Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates, by Arundhati Roy

[Whit]

I find this argument quite bizarre. Protesting against the war means wanting for the soldiers to stop fighting, go home and not get killed. It's not quite against them.

     It'd would be devastating to morale. Morale sinks and it will effect the troops abilities. In the end more would die than would otherwise.
     On the subject of protests, it's not like if we have 'x' number of protests the war will end. We're in it and that's not going to change because I carry a sign around saying, "No blood for oil" or the like.
     We've craved the middle east? News to me. I thought we craved the oil underneath it...
     As to making inroads into it, wouldn't it still be easier to level the cities leaving the airports as intact as possible and just building military bases near the refineries and/or airports? That way we wouldn't have nearly as much trouble with those pesky suicide bombers and the like. The population would be mostly dead. I think that this would be a far more appropriate strategy for the US as you propose our intentions to be.
     Go after congress if we can't get to Bush? Um, maybe you don't realize this but the midterm election is done. So the next time we vote on congress we'll be voting on the presidency as well.
     Okay, the meaning of the term, "silent majority" is that while most of the population has a given opinion it goes unrepresented in public opinion forums. It can't be the opinion getting the all the attention, by definition.
     On the subject of supporting factions inside Iraq, that's how Sadam came to power in the first place. He was the supported faction way back when. Two points there: one; yeah, that really works well doesn't it? and two; Sadam knows that drill and pitches people in a plastic shredder (or some equivalent) if he thinks they might be able to get that kind of support.
     On the subject of rigging polls, I still haven't been able to verify those numbers. Also anybody that doesn't know that info hasn't read a newspaper in this country yet. That's why it seems rigged. They don't watch Letterman, the Tonight Show, or the Daily Show either, since it's become common for these shows to reference such info during the monologue. I say this to show how common the knowledge actually is. If we are to assume these polls are legit I think we'd also have to assume the polling audience came from the guest list of the Jerry Springer show.

[juju]

The polls that Whit linked to only have a sample size of around 1000 people. That's hardly representative of the entire country. The poll in question isn't on the list, of course. But, sadly, I think that sample size is probably about the same for all major news polls. Therefore, most polls have high potential to be wildly inaccurate. Especially when you consider that the questions can be deceptively worded, and the multiple choice answers limited.

[Undertoad]

Everyone says the long-term plan is to transition the Iraqis to a government of their own choosing. If one wanted control over the country, wouldn't it be much simpler and more predictable to install the dictator of one's choice?

One often-quoted progressive argument is that the Arabic area is incapable of supporting Democracy, why make such a historical gamble by leaving everything in the hands of the people?

Supporting opposition movements: a lot of people say our failure to do that in 91 was the real mistake. But they say the regime at its current level wouldn't fall, due to how harshly dissidents have been treated. The kind of things we're seeing now reinforce that - a woman was hanged for just waving at coalition troops, for example. Stories that talk about how people welcome incoming troops say that the first thing villagers say is "welcome" and the second is a paranoid "uh, you guys are *really* gonna get rid of him this time, right?"

DU decay: the guy I linked to was actually asked about that point, and he covers it here:

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/20...duranium.shtml

So that holds.

US supported the coup on Chavez: I await the links. No Indymedia or NY Times please.

[juju]

But Indymedia is a bastion of objectivity!

[Whit]

The polls that Whit linked to

     Ahem, I would like to point out that was prefaced by "the closest thing I could find" to the polls in the essay. I in no way support these polls. Also you will note that I did not reference any of them in any post I made. Thank you.
     And I'm still banking on the Springer guests/sample group theory...

[juju]

I know you don't give credence to polls. It's just that I wanted to discredit all polls, and you're the only one who's polls' source I could locate.

Your rep, sir, is just collateral damage.

[Count Zero]

No man, the info on DU doesn't hold. You know, I'm in my last semester in college and I'm a physics student. He's knowledge on nuclear physics isn't up to squat.

No element decays through gamma. They only change internal energy states through gamma. And since the half-line on U-238 is huge, it barely decays at all! _That_ is what half-life means. The guy has no idea of what he's talking about. He didn't even know what a Becquerel was....

If the chart on the webpage is correct, 1 kilogram of U-238 has an activity of around 12 MBq (megabecquerels), that's in the order of milicuries, and _will_ cause you cancer (as I said, all that stuff is gamma or x-rays). And that's a whole lot more than the radioactive isotopes found normally in the human body as he suggested in the other text.

Seriously Undertoad, you should review your sources. Some guy ranting on a website is not enough to debunk something like that. If DU wasn't harmful all they had to do is put some physicist saying so on TV.

About Hugo Chavez, here's some things I found quickly:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0416-03.htm
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/v...ditorials.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=27302
http://www.observer.co.uk/internatio...688071,00.html

And if you don't trust any of it, keep in mind that all the stuff happening here on South America in the seventies wasn't acknowledged in the US until the CIA papers leaked some decades later.

One often-quoted progressive argument is that the Arabic area is incapable of supporting Democracy, why make such a historical gamble by leaving everything in the hands of the people?

Then why the hell is Bush doing all this in the name of democracy?

By the way, that's one of the most stupid and racist comments I've heard from you. Iraq was enjoying democracy before Saddam was put into power by the US. Same is true for other countries in the region.

And about taking Saddam out, the reasons why supporting popular movements didn't work was because they never tried it. The reasons for that is that a democratic government in Iraq that reflects the people's interest wouldn't reflect the interests of the US. That's why Saddam was there in the first place, and he would continue to be there hadn't him taken a mind of his own and gone against the US.

To Whit:

The morale of the soldiers isn't a justification for war. And saying that backing off would kill more soldiers than advancing is ridiculous. With the type of equipment they have, they could back out and the Iraqis wouldn't be able to follow them even if they wanted to.

You can stop the war with public pressure. If congress, even after the elections, knows that the public is against it, they'll comply with the wishes of the population.

About wiping out the whole population, doing that while everyone is looking would look pretty bad. And why even bother with them? They wouldn't gain much by wiping them out. All I'm saying is that they're certainly not doing this _for_ the people. And if they get in the way, they'll be killed. There's no such thing as "humanitarian war".

About the silent majority, they're the ones that are being polled. They're not silent when speaking on the phone.

Saddam came into power through a coup, and not through popular movements. I'm saying the world community should support _popular_ movements. It's much harder than bombing the whole place, but it's ethically correct.

On the rigging of the polls, suppose you're correct and both ABC and NYTimes rigged them. Why? They're generally pro-war.

[xoxoxoBruce]

You know, I'm in my last semester in college and I'm a physics student.

Hmmm...I guess that qualifies your home as a target for our anti-prolifeation forces.

[Undertoad]

Oh goodness, they sanctioned the coup. Wow. Damning stuff there dude.

In your first link, the NY Times sanctioned it too. Enemies everywhere?

DU: I found another reference that said 1 g of U-238 = 12,420 Bq. The next question is, how much DU are you likely to have, and for how long? I'm gonna go ahead and guess that if you have a kilogram of it (2.2 lbs), you're not storing it under your pillow.

Meanwhile This guy has 15 BB-sized pieces of DU shrap IN his body, and after 11 years so far he's OK. I know, radiation affects people differently, but this stuff is IN him.

That stupid and racist comment certainly WAS stupid and racist, but it was the "progressive community's" comment, not mine. THEY say that as an argument against the possibility of Democracy working in Iraq. I say they're full of crap, and I'm happy to see you and I agree on that.

[Count Zero]

Since the government saw the coup against Hugo Chavez with such good eyes, and only regretted it after it failed, it's not unreasonable to think they may have some involvement. They have done it before for much more nonsensical reasons. This is much more believable than, say, Saddam Hussein having nuclear weapons. But that's not saying much...

What mass of uranium the guy has in his body? Is it concentrated in one part or is it scattered? If the guy is resisting it, well good for him. You can't judge the whole thing just from one incident. I knew a guy who used to work at Chernobyl. He's fine. Would you like to live there? You can find cases like this everywhere.

This is like saying HIV doesn't cause AIDS because some HIV-positive people don't develop the disease.

And what exactly is the "progressive community"? That's just prejudice. I've never heard this argument before, certainly not from "dolts" like Chomsky. The first time I heard it was from you.

[Undertoad]

I guess "progressive" is more a local term. The subtitle of the Common Dreams site, which you've linked to, is "Breaking news and views for the progressive community." It's a political category.

In the US, it's made up mostly of people who feel that the US is responsible for everything bad that happens in the world. You can see how I figured you were one of them.

[Whit]

     I'm very tired so I'm going to do this as quickly as possible.

The morale of the soldiers isn't a justification for war. And saying that backing off would kill more soldiers than advancing is ridiculous. With the type of equipment they have, they could back out and the Iraqis wouldn't be able to follow them even if they wanted to.

     Ok look, you're really twisting things here to get that out of what I said. Let me speak more plainly. We, the US citizens, cannot stop this war. We have no veto power. It is beyond our control. Our representatives chose this action and all we can do about it is get new representatives. We cannot do that until the next election. Assuming that the war will still be going in next election, (not likely) we could vote for the an antiwar candidate. That's it. That's all the US citizen can do. I am extremely fucking offended that you flat say here that I suggest that making our soldiers kill, and die is just a morale booster.

This is what I said.
The Pres doesn't take a popular vote to declare war, he goes to Congress. Am I happy about it? Nope, but our men are there now.

     Now to reiterate the point, our men are there, we can't do anything about it and for us to attack our soldiers actions would devastate morale. I don't think I was vague on this. If I was then I apologize.

You can stop the war with public pressure. If congress, even after the elections, knows that the public is against it, they'll comply with the wishes of the population.

     Please explain, in detail. It seems myself and everyone else in this entire country that doesn't approve of the war does not know how to do what you seem to think is simple and obvious. After all the "unprecedented protests" had no effect whatsoever. We await your instructions.
Not to be redundant or anything but, to my knowledge all individual citizens can do is vote against Bush next election.

About wiping out the whole population, doing that while everyone is looking would look pretty bad.

     Tell this to Roy. She was the source here:

(Perhaps he means that even if Iraqi people's bodies are killed, their souls will be liberated.)

     But thank you for pointing out how friggin' silly this line from the essay you posted is.

About the silent majority, they're the ones that are being polled. They're not silent when speaking on the phone.

     Back this up. I say this because you're almost certainly wrong. I will do you the courtesy of backing up my statement. The polls I linked to were CBS, a TV network. When a TV network polls, especially in the ridiculously low numbers Juju pointed out it typically means they are doing what we call "The Man on the Street." This means they send out several crews that film people answering these questions. People that don't wish to get mouthy about their views don't walk up to the crew. This makes for great soundbytes but does not mean the average viewpoint was spoken. Ever. The most likely people to jump in front of the camera are people that think their views are uncommon and wish to spread them. However since you say these were phone polls I'm sure you can show me where CBS says they were.
     Now about your conviction concerning popular movements. Could you name for me the people that have been working in the country that are opposed to Sadam and have been working peacefully to remove him? Oh wait, those people are shredder bits. Sorry, that is my opinion and I stated it as a fact. I'm sorry, as I said I'm tired. Now, back to the matter at hand, who are these people we could support in popular movements? Without any names I must assume there isn't anybody, so your point is moot. Names please?

On the rigging of the polls, suppose you're correct and both ABC and NYTimes rigged them. Why? They're generally pro-war.

     Let's try this one more time. As Juju said the number of people polled is insufficient. Also, you completely ignored my point about Roy's numbers. That the only poll numbers clearly referenced on this entire thread, were not verified. She says they said it. I looked, couldn't find, I then asked for help finding it. At this point I have no reason to believe these polls ever occurred. I do not accept Roy's word for it. I posted the closest thing I could find in a good faith gesture. To show that I was willing to do you the courtesy of giving it a chance. Can you find these polls? This is not the first time I've asked. I was just nicer before.
     For the record, and since I now feel I must explain everything so that we don't conclude that I suggest poor polling is a reason for war. The Springer/polling group was meant to remind that with small polling groups drawing a string of idiots becomes more likely. It was meant as a joke. I was agreeing that the numbers were too small. This is all meaningless though since, to the best of my knowledge, the only polls referenced are fabrications.