on the vandalism and lawlessness following U.S. forces entering into Baghdad at the fall of Sadddam's army. I still think we're not being as proactive as we need to fight the insurgency.

The "insurgency" is not the problem in Iraq.

This is what I think:

Our first mistake was invading Iraq without a clear purpose. I've heard lots of rationalizations, but so far none of them make much sense.

But let's assume that our REAL purpose- which was not mentioned until the WMD concept went bust with the Duelfer report, about a year into the invasion- was to "spread democracy" to Iraq.

I sat down one day, and rattled the concept around in my head of a "united, democratic, secular Iraq". I tried it on each of the three groups: the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. It took me about 5 minutes to realize that every single group would be fundamentally opposed to one or more parts of the plan. Think about it: the last thing the Kurds want is to be united, the last thing the Shiites want is to be secular, and the last thing the Sunnis want is democracy (because they're a minority and payback is a bitch). In order to impose this concept on an unwilling people, you would need far more t

AURAPTOR

Monday, February 5, 2007 1:30 PM

Quote:
Considering that Saddam had NOTHING AT ALL to do with 9-11, don't you find it a bit disconcerting that 30-some percent thought he was personally responsible and an additional 40-some percent connected him to 9-11

Sorry to add like Jayne here, but 30 + 40 sure don't add up to 85% !! Back to your original claim, that those polls some how equate to 85% of Americans thinking Saddam " was responsible" for 9/11...sorry, the numbers don't come anywhere near to adding up. And while not a sign of GUILT, there were those murals of the WTC Towers on fire on the police station walls in Iraq. More than one, if memory serves me right. And that right there shows motive, on the official level. Hard to see that and then think Saddam WOULDN'T have helped, had he been asked.

Quote:
And they were wrong on all counts. Saddam was not developing WMD, in fact he had them destroyed

You ARE aware that some WMD materials which Iraq was suppose to have destroyed were found. Things the inspectors had missed before the war. And if those were found, there's no telling what ELSE Saddam might have. Seems the U.N. wasn't conviced enough to pass a resolution or making any sort of official comment.

Quote:
But Auraptor, you keep talking about "doing NOTHING" when in fact something was being done, and successfully done at that. Why do you keep ignoring the inspections, the embargo, and the no-fly zones? Please explain to me why you so persistently ignore/ dismiss those activities. Were you unaware of them? Did you not trust their effectiveness? In your view it's as if they never happened. Why?

I guess because they WEREN'T doing anything. The huge report which Iraq handed over before the war was so full of holes that it wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. The no-fly zones which our planes had repeatedly been targeted in ? The fact that ALL the intel we had contradicted what you claim the UN inspectors were saying, when ONCE AGAIN...it was IRAQ who was responsible for complying ot the UN resolutions, it was NOT THE JOB OF THE RUTTIN INSPECTORS!! Somehow that tiny fact complety escapes some.

Spreading Democracy was a result of taking out Saddam. Like was done in Germany or Japan, after WW2. We certainly couldn't agree to take down Saddam and then just pull an about face, leaving Iraq in ruin and open for invasion from Iran. That's the reason for staying there, even if we tried to do it on the cheap.

But it does make me feel better that you've figured out all the complexities and pointed out all the problems. Maybe if you could type up your views, send them to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Wash - D.C., you could gives some help to thems that need it.

Who knows, you might even get a Medal of Freedom for your trouble!

Now go take on the day.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE