Iraq

[Dúnedain]

Here is another reason why Iraq is full of bs. This is an excerpt from an article (I saw this press conference too) where Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, speaks to the press:

There was a storm at the news conference when the Iraqi deputy PM refused to answer a question from an Israeli journalist -- drawing jeers from the international press corps.

An Israeli correspondent for the newspaper Ma'ariv cited the report mentioned by chief weapons inspector Hans Blix that determined Iraq's Al Samoud 2 missile exceeds the 93-mile (150-km) range limit specified by U.N. resolutions.

"Are you considering any kind of attack as a possibility against Israel in case of American attack?" the reporter asked. He also asked about any attack plans against Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar -- Arab countries with ties to Washington.

"When I came to this press conference it was not in my agenda to answer questions by the Israel media. Sorry," Aziz said, looking away immediately.

The press corps responded with a chorus of jeering whistles.

"Is it possible for you to answer our colleague?" another reporter said. "He is a journalist. He is a member of the foreign press office. Is it possible?"

"No, I am not going to answer his question," Aziz responded.

The full article can be found here:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...isi/index.html

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Wow. I love the double standards. Don't bash America, but we are alowed to bash Europeans, and other respective non-US countries? *shakes head.*

What he's saying is that you condemn us when we do nothing but help you, so we have some right to condemn you.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Wow. I love the double standards. Don't bash America, but we are alowed to bash Europeans, and other respective non-US countries? *shakes head.*

Give me a break - you were one of the lead American bashers on the past threads. You did later back down and have refrained from bashing us lately - but I don't apolgise for what you now consider Euro-bashing. None of the cartoons which I have posted bash the citizens of those countires - they bash the leaders. Just like we seem unable to do anything to get your disgusting and very INAPPROPRIATE sig "Oh yes, and Death to the Bush Administration" removed. And I'm sorry - but I've seen and heard the condescending attitude of the Europeans towards Americans for years.

If you want to know how bad the feelings are with France and Germany here in the US - a friend of mine who is actually against the war now called me today. Not saying hi or anything he said "**** the French". Just to let you know his step grandmother is french, who he has actually always gotten along with and he has always wanted to go to France.

The comments made and the condscending attitude of the French at the UN about them being an old country and therefore some how superior in judging how to deal with the Iraq situation was completely uncalled for. I do like Colin Powell's response when he started his speech and he said "as the representive of the oldest democracy on the security council" that was great. France's attitude that since they are an older country and therefore somehow superior to the US is EXACTLY the attitude of Europe that pisses me off.

By the way - even the admins and mods were getting pissed at some of the American hatred and anti-semitic stuff that was being said in those passt threads. You can deny that there was a lot of Anti-American comments going around by europeans, you and even some Americans all you want I just wish those threads weren't deleted so people could see even a small fraction of what was being said. What I've said is tame compared to the things that were directed at us. I still do have some PMs that I have saved where people had expressed their outrage to me over the constant American bashing during that timeframe. Also - if that wasn't as prevalent as I have said then there would NOT have been any reason to start politcal threads and have to postfix them with "(NO American Bashing)".

[Coney]

How widespread is Anti-Americanism?

Take the quiz

Are you Anti-American?

Quiz 2

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
How widespread is Anti-Americanism?

Take the quiz

Are you Anti-American?

Quiz 2

If Anti-American sentiment wasn't an issue as people have been claiming - then there wouldnt be any polls asking about it.

I found it interesting that France was the only country that actually had an increase in their favorable view of Americans. But as I was thinking - with a number being as low as France has always thought of - it most likely could only go up.

In Germany, favourable views slipped by 17%; in the UK they fell 8%; in Italy they declined by 6%; but in France, they rose by 1%. (French views of the US are, however, the lowest in Europe.)

Also - if Anti-Americanism isn't issue then why did Salman Rushdie say...

... anti-Americanism was an ideological enemy that the US would find harder to defeat than militant Islam.

Although he may havbe only been referring to it in the Middle East - it is just as rampant in Europe.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Coney
How widespread is Anti-Americanism?

Take the quiz

Are you Anti-American?

Quiz 2

That 2nd quiz was about as opinionated as you can get. To even compare and to have the audacity to say Thomas Jefferson would be 'anti-american' today is absurd. That quote they referred to would be instilled in Jefferson if our government was defining itself as all-mighty and a dictatorship against our people and not in tune with those who govern us. Those last few paragraphs was nothing but rhetoric and propaganda....

[Coney]

Also - if Anti-Americanism isn't issue then why did Salman Rushdie say...

I didn't say that Anti-Americanism isn't an issue........unedjucated prejudice is worse than unedjucated patriostism.

*shrugs* Luckily it's the US's problem.......with even more luck anti-americanism might get our muppet of a prime minister to realise that he cannot afford to ignore popular opinion either (although I'm not holding my breath).

Wasn't it a good turn-out at the peace rallies today?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
That 2nd quiz was about as opinionated as you can get. To even compare and to have the audacity to say Thomas Jefferson would be 'anti-american' today is absurd. That quote they referred to would be instilled in Jefferson if our government was defining itself as all-mighty and a dictatorship against our people and not in tune with those who govern us. Those last few paragraphs was nothing but rhetoric and propaganda....

Welcome to a minor example of what I had to deal with in the past threads.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
I didn't say that Anti-Americanism isn't an issue........unedjucated prejudice is worse than unedjucated patriostism.

*shrugs* Luckily it's the US's problem.......with even more luck anti-americanism might get our muppet of a prime minister to realise that he cannot afford to ignore popular opinion either (although I'm not holding my breath).

As I've said before whether you consider your Prime Minister a puppet or not is your problem.

Wasn't it a good turn-out at the peace rallies today?

Well here - OUR president has the support of the people. 69% of Americans now support military action. There was actually a pro-military talk at Columbia University (a liberal university) and the auditorium was packed. There have also been pro-military demonstrations here too. I guess your media doesn't show those though.

[Erawyn]

Well here - OUR president has the support of the people. 69% of Americans now support military action. There was actually a pro-military talk at Columbia University (a liberal university) and the auditorium was packed. There have also been pro-military demonstrations here too. I guess your media doesn't show those though

I was watching CNN today, and it said something like only 38 % of ppl support going to war now.

Wasn't it a good turn-out at the peace rallies today?

YES!!! It was great! I went to the one here, even though it was like -20!!! stayed out for hours

[Coney]

69%? Impressive........although I think I'll stick with^^^38% sounds a bit more optimistic.

As I've said before whether you consider your Prime Minister a puppet or not is your problem.

It is.....unfortunately the bugger will probably back-slide on his policies (again)........just to gain public trust....with a bit of luck he'll be declaring that the weapons inspectors do indeed need more time.

Although hang on.........didn't he just do that?........sound familiar?

I'll leave you with a nice little light reading....

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story...896587,00.html

And a few Cartoons .......Because you seem to like them

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Erawyn
I was watching CNN today, and it said something like only 38 % of ppl support going to war now.


YES!!! It was great! I went to the one here, even though it was like -20!!! stayed out for hours

You mean like this survey done by Gallop Poll...

Public Rallying Around Bush's Call for War
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the wake of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's appearance before the United Nations Security Council last week, as well as President George W. Bush's speech to the nation the week before, public support for war against Iraq appears to be on the rise, according to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. Overall, 63% of Americans support an invasion of Iraq, up from 58% last week prior to Powell's U.N. presentation, and 52% the week before, prior to Bush's State of the Union speech. The percentage of supporters with firm opinions has also increased, to 37% from 31% last week.

A solid majority of Americans say that the Bush administration has made a convincing case for military action against Iraq. The percentage is slightly higher than it was last week, but is up by seven points over the past two weeks. Also compared with last week, Americans are now more likely to say that Iraq is obstructing U.N. weapons inspectors, has facilities to create weapons of mass destruction, and has biological or chemical weapons.

At the same time, Americans remain unconvinced that Iraq represents an immediate threat to the United States, and only four in 10 are willing for the United States to invade Iraq without a new authorizing vote by the U.N. Security Council.

The poll was conducted Feb. 7-9, and shows that support for an invasion of Iraq is the highest it has been since November 2001, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

You were only going by number of americans who don't support going without UN support - but after France - that number has now changed. More people see the UN for what it is - a debating society that refuses to take hard action.

[Coney]

Interesting site

Of course the French weren't always the enemy ..........Where they?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Interesting site

Of course the French weren't always the enemy ..........Where they?

You don't have to give me a history lesson on Benjamin Franklin.

But as is usual with the French - we had to be almost guaranteed of winning before they got involved to help us militarily. I also found it ironic that you had to go all the way to 1776 to find an event where the French helped us.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Coney
Interesting site

Of course the French weren't always the enemy ..........Where they?

If you are going to put it in the perspective of 18th century history, look to the books some 20-30 years earlier when the French were the enemy during the Seven Years War a.k.a. The French and Indian War.

Coney, your thought processes are warped. You are providing information that does nothing but prove you are misinformed. No one here is calling the French or Europe "enemies" as you like to call them, with the exception of my counter point to yours. You are trying to school us on American history and points of reference that mean nothing short of propaganda pieces.

If you really want to get into an Historical debate, let's do this, I will be more than happy to break out my History degrees to counter every single point you try and make. Actually instead, let's start with this:

American involvement, cases where we have helped the French:

• World War I (1917-1918)
  -US Soldiers killed in action = 116,708
  -US Soldiers wounded in action = 204,002
  -US costs in dollars = $33 billion
• World War II (1941-1945)
  -US Soldiers killed in action = 408,306
  -US Soldiers wounded in action = 670,846
  -US costs in dollars = $360 billion
• Total Killed = 525,014
• Total Wounded = 874,848
• Total costs = $393 billion

Now, those are only two instances where we have done something selfless for the world and France, and look at the costs we incurred. The monetary aspect is truly nothing compared to the number of lives taken and wounded. Think about how many kids lost fathers, how many kids never got 1 second with their fathers, how many families went on broken, how many people lived on alone, how many people who didn't have the chance to say goodbye, and so on.

When you can talk with powerful figures as those and compare what we have given only to get smacked in the face years down the road, then we have something to talk about. Until then do yourself a favor and know what you speak of before you type your posts. I have no problem with your opinions, in fact I am glad you have them, however, if you want to play a game of semantics then you should bring better stuff to the table cuz my gloves are off....

[Dúnedain]

damn double post

[BeardofPants]

Sig changed. Better now?

JD, I'm tired of saying this, but I have never been anti-American. If I'm anti- anything, it is anti-war, or anti-bush administration.

[Dúnedain]

I would just like to make this clear once and for all.

America does not want to fight or have war!! We only do so when we feel it absolutely necessary!!! Colin Powell said it best the other day, "Force is only the last resort, but it must be a resort!"

That is all...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Sig changed. Better now?

JD, I'm tired of saying this, but I have never been anti-American. If I'm anti- anything, it is anti-war, or anti-bush administration.

Somewhat better now. Except that we gave peace a chance, We did it the UN way for 12 years. Iraq is still NOT complying. If our troops were NOT putting pressure on Iraq he wouldn't be doing jack ****. The UN would be as impotent as it always is. Right now the UN is dead, and possibly NATO too. If the Un doesn't get some balls - they're going to be going down the same path as the League of Nations.

Iraq is the Chairman of the Disarmament Committee and Libya is the Chairman of the Human Rights Committee. If you think that the UN has any moral reason for being after those two appointments - then you are truly ignorant.

As I've said - I think the US should pull it's troops ouit of everywhere.
Let's pull them out of the Middle East, our of Africa, out of Europe, out of Asia. I want to see how long it take the Middle east to launch an attack on each other, how long it takes North Korea to invade South Korea.

Then I want you guys to call up France and ask them to handle the situation. Based on what they just gave away in the Ivory Coast - I think world will be very sorry to be following the damn French.

[Dúnedain]

Here is an article that JD showed me today. It is based off of the Iraqi-American point of view:

‘Starving for Freedom’
Iraqi-Americans Support War With Saddam, But Not With Iraqi People

By Navneet K. Gill and Justine Schiro

P H O E N I X, Feb. 12 — As the likelihood of a U.S. war with Iraq grows, support for ousting Saddam Hussein is coming from an unusual group: Iraqi-Americans.

"I think the United States is now on the right track to get rid of Saddam Hussein and help the Iraqi people to bring democracy," said Jabir Algarawi, the director of the Arizona Refugee Community Center in Phoenix, and one of the 3,000 Iraqis who have settled in Phoenix since the Gulf War ended.
With a warm, dry climate that is similar to Iraq's, Phoenix has the second-largest number of Iraqi refugees in the nation. Detroit, with 12,000 refugees, is the largest Iraqi community. Overall, 37,714 people in the United States have identified themselves as Iraqi nationals or Iraqi-Americans, according to the 2000 Census.

Since many of these refugees ran away from the brutality of Saddam's regime, for them, there is no debate about whether the United States should go to war with Iraq.

According to one refugee named Diaa, who fled Iraq in 1994 and asked that his last name be withheld, the Iraqi dictator is a "dangerous person" who has chemical and biological weapons. The U.S. government should not "leave him alone this time," Diaa added, especially since the Iraqi people are waiting for the opportunity to fight alongside American troops.

Mixed Feelings

What Diaa and the other refugees are concerned about, however, are the parameters of such a war, especially since most of the refugees still have families back in Iraq.

"I think it's good to go to war with Iraq, but not the people. We want Saddam to be destroyed, but not the people," said Mohammed Yusef, 15, who came to the United States four years ago.

For Batool Shamil, who left Iraq in 1995, the memory of Iraqis being killed in 1991 is still fresh. "I'm worry about my family there," she said. "Too many people got killed [in 1991]."

Algarawi also has mixed feelings: "A feeling that I want to see the end of that regime, and a feeling of concern about the family and the friend in Iraq."

Iraqi-Americans Cherish Freedom

As most of the Iraqi Americans have noted, the biggest difference between their homeland and their adopted land is the freedom they enjoy here. And they are worried that a postwar Iraq would not have the same liberties, especially if a U.S.-occupation of Iraq lasts several years.

"I agree with the action to change the regime only … I don't want American soldiers to stay there. We need to enjoy the freedom in our country," explained Shamil. "We are afraid they will occupy my country and they will take the oil."

Algarawi says despite the risks that would be involved in a war between America and Iraq, even those now living in Iraq are willing to support an attack against the current regime if it results in a democratic Iraq.

"The Iraqi people [are] starving for freedom," he said. "The Iraqi people want to build their country and want to be part of the international community."

Although Algarawi would rather see Saddam leave Iraq on his own, he thinks that no matter what happens, the United States has a mission to bring democracy to Iraq.

But he does not want to see a repeat of 1991. At the end of the Gulf War, Algarawi participated in a civilian uprising encouraged by then-President George Bush, father of the current president. But when the United States did not provide military support for Iraqi citizens, Saddam was able to crush the rebellion.

Algarawi said he felt betrayed and soon fled Iraq. This time around, however, he is willing to forgive the United States if it follows through.

So far, based on President Bush's pledge in his State of the Union speech to bring freedom to the Iraqi people, the refugees have faith.

"When he said we will bring the freedom to Iraq, I start to cry because it's our dream ... to have freedom," said Shamil. "I think he will keep his promise."

Here is the link: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/W...ans030212.html

I don't think you can get more to the point than that. This is from people who have witnessed Iraq at it's worst and who hate Saddam. These are Iraqi people who can actually speak their minds and not worry about the consequences....