Support for Iraq down to 40%!

[dissention]

Call it what you will, but you can't say with a straight face that the Iraqi's are glad we're there. They want us gone yesterday.

Why isn't the depleted uranium issue being brought to the public? Why isn't the behavior of the soldiers being brought to the attention of the public? Because it would prove those polls to be full of hot air.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Call it what you will, but you can't say with a straight face that the Iraqi's are glad we're there. They want us gone yesterday.

Why isn't the depleted uranium issue being brought to the public? Why isn't the behavior of the soldiers being brought to the attention of the public? Because it would prove those polls to be full of hot air.

I did not say it, they did according to that poll, which every major news agency I saw found credible Please site a credible news source discrediting it

Note: I am not saying the Iraqi's in general do not want us out of there as soon as possible and will be glad when we are gone. I am just saying that poll and the fact that somewhere around 80% of the country is peaceful suggests that not all Iraqi's hate us to the extent of violence. They are just waiting for us to help them (which we have by rebuilding schools, power lines, etc.) and them get out.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Please site a credible news source discrediting it

I don't need to, it's common sense. I'm not saying that they're all violent, I'm simply saying that while they appreciate that Saddam is gone, we're simply another Saddam in their eyes. There hasn't been peace for a single straight week since Saddam was ousted. Is it that much of a stretch to believe that the Iraqi's think that we're just looting their oil, killing their people, poisoning their people, and introducing immoral things to their society? I don't think so. With the exception of getting Saddam outta there (even though he wasn't a threat), ask any Iraqi what good we've done there. I'm sure the poll numbers would reflect negatively on the US invasion.

[strandinthewind]

I agree they want us gone. But to assert what you did as "common sense" is not factual because that poll suggests the opposite of what is the common thinking in Iraq Moreover, we have done some good there - you have to admit that. We have built school, restored and modernized their power grids and phone services, etc.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree they want us gone. But to assert what you did as "common sense" is not factual because that poll suggests the opposite of what is the common thinking in Iraq Moreover, we have done some good there - you have to admit that. We have built school, restored and modernized their power grids and phone services, etc.

I'm saying it's common sense to realize that any Iraqi citizen poll is unreliable. The majority of the people won't say something negative about us because they're scared. For every school we've built, there's a gaggle of babies and adolescents that we've bombed.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
I'm saying it's common sense to realize that any Iraqi citizen poll is unreliable. The majority of the people won't say something negative about us because they're scared. For every school we've built, there's a gaggle of babies and adolescents that we've bombed.

I would say the result of a "scared" vote would be when SH was voted in as President by 100% of the popular vote a few years back....ahem!

Rob

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
I would say the result of a "scared" vote would be when SH was voted in as President by 100% of the popular vote a few years back....ahem!

Rob

Your intelligence astounds me.

[strandinthewind]

Of Course, I could be wrong!!!!!

from today's nytimes.com
____________________________________________________

Account of Broad Shiite Revolt Contradicts White House Stand

April 8, 2004
By JAMES RISEN





WASHINGTON, April 7 - United States forces are confronting
a broad-based Shiite uprising that goes well beyond
supporters of one militant Islamic cleric who has been the focus of American counterinsurgency efforts, United States intelligence officials said Wednesday.

That assertion contradicts repeated statements by the Bush administration and American officials in Iraq. On Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that they did not believe the United States was facing a broad-based Shiite insurgency. Administration officials have portrayed Moktada al-Sadr, a rebel Shiite cleric who is wanted by American forces, as the catalyst of the rising violence within the Shiite community of Iraq.

But intelligence officials now say that there is evidence
that the insurgency goes beyond Mr. Sadr and his militia,
and that a much larger number of Shiites have turned
against the American-led occupation of Iraq, even if they
are not all actively aiding the uprising.

A year ago, many Shiites rejoiced at the American invasion
and the toppling of Saddam Hussein, a Sunni who had
brutally repressed the Shiites for decades. But American intelligence officials now believe that hatred of the American occupation has spread rapidly among Shiites, and is now so large that Mr. Sadr and his forces represent just one element..

Meanwhile, American intelligence has not yet detected signs
of coordination between the Sunni rebellion in Iraq's
heartland and the Shiite insurgency. But United States intelligence says that the Sunni rebellion also goes far beyond former Baathist government members. Sunni tribal leaders, particularly in Al Anbar Province, home to Ramadi, the provincial capital, and Falluja, have turned against the United States and are helping to lead the Sunni rebellion, intelligence officials say.

The result is that the United States is facing two
broad-based insurgencies that are now on parallel tracks.

The Bush administration has sought to portray the
opposition much more narrowly. In the Sunni insurgency, the White House and the Pentagon have focused on the role of the former leaders of the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein's government, while in the Shiite rebellion they have focused almost exclusively on the role of Mr. Sadr. Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon that the fighting in Iraq was just the work of "thugs, gangs and terrorists," and not a popular uprising. General Myers added that "it's not a Shiite uprising. Sadr has a very small following."

According to some experts on Iraq's Shiites, the uprising
has spread to many Shiites who are not followers of Mr.
Sadr. "There is a general mood of anti-Americanism among
the people in the streets," said Ghassan R. al-Attiyah, executive director of the Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy in Baghdad. "They identify with Sadr not because they believe in him but because they have their own grievances."

While they share the broader anger in Iraq over the lack of jobs and security, many Shiites suspect that the handover of sovereignty to Iraqi politicians from the American occupying powers on June 30 will bypass their interests, Mr. Attiyah said.

With his offensive, Mr. Sadr has "hijacked the political process," he said. As a result, more moderate Shiite clerics and politicians risk going against public opinion if they come out too strongly against the rebellious young cleric, he said.

Also hard to gauge is the relationship between Grand
Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Mr. Sadr. Ayatollah Sistani is
an aging cleric venerated for his teachings, while Mr. Sadr
is a youthful rabble-rouser, with little clerical standing. This week, Ayatollah Sistani issued a statement supporting Mr. Sadr's decision to act against the Americans, but emphasizing the need for a peaceful solution. In this, the older man seemed to be marking out a position that allowed him to associate with the tide of Shiite popular feelings, while allowing Mr. Sadr, for whom he is said to harbor a personal contempt, to risk his militia - and his life - in a showdown with the Americans.

While Mr. Sadr's militiamen prepared for battle, all was
quiet at the Kufa headquarters of a rival militia that has helped sustain Mr. Sadr's political influence - the Badr Brigade. Nominally controlled by another Shiite political organization, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Badr Brigade has generally been seen as underpinning Ayatollah Sistani's authority.

Although anti-Americanism is hardly universal among
Shiites, an anti-American mood has been building for
months. At the Grand Mosque in Kufa, where Mr. Sadr took
refuge as his militiamen were seizing control of the city
on Sunday, this deep vein of anti-Americanism feeds off
every rumor. At night, as they torch gasoline-soaked tires
to light checkpoints guarding the approaches to the mosque,
the militiamen speak of America's planning to uproot Islam
in Iraq, to steal its oil, to deny Shiites a voice in the country's future governance, even to bring back Saddam Hussein.

In the Shiite-dominated areas of Iraq, some Pentagon
officials and other government officials believe that Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed Shiite extremist group, is now playing a key role in the Shiite insurgency. The Islamic Jihad Organization, a terrorist group closely affiliated with Hezbollah, is also said by some officials to have established offices in Iraq, and that Iran is behind much of the violence.

C.I.A. officials disagree, however, and say they have not
yet seen evidence that Hezbollah has joined forces with
Iraqi Shiites. Some intelligence officials believe that the Pentagon has been eager to link Hezbollah to the violence in Iraq to link the Iranian regime more closely to anti-American terrorism.

But C.I.A. officials agree that Hezbollah has established a significant presence in postwar Iraq. The Lebanese-based organization sent in teams after the war, American intelligence officials believe. Hezbollah's presence inside Iraq is a source of concern since it is widely recognized by counterterrorist experts to have some of the most effective and dangerous terrorist operatives in the world. The United States has issued a $25 million reward for the capture of Imad Mugniyah, the longtime chief of foreign terrorist operations who is believed to have been behind a series of terrorist attacks against Americans in the 1980's, including the hostage-taking operations in Lebanon.


More recently, Hezbollah has focused its terrorist
activities on Israel, and, before the war in Iraq, is not believed to have launched a major terrorist attack against American interests since the bombing of the Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996 killed 19 American military personnel.

There were some clues to an Iranian presence in Kufa this
week. Even as militiamen ferried food and medical supplies
into the mosque this week in preparation for a siege, among
the pilgrims to the sanctuary were Iranian men.

Militiamen at the mosque said that at least some of the
funds needed for extensive reconstruction work currently
under way inside the sanctuary have come from Iran. There
are close ties between the Shiite clerical establishments
in the two countries. But whether the Iranian role extends beyond finance is hard to know. Some foreign Islamic fighters have been playing a role in Iraq, particularly in the Sunni rebellion, intelligence officials say. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian affiliated with the Ansar al-slam terrorist group, is conducting terrorist operations in conjunction with the Sunni rebellion, intelligence officials believe. Mr. Zarqawi may have been behind some recent car bombings in Iraq, although American intelligence officials do not believe he is commanding any of the Sunni militia forces facing the United States military.

The Sunni forces appear instead to be led by former Iraqi government members and local tribal leaders in Falluja and other cities in the Sunni heartland, intelligence officials said.

Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. official who worked covertly
in Iraq in the mid-1990's, said that some of those Sunni
tribal leaders were once opposed to Saddam Hussein, and
years ago approached the C.I.A. about working with it
against Hussein. But now, many of those same tribal leaders have turned against the occupation, current and former intelligence officials say.

John F. Burns contributed reporting from Baghdad and Kufa, Iraq, for this article, and Neela Banerjee from New York.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/in...e17a88650942d8

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree they want us gone. But to assert what you did as "common sense" is not factual because that poll suggests the opposite of what is the common thinking in Iraq Moreover, we have done some good there - you have to admit that. We have built school, restored and modernized their power grids and phone services, etc.

Dude, we're the ones who knocked them out in the first place.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Dude, we're the ones who knocked them out in the first place.

Surely some if not many, but not all of them. Many of them were neglected to their ruin under SH The same thing goes for the infastructure. My point is that if we had cared to, we could have made this rebuilding of all of the damage a lavish production that made us look benevolent, but sadly, we did not.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Of Course, I could be wrong!!!!!

from today's nytimes.com
____________________________________________________

Account of Broad Shiite Revolt Contradicts White House Stand

April 8, 2004
By JAMES RISEN





WASHINGTON, April 7 - United States forces are confronting
a broad-based Shiite uprising that goes well beyond
supporters of one militant Islamic cleric who has been the focus of American counterinsurgency efforts, United States intelligence officials said Wednesday.

That assertion contradicts repeated statements by the Bush administration and American officials in Iraq. On Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that they did not believe the United States was facing a broad-based Shiite insurgency. Administration officials have portrayed Moktada al-Sadr, a rebel Shiite cleric who is wanted by American forces, as the catalyst of the rising violence within the Shiite community of Iraq.

[/url]

It wouldn't surprise me if we were being lied to about the casualty counts as well. This just reinforces my point that we don't really know who we're fighting here.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
This just reinforces my point that we don't really know who we're fighting here.

If Condi Rice herself says that she doesn't know what they'd do if one of our warships were bombed, how the frick are we going to know what we're fighting for in Iraq?!

"Tit for tat."

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
If Condi Rice herself says that she doesn't know what they'd do if one of our warships were bombed, how the frick are we going to know what we're fighting for in Iraq?!

"Tit for tat."

FOUL

She was asked a hypothetical question. A big rule is never to answer a hypothetical question in a direct manner because if a remotely similar situation happens, you will be married to that answer.

Back to the normally scheduled show . . .

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
FOUL

She was asked a hypothetical question. A big rule is never to answer a hypothetical question in a direct manner because if a remotely similar situation happens, you will be married to that answer.

Back to the normally scheduled show . . .

Bull****!

As NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, she should've known the answer when asked what the country would do if one of their warships was bombed by TERRORISTS. She could've named a couple of options, but she chose to say "I don't know." She said that a response to terrorist attacks is a "tit for tat" situation! Then she had the gall to say that the Cole bombing didn't warrant a response, when it was something that she and the admin were investigating! They just didn't want to touch it because it had to do with Clinton. Puhleaze. Keep blaming Clinton. He's the only one that did anything about Al-Q, so Rice can trot herself out with that bull**** tucked between her legs like a fox tail.

She's incompetent and anyone comfortable with her as the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR is smoking crack.

[strandinthewind]

I do not agree (surprise ). She said the former strategy for responding to terrorist attacks was a tit for tat approach. She said that 9/11 made that no longer a feasible solution - 9/11 was so large that we had to go to war. This is confirmed when it was said that Al-Q was at war with America and America was not at war Al-Q. Now, we are at war with "terror," which certainly includesd Al-Q I fail to see the anything wrong with that premise and conclusion, even though I may not agree with the way the current administration implements it.

I mean other than the administration was unable to stop 9/11, and I submit no other administration could have, I do not think she is bad. I think she is good, even though I disagree with her on the immediate threat espoused about Iraq. But, that is just my opinion and other's differ