New poll shows that 6 in 10 Iraqi's support attacks on US military

[Bullitt]

Wow TW, hope you get a colonoscopy soon cause you've got something wayyy up your ass (probably Bush's entire cabinet). If you reread my post again, I stated that I don't disagree with the results (hear that mari?). I said that I think a poll that is going to be applied over a population of millions ought to have a larger pool of people polled.

And just for the record, I do not support the war. I think the amount of resources we used could have made a much bigger difference in somewhere like.. Darfur, just as an example.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yeah, whether you agree with the premise of altering Iraq's government, or not, it's pretty hard to deny Bush and Rumsfeld screwed the pooch on this mission. Clearly not thought through and planned properly.

I agree with you fully bruce

[tw]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

Wow TW, hope you get a colonoscopy soon cause you've got something wayyy up your ass (probably Bush's entire cabinet).

If posting as an adult, those facts were considered without any reference to your toilet training.

Yes, poll sample was small. But a larger and relevant fact remains: Iraq is that bad, obviously was getting that bad even in 2003, and will only get worse. Are you ready to approve of a selective service draft? Things are becoming that bad.

Your criticism of that poll has no basis in reality. Had you only questioned its small sample size, then your post was logical. But you did not do that. You ignored a tidal wave of reality to then post:

I'm saying the poll is horse sh*t and can't be broadly applied to the entire nation like that website is trying to do.

You could only post that criticism by denying a giant woodpile of reality. The poll accurately represents Iraq. The poll accurately demonstrates dangers that Iraq is creating for Americans and Britons all over the world - as both US and UK intelligence services report. The poll adds one more toothpick onto a giant woodpile of fact: "Mission Accomplished" has even made Americans (and Britons) unwelcome by most Iraqis - as was being reported years ago. The poll defines but again (with same ballpark numbers) a situation that is well reported - and denied only by political extremists.

A mental midget president would love nothing better than to have another few thousand Americans die - so that he could become popular again. Would you trade childish insults about colons - or discuss that presidential reality? A few thousand dead American would only promote the "Mission Accomplished" agenda ... reality is that chilling.

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by tw

If posting as an adult, those facts were considered without any reference to your toilet training.

Yes, poll sample was small. But a larger and relevant fact remains: Iraq is that bad, obviously was getting that bad even in 2003, and will only get worse. Are you ready to approve of a selective service draft? Things are becoming that bad.

Your criticism of that poll has no basis in reality. Had you only questioned its small sample size, then your post was logical. But you did not do that. You ignored a tidal wave of reality to then post: You could only post that criticism by denying a giant woodpile of reality. The poll accurately represents Iraq. The poll accurately demonstrates dangers that Iraq is creating for Americans and Britons all over the world - as both US and UK intelligence services report. The poll adds one more toothpick onto a giant woodpile of fact: "Mission Accomplished" has even made Americans (and Britons) unwelcome by most Iraqis - as was being reported years ago. The poll defines but again (with same ballpark numbers) a situation that is well reported - and denied only by political extremists.

A mental midget president would love nothing better than to have another few thousand Americans die - so that he could become popular again. Would you trade childish insults about colons - or discuss that presidential reality? A few thousand dead American would only promote the "Mission Accomplished" agenda ... reality is that chilling.

Wow you do love to say mental midget.. and lets get some things straight here about what I know about reality:
I know more than a handful of friends who are serving over there as we speak, and am fully aware that Iraq is an absolute hell hole right now. We have created a nation sized training camp for anyone in the Middle East with a gun and a hatred for the US to come and try their luck against the infidels. Iraq is also now prime real estate for recruitment into extremist groups, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were getting record numbers. And you are exactly right about Bremmer tw, we would not be in the same situation we are now if we hadn't dissolved the Iraqi police, military, and other security forces. It really makes no sense to me why the forces that keep society from eating itsself alive would be eliminated. I read an article recently about brand new generators being installed in power stations throughout Iraq, but because our great war leader decided to ignore the basic infastructure a rebuilding country would need, there are no technitians to run the plants once they are rebuilt. There are no effective security forces to protect the ones that do come to work because the US troops can't babysit them while having to lookout for idiots with bombs blowing up the powerlines.

So like I said before tw, which you ignored, I personally think that a.) the poll simply should have been of a larger pool.. much larger, in order to apply its assumptions over the whole of a diverse people. That's it. I am not saying we would not have gotten those results had the poll included more people. The results may indeed accurately represent the thoughts of the entire country, but I would feel much more comfortable applying that sweeping statement with a poll that includes more than just a fraction of a percent of the Iraqi people. And b.) The amount of resources we spent on this bumbled war could have been put to a much greater use, and of more immediate benefit to a suffering people somewhere like Darfur, Somolia, or hey how about finishing up in Afghanistan first.

Just a few comments:

For an easy to understand explanation of why a sample of a thousand or so people can produce an accurate result, try here:
http://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/questions.html

Originally Posted by tw

Well then you did not hear the BBC interview female doctors in a medical conference in London. Every lady doctor said Iraq was better under Saddam. Every one. The #1 reason why? Well basic services, health, and so many other things were cited as worse since Saddam was gone. But the #1 reason why Iraq is worse - life was so much safer under Saddam.

Infant mortality rate has climbed since the US occupation because women are now afraid to leave their homes to go to a hospital to give birth. This one statistic alone is damning evidence about how much more "secure" life in Iraq is now.

Originally Posted by Beestie

You mean like America 150 years ago? And "more appealing" to who? If by more appealing you mean a smaller blip on your personal radar screen then maybe you are right. If you mean more appealing to every female in Iraq and every child in Iraq who now might actually have a chance in life then I'd have to say no. Not more appealing.

See above. And the US Civil War was started by Americans. No outside force from another country invaded the US, declaring that we needed to end slavery. The American people came to this conclusion on their own. Certainly, Fundamentalist Muslims treat women almost or as bad as we did the slaves, but you do not create positive changes in society by people from OUTSIDE that society coming in and declaring war. That only strenghthens the opposition to change and the moderates who might have come over to your way of thinking become extremists who hate you.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

A little optimism in an otherwise pessimistic situation.

Yes, despite everything, an overwhelming majority of Iraqi's do NOT support terrorist groups. So why are we there?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw
Well then you did not hear the BBC interview female doctors in a medical conference in London. Every lady doctor said Iraq was better under Saddam. Every one. The #1 reason why? Well basic services, health, and so many other things were cited as worse since Saddam was gone. But the #1 reason why Iraq is worse - life was so much safer under Saddam.

If they were Doctors under Saddam's rule, wouldn't they have to have been part of the privileged minority?