• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Despite Iraq war, terror still a threat: U.S. poll

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
Despite Iraq war, terror still a threat: U.S. poll

WASHINGTON (AP) — A growing number of Americans, seven in 10, doesn't think the war in Iraq has reduced the threat of terrorism, according to a poll out today.

Fewer than half felt that way in April, during the war. President Bush and members of his administration frequently say the efforts in Iraq are central to winning the war on terror.

The poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland also found strong support, 71 percent, for the United Nations to take the lead in helping establish a stable government in Iraq. That's up from half who felt that way in April.

Despite apparent uneasiness with this country's military presence in Iraq, two-thirds said they don't think U.S. troops should withdraw until there is a stable government. That's down 14 points from April, however.

That Iraqi government wouldn't have to be friendly to the United States, in their view. Four in five agreed that Iraqis should be able to choose their own government, even if that government is unfriendly to the United States.

The poll of 712 people was conducted by Knowledge Networks from Nov. 21-30 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.


http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1070450402700&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705899037



Guess that means we just need more war!!!
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
The embargo couldn't last forever. Saddam without the embargo proved that he was a threat to peace by actually invading countries and attacking Israel.

Saddam had to go to remove the sanctions. Now we have no Saddam and no sanctions.


Is the world a safer place?


Who knows! for the 50,000 who are estimated to have died per year because of the embargo it sure is. For the countless men and women who were secretly slaughtered by Iraqs security forces and police its a safer place with less terror.

From an american living in oaklands perspective saddam was never a big enough thread to represent any decrease in terrorits threat. But reasonably he should the potential to be a major problem and that potential has be squashed.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Boss Hog
So you're telling me Iraqis are safer now than when Saddam was in power.
In a lesser sense no, crime is obviously up and they don't have a police force anymore. In a greater sense yes! See it was a %100 given fact that Saddam was going to crush any attempt at removing him from power like he did in 91 and 92 (and in the 80's and in the 70's). His son who would take over for him one day was also a guy who had gassed his citizens and who used children to clear Iranian mine fields.

So they're chance of getting mugged on the street went up and legitimately you could argue that this reflects a loss of safety. But there chances of getting sucked into another one of Saddam utterly stupid wars went to 0. They're chances of getting shot by an american soldier went up, they're chances of getting bombed by an american jet because of a war 10 years ago went down. The chances of them getting shot becuase they didn't stop at a check point went up but the chance of them dying because there is no medicine after they got shot just went down.

I think in a greater sense safety and security will improve, but the romval of a police state will obviously mean an increase in petty crime. The removal of a corrupt court system and a corrupt police force should bring a much greater sence of liberty.



I'll go wither way on this argument.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Boss Hog
or are America's oil supply and oil rates safer now that Saddam isn't in power?
You make it sound like the americans are more interested in the oil and the profits it brings than Saddam was. It wasn't exactly an open system and the Iraqi people ended up with the forth largest military and a third rate infrastructure which makes me think that maybe they replaced one sorruption with another.
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Ditto Much
which makes me think that maybe they replaced one sorruption with another.

this is my point.

who is the lesser of two evils in this situation?

For someone who argues the Palestine/Israel conflict a lot you should understand that American presence in Iraq is doing far worse than good for combatting "Terrorism" (I know that's not your argument) or for the well being of the Iraqi people.

People keep referring to when Saddam gassed his citizens and so forth. He did all of this with the backing of the US, with weapons and gases provided by the US. So yes, the US has removed the puppet from power, and now the puppet master is in control. The US might not be as overtly cruel as Saddam was, but they make up for it in more insidious ways. They're no better.

It's no better off than it was, and it won't be. Look at Afghanistan. The US never went into liberate anyone, that argument is a farce.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Boss Hog
this is my point.

who is the lesser of two evils in this situation?

For someone who argues the Palestine/Israel conflict a lot you should understand that American presence in Iraq is doing far worse than good for combatting "Terrorism" (I know that's not your argument) or for the well being of the Iraqi people.

People keep referring to when Saddam gassed his citizens and so forth. He did all of this with the backing of the US, with weapons and gases provided by the US. So yes, the US has removed the puppet from power, and now the puppet master is in control. The US might not be as overtly cruel as Saddam was, but they make up for it in more insidious ways. They're no better.

It's no better off than it was, and it won't be. Look at Afghanistan. The US never went into liberate anyone, that argument is a farce.
I would never argue you can be liberated from yourself! but you can have your government taken out of power by a foreign country.

Canada kept its presence in Germany until the late 80's, the US still has a military presence in south Korea and Japan. All three of them are perfectly safe and none of them are particular hot beds of terrorism. In fact Japan has possibly the lowest crime rates in the world.

Would you feel better if you called them Canadian forces instead of American. I have a feeling that your vision is clouded by a preconceived notion. From your initial view that going to war in Iraq was very wrong you will never be able to rationalize any improvements in Iraq as being attributed to the invasion. it would be counter productive to your original argument. From my initial stance of Saddam has to go and short term costs over the next five years will be acceptable I don't have the same issue. For me you can say that the occupation is to much of a price, personally I think its still dirt cheap compared to having to enforce an embargo that was killing people.

You blame saddams wars on everyone but him, to allow him to actually be a bad guy takes your position and weakens it. Personally I don't much like the Iraq Iran war or the American supplying of weapons to both sides, nor do I appreciate the fact that 100 times the amount of equipment was shipped by Russia to both parties. But the reality is that he did in fact order the invasion of Kuwait, and he did in fact role his tanks onto Saudi Arabia and he did bomb Israel a country that was a third party to the conflict. Saddams crimes are very well documented and factually backed, to see him and his family no longer in power makes me happy. Personally I'd like to see the same fait for many others thus I can accept the American military doing what they are doing.

I have a list of African nations that need to be reconstructed when they are done in Iraq!
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
My point is that America did not go in to liberate anyone except their oil, period. And because of that Iraqi citizens will get no better treatment than Afghanis have gotten... and with American spreading their army and resources thinner, Iraqi's aren't going to be getting more than they've gotten. The money is pouring into no-bid contracts for Halliburton, Bechtel etc. Not Iraqis. What will they get out of it? New buildings and roads from the ones the US smashed out on their way in. Who's making the money here?

I'm not saying Saddam was the angel Gabriel. I'm saying he was a tool of the US when they saw fit, before he turned on them. Yeah he was an asshole, but so is Bush, so is Sharon, so is Blair. Who's taking them out? I don't see any moral justification the US can make for "liberating" Iraqis when people in their own country are starving and in poverty. Their motives are transparent.

Regarding the invasion of Kuwait - keep in mind what was happening at the time. Let's not forget how that all came about. According to Iraq, Kuwait was exceeding their OPEC quota, devaluing the rate of Iraqi oil. Saddam got pissed off.

Iraq was involved at this time in a territorial dispute with Kuwait. Negotiations between the two countries were not successful. A meeting on July 25, 1990 between Saddam Hussein and April Glaspie, United States Ambassador to Iraq, was a major factor in Iraq's decision to invade its neighbor. In that meeting Hussein was assured that the United States would not become involved in the dispute. A week later on August 2, 1990 Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait.
http://www.wtrg.com/opecshare.html

So arguably the US, clever as it is, set a trap for Iraq so they would have a reason to assert their presence there. This was the start of Desert Storm, and the US was able to justify its stay in the middle east while Saddam the boogie man was in power.

Yes, Saddam was a bad bad man. But what I'm saying is that you have a much larger, worse entity to deal with in his absense. It's not going to get better because the US is there for the oil only; the don't give a shit about the peope.
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Ditto Much
The embargo couldn't last forever. Saddam without the embargo proved that he was a threat to peace by actually invading countries and attacking Israel.

Saddam had to go to remove the sanctions. Now we have no Saddam and no sanctions.


Is the world a safer place?


Who knows! for the 50,000 who are estimated to have died per year because of the embargo it sure is. For the countless men and women who were secretly slaughtered by Iraqs security forces and police its a safer place with less terror.

From an american living in oaklands perspective saddam was never a big enough thread to represent any decrease in terrorits threat. But reasonably he should the potential to be a major problem and that potential has be squashed.
Dude you can't export "freedom" and "democracy" as if it were a bag of rice.

There has to be at least an element and notion that freedom was won and even earned from within. This is the only option for lasting peace. What if in 1933 Britain decided to invade the US to bring civil rights to blacks & women? It would never fly because Britain could be seen to.. civil rights be having way too many other motives to operate on one solely based on morals (hypothetically imagining it's morals & civil rights were superior at the time). Yet we see the US attempting to sell such an absurd idea. They have managed to take a relatively benign country and turn it into a hotbed for "terrorist" activity. Even now Al Qaeda elements have been said to be confirmed as now being in Iraq.

They could have lifted the sanctions, yet it would have meant bye bye to their current stability in economic control over the energy resources and bye bye to a future stroghold as they'd lose their catalyst "enemy" -especially at a time when the EU was beginning to materialize and present the possibility of an economic rival.

You're right, lifting them would have had catastrophic effects.. on the US and Britain's economic stranglehold on the world.. and we can't have that can we.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by OTIS
Dude you can't export "freedom" and "democracy" as if it were a bag of rice.

There has to be at least an element and notion that freedom was won and even earned from within. This is the only option for lasting peace. What if in 1933 Britain decided to invade the US to bring civil rights to blacks & women? It would never fly because Britain could be seen to.. civil rights be having way too many other motives to operate on one solely based on morals (hypothetically imagining it's morals & civil rights were superior at the time). Yet we see the US attempting to sell such an absurd idea. They have managed to take a relatively benign country and turn it into a hotbed for "terrorist" activity. Even now Al Qaeda elements have been said to be confirmed as now being in Iraq.

They could have lifted the sanctions, yet it would have meant bye bye to their current stability in economic control over the energy resources and bye bye to a future stroghold as they'd lose their catalyst "enemy" -especially at a time when the EU was beginning to materialize and present the possibility of an economic rival.

You're right, lifting them would have had catastrophic effects.. on the US and Britain's economic stranglehold on the world.. and we can't have that can we.

Alright how can you say that Iraq was a relatively benign country. What justifies no longer being benign. The only thing that was keeping Iraq in check was a sanctions system that was costing us as Canadian three warships, it was costing us fuel tankers it was costing us half of our damn navy to enforce and we were one of the smaller countries.

I agree revolution should come from within, however we watched and have great footage of how Saddam dealt with these revolutions, if you call the Israelis monsters for there system of dealing with militants that you have to call Saddam satan himself for his actions. You can't suggest that revolution was possible when his police state was so effective that they were able to show over %99 support for saddam in elections, we all know how completely insane and impossible this is.

Iraq has had many revolutions, almost all of them caused by foriegn powers invading it. I'm not suggesting exporting of "freedom" or "democracy", I'm suggesting that without removing an infrastructure of oppression it is impossible for any system to work. Without replacing his entire government from the ground up you were forever going to be left with a first world nation living in third world standards.



Hypothetical question...

If the US had never supported Saddam and he had done the same actions would you have the same issue with this invasion?


There is this notion being suggested that revolutions begin from within. This simply isn't true, historically the vast majority of revolutions are funded by other countries and use expatriots who were trained in foreign countries. It was true with all of erastern Europe, It was true with Cuba, it was true in Uganada its a staple.
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
I think people still have a romanticized vision of the US as being the great liberators they were during WWII.

A lot has changed.
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Ditto Much
Alright how can you say that Iraq was a relatively benign country. What justifies no longer being benign. The only thing that was keeping Iraq in check was a sanctions system that was costing us as Canadian three warships, it was costing us fuel tankers it was costing us half of our damn navy to enforce and we were one of the smaller countries.

The US and Britain had the veto power on lifting sanctions, not us. They were perfectly happy for having an excuse to keep military interests in the region, as happy as they are to keep the hundreds of military outfits all over the world. You cannot have a global power without a presence in global strategic areas. In South Korea the US have almost 50,000 troops.. despite decades of cease fire.. you think if North Korea "democracized" on it's own they would remove their military presence? No Way, as that presence is a valuable asset of pressure through presence to any entity in the region... specifically China. Canada's role is only a big deal if we don't go.. .which is what happend with GWII. When we do go our impact is usually understated and sadly mostly for image reasons. Now most of our military is held up Afghanistan & the former Yogoslavia on reconstructive & peacekeeping duties.. both US led wars.. so what have we learned again?


Originally posted by Ditto Much
I agree revolution should come from within, however we watched and have great footage of how Saddam dealt with these revolutions, if you call the Israeis monsters for there system of dealing with militants that you have to call Saddam satan himself for his actions. You can't suggest that revolution was possible when his police state was so effective that they were able to show over %99 support for saddam in elections, we all know how completely insane and impossible this is.
For one I do not call Isrealis anything, please don't make assumptiosn even if they are logical. Two, to get a revolution to materialize from within (as the US & Britain planned after they stopped short of Baghdad) you DON'T DO IT BY WEAKENING A POPULATION which report after report after report presented by human rights organizations to the UN showed was happening. What was the number of deaths directly related to sanctions? Between 500,000 & 1,000,000? You speak of atrocities as if Saddam was the only hand dealing them.

Originally posted by Ditto Much
Iraq has had many revolutions, almost all of them caused by foriegn powers invading it.
Yes.. Saddam was one of those installed powers.. look how well that worked out. A totallitarian regime hated by his people while being called a great ally to the US. History fails to teach those unwilling to learn.

Originally posted by Ditto Much
I'm not suggesting exporting of "freedom" or "democracy", I'm suggesting that without removing an infrastructure of oppression it is impossible for any system to work. Without replacing his entire government from the ground up you were forever going to be left with a first world nation living in third world standards.
Well I'd say the infastructure is completely removed now and there is more resistence than ever.. what do you think the problem is? Usually during popular revolutions, the fighting g
enerally ends precicely when the revolution swings in favor of the people. This clearly has not happened, and I wouldn't expect the fighting to stop until the people feel like they have someone representing them.



Originally posted by Ditto Much
Hypothetical question...

If the US had never supported Saddam and he had done the same actions would you have the same issue with this invasion?
No, because it's clear that their motives were not morally driven, so banking support on a moral argument holds no water.

Originally posted by Ditto Much
There is this notion being suggested that revolutions begin from within. This simply isn't true, historically the vast majority of revolutions are funded by other countries and use expatriots who were trained in foreign countries. It was true with all of erastern Europe, It was true with Cuba, it was true in Uganada its a staple.
There is a difference between money coming from sympathizers to support the funds for a popular revolution, and money & training coming from foreign Governments to support the an interest group overthrow of a popular leader to install one friendly to them. You're getting off base here and blurring the definition of 'revolution' to support your point.
 
Top