What Do the Iraqi People Want?
What Do the Iraqi People Want?
With debate over what to do in Iraq heating up inside the Beltway, it’s important to ask: what do the Iraqi people think about our troops?
Getting a straight answer to these questions is next to impossible in war-torn Iraq, but some groups have taken the pulse of the Iraqi public regularly. According to one recent poll sponsored by the U.S. government, 45 percent of Iraqis support the insurgent attacks against coalition troops and a majority of Iraqis oppose having the U.S.-led multinational force in the country, and feel less safe with foreign troop patrols in their neighborhood.
If democracy means giving people a voice in issues that affect their lives, then maybe the Bush administration should organize a public referendum on this key question, as suggested by others.
– Brian Katulis, Director of Democracy and Public Diplomacy
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The democratically elected government of Iraq has made the decision that they need US troops to stay in the country.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:00 pmThe best option at our disposal now may be something not being discussed by anyone: a NEGOTIATED withdrawal.
See today’s Facing South (blog of the progressive South) for one take on this:
http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2005/07/way-out-of-iraq.asp
It’s a thoughtful piece by long-time peace activist Bill Towe of North Carolina. It deserves discussion.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:13 pmA “negotiated withdrawal”? Negotiated with whom? Zarqawi? Ridiculous.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:15 pmThat’s strange that a majority of Iraqis want us out of the country. According to the Bush administration, we were to be greeted with flowers and adoration upon liberating Baghdad. Then again, it is hard to take an administration seriously that invaded a country without provocation, killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis in the process, and then had no plan for a post-war Iraq. What a mess this administration has made, and they need to be held accountable.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:24 pm“Then again, it is hard to take an administration seriously that invaded a country without provocation, killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis in the process, and then had no plan for a post-war Iraq.”
Unthinking repetition of these myths is just tiresome.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:25 pmThe “Editors” of the American ChickenHawk Journal obviously didn’t bother to even read the link posted by Chris, which argues the case for negotiating with Sunni nationalists, not the Zarqawi beheading crazies. But then who expected thoughtful arguments from them?
They didn’t read the U.S. government poll in the main post either, that points out that most of the opposition to US forces (90%) is in Tikrit and Baquba where most people boycotted the election. So the “democratically elected govt” does not speak for those whose families died in “collateral damage” in Fallujah.
Another interesting thought: the “Federalists” want U.S. troops to be under Iraqi command? Because what they’re saying is that we can’t even DISCUSS withdrawal, because another sovereign government wants us there? How “federalist” can that logic be?
July 6th, 2005 at 1:43 pmA “negotiated withdrawal�? Negotiated with whom? Zarqawi? Ridiculous.
No, the Iraqi people, dolt.
The democratically elected government of Iraq has made the decision that they need US troops to stay in the country.
Don’t be so sure of ‘democratically elected government’ either. Plus, the ‘democratically elected government’ isn’t paying much attention to its people, thus the 45% wantin us out and who feel it is less safe with us there.
http://www.occupationwatch.org/headlines/archives/2005/06/iraqi_student_u.html
So when you say “Unthinking repetition of these myths is just tiresome”, realize that you fall into that catagory by your choice of reasoning.
Sell it somewhere else ED.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:47 pmUnthinking repetition of these myths is just tiresome.
Unthinking repetition of this cliched and refuted meme is tiresome.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:53 pmHey federalists’ in the list that you quoted in comment #5 you say that each notion is a “myth”. How so? What was the provocation? Do you deny that tens of thousands of Iraqis died? Do you really believe the administration had a plan following the invasion?
July 6th, 2005 at 1:55 pm“No, the Iraqi people, dolt.”
Why are those on the left so incapable of acting like adults?
The Iraqis held an election. The elected government wants the US to stay and help them. That some chose to not vote is part of democracy. Lots of people didn’t vote in the last US election. Lot’s of people didn’t vote in the last British election. That doesn’t make those governments undemocratic or illegitimate.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:56 pmDarth,
July 6th, 2005 at 1:58 pmRe: “Chickenhawk” – Are you currently serving, are you a hypocrite, or was Karl Rove correct that liberals like you do not support the war on terror? Which is it? Or are you simply being childish?
zeke,
The US has had ongoing military actions in Iraq since 1991, because of Hussein’s repeated violations of agreements he had made. Ask US pilots who were shot at daily over Iraq for a decade if they felt provoked.
Iraqis are being killed by Zarqawi and other terrorists. US troops are working very hard to stop them. We killed lots more people in Germany in WW2, did that make the liberation of Europe immoral?
The plan is to put a democratic government in place in Iraq and to build up the Iraqi forces so they can defend themselves.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:02 pmUnless your posting from Iraq your a chicken hawk.
Iraq was contained.
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, or Al Queda. To repeat that is one of the memes you refered to ealier.
Bush’s Plan is to control the oil in Iraq, he could give a rats ass about establishing democracy. Please read the project for the New American Century, a paper written by those you admire so much, and come up with some facts before you post.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:08 pmDoes the American Federalist Journal know you are representing them? Their stock is being devalued rapidly. Whatever value it had was due to “Enron style” accounting practices in any case, but it’s nice to see both sets of books here.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:12 pmThe current US policy on Iraq seems to me like having an old, decrepid car…. You’ve spent much on repairs already so you think it’s an investment… so you keep the juker, with many more expense to follow….
Let’s just declare victory (liberated Iraq from its dictator and leave). If we set a withdrawal date (short time frame), we show that we’re serious about leaving, and may deflate the support of those who are fighting a foreign occupation of their country.
The “federalist editors” better brush up on the Federalist papers before posting here… and make an effort to visit the real world, even if it doesn’t align with their own ideological planet.
The “democratically elected” Iraqi gov. is not such a thing… There was no debate, no clear positions/programs (except along the racial/religious/clan lines), the candidates’ names were not known, many Iraqis didn’t/couldn’t vote, and those who are in “power” now are there because of US support and approval.
Oh, since when this administration cares about human rights violations and violation of agreements from oppressive regimes?!!!! Puleezzz. The same chickenhawks supporting the war today, opposed Clinton humanitarian intervention in Kossovo & Bosnia–where we saved lives without suffering US casualties!
I don’t know who can really argue that the US is safer today than before the Iraq invasion. As a matter of fact, Bush managed to piss off the world’s good will towards America after 9-11. He has divided our friends and united our enemies!
July 6th, 2005 at 2:15 pmKrazny:
“Unless your posting from Iraq your a chicken hawk.”
Are you posting from Iraq, or are you a chickenhawk?
In any case, the links between Saddam and al Qaeda are well documented.
The tired old “it’s for oil” canard is just so lame. Come up with some facts before you post.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:17 pmHe’s a chickenhawk. Never even served peacetime. A political hack from the GOP politburo.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:18 pmHenry Kissinger has conceded it’s about oil, you ought to get out more.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:19 pm“There was no debate, no clear positions/programs (except along the racial/religious/clan lines),”
Sounds like the Democrats. *L*
“The same chickenhawks supporting the war today, opposed Clinton humanitarian intervention in Kossovo & Bosnia–where we saved lives without suffering US casualties!”
The same chickenhawks who supported Clinton in his war without UN approval, and no imminent threat to the US, oppose the liberation of Iraq.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:19 pmDon’t tell me Henry is an al-Qaeda collaborator, too! Oh my! We are doomed!
July 6th, 2005 at 2:20 pmthe question of whether I am a chickenhawk is not relevant I am not for the war
your right about the ties between saddam and al Qaeda it has been extensivly documented that there were not ties between the two.
read the PNAC
then get back to me on the oil
July 6th, 2005 at 2:20 pmnunya,
July 6th, 2005 at 2:21 pmRight after you post your evidence of my service record, I’ll post proof you’re a member of al Qaeda. Deal? You first. *L*
Krazny,
“the question of whether I am a chickenhawk is not relevant I am not for the war”
So then you agree with Karl Rove’s comments about liberals not supporting the war on terror. Good. Thank you for being honest.
“your right about the ties between saddam and al Qaeda it has been extensivly documented that there were not ties between the two.”
A lie. There were documented ties.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:22 pm1.) the war on terrorism and the Iraq war are two different things do not confuse them
2.) please do not repeat tired memes as proof.
all reports indicate no ties.
3.) no refute on the oil? I guess when you can’t you change the subject.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:26 pmRight after you post your evidence of my service record, I’ll post proof you’re a member of al Qaeda. Deal? You first. *L*
Don’t need to. I can tell. Call it a hunch, you have never seen combat or killed anyone with your own hands, state sanctioned, as in combat, law enforcement, or justifiably, as in self-defense. The fact that you may have done a few years as a quartermaster or some such don’t impress me much. You are what we call an “empty holster”.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/4c24ef26-d2f3-11d9-bead-00000e2511c8.html
July 6th, 2005 at 2:30 pm” the war on terrorism and the Iraq war are two different things do not confuse them”
That’s debatable, but you can enlist to fight the war on terror. Or Rove was right. Which is it?
“all reports indicate no ties.”
Still a lie.
“no refute on the oil?”
No evidence to refute.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:31 pm“Don’t need to. I can tell. Call it a hunch…”
nunya is admitting to being a member of al Qaeda. No need for evidence. Call it a hunch. *L*
July 6th, 2005 at 2:33 pmThe Iraqis invited the Coalition Forces into Iraq on March 19, 2003.
It was great. There were roses and Turkish coffee and teacakes. It was a blast. Nobody got killed, not even a hangnail on any of the insurgents. It’s been bread and circus for every Iraqi since that day.
Just like George Bush said it would be, no casualties in this war.
It is amazing how happy everybody all around the world was when Iraq invited the Coalition Forces into Iraq.
It’s been milk and honey ever since.
The Iraqis have invited another ten million Americans to come and live, side-by-side.
It’s as groovy it can be in Baghdad.
There’s been a few bumps in the road along the way, but, thank goodness, nobody got hurt.
Sunshine and lollipops today in Iraq.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:33 pmwhy attack me just because I am proving you wrong. You are a chickenhawk. Just like bush, cheney, rumsfeild and the others.
you can scream all you want about ties between saddam and al qaeda but there not there and you know it.
read the PNAC dumass
July 6th, 2005 at 2:34 pmThat’s debatable, but you can enlist to fight the war on terror. Or Rove was right. Which is it?
I think he has night terrors, not combat related PTSD, but something from childhood. He thinks a WOT might cure him. We need to keep his kind from practicing foreign policy and psychiatry.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:35 pm“why attack me…”
“…read the PNAC dumass”
Can you spot the irony? *L*
You can scream all you want about ties between saddam and al qaeda but they are there and you know it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp
July 6th, 2005 at 2:41 pmYou apparently are unfamiliar with the term “chickenhawk,” because you keep using it to refer to anti-war doves who don’t serve in the military. The term only applies to pro-war hawks who don’t serve in the military.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:42 pmThey are taking some people who are pretty advanced in years, if you have been in before, they can use you. Don’t come here, you waste your time and don’t do the war effort any good. 1-800-GOARMYUSA
July 6th, 2005 at 2:43 pmNobody with a solitary brain cell reads the NRO, not since WFBjr., left.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:44 pmpointing us to a know neocon think tank to prove your point is plain silly.
not sure about L thing anyone have any ideas on that?
again read the Project for the New American Century. it outlines the plans to take control of the middle east for the oil.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:45 pmFighting the “terrists” might help you deal with your issues surrounding the all encompassing terror you feel. Enlist.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:47 pm“Nobody with a solitary brain cell reads the NRO, not since WFBjr., left.
Comment by nunya ”
Yes, but many of us with more brain cells than you do read it. *L*
July 6th, 2005 at 2:47 pmEnlist, re-enlist, whatever. I’m sure your own troops will kill you before the enemy does. They are all al-Qaeda sympathizers, too. Some of them think the war is a joke, about oil, and a waste of their blood. They’d be right.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:49 pmGuav,
re: #32 – “The term only applies to pro-war hawks who don’t serve in the military.”
So was Rove correct, and you don’t support the war on terror, or are you going to enlist to fight it? Or are liberals just hypocrites? Which is it?
July 6th, 2005 at 2:51 pmits been proven that Non-bush supporters are smarter then bush supporters I will see if I can find the link to that study.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:51 pmso you are a chicken hawk thanks for clearing that up
July 6th, 2005 at 2:52 pmagain and its not debatable the war in Iraq is different from the war on Terrorism.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:52 pmYes, but many of us with more brain cells than you do read it. *L*
Last time I checked the polls, the web traffic at NRO and their own futile attempts at fundraising, it was a sad state of diminishing returns. Kind of like your solitary brain cell. But I’m sure that you never get lonely inside your head.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:54 pmSo was Rove correct, and you don’t support the war on terror, or are you going to enlist to fight it? Or are liberals just hypocrites? Which is it?
Let me make it plain for you, you ignorant cretin. I do not support wars on abstractions, like poverty, drugs, illiteracy, or terror. War is not an effective method of dealing with abstractions. Surely, some clown from the American Federalist Journal would know this.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:57 pmI forgot to mention crime. How long have we been fighting that war?
July 6th, 2005 at 3:00 pmKarl Rove is a toad. I hope he goes to prison. If we don’t get him, at least we might get Rush. Or have the privilege of seeing his fat ass squirm in the dock.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2005/07/06/s1b_limbaugh_0706.html
July 6th, 2005 at 3:03 pmEd/AFJ: No, Rove was not correct in saying something as moronic as “liberals don’t support the war on terror.” A quick visit here http://takeittokarl.blogspot.com/ will clear up why what he said is so offensive and ignorant.
But forget that for a minute. Your argument is based on the assumption that not only are the War On Terrorâ„¢ and the War In Iraqâ„¢ the same thing, but that everyone agrees that they are exactly the same thing. Well, it should be obvious that people don’t. Some do, some do not. You’re not stating a “fact” when you say they’re the same thing, you’re stating your opinion on the matter. It’s debatable.
80% of Democrats supported our actions in Afghanistan because they felt it was a necessary action, and part of The War On Terrorâ„¢.
Iraq is a whole different ballgame, whether you PERSONALLY feel it is or not.
July 6th, 2005 at 3:13 pmThe Iraqi people want, no, they need young Ted Pataki…
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-opmcc304324656jun30,0,1221085.column
To liberate them.
July 6th, 2005 at 3:13 pmEd/AFJ: And I’d like to apologize to you for all the insults you’re receiving here from “my side” of the aisle. I think your “arguments” are tired, baseless, and not based in reality, but you shouldn’t be insulted for voicing them.
July 6th, 2005 at 3:15 pmHey ED,
Better go ask the Easter bunny about the Al’Quesadilla bases he, Saddam and Bin Laden were building in the North Pole under Santa’s villiage, utilizing reindeer, elves, unicorns and the tooth fairy to transport and hide all the WMDs. Or was it Aruba?
Try again…
July 6th, 2005 at 3:18 pmED was rude from the beginning. Why offer apologies? Didn’t we learn from Durbin’s needless damage control?
July 6th, 2005 at 3:21 pmI am sorry for being insulting it is not appropriate. We are trying to have a decent discussion here not yell insults.
July 6th, 2005 at 3:22 pmED loves it.
July 6th, 2005 at 3:24 pmWhy else would he keep coming back?
July 6th, 2005 at 3:25 pmhe hasn’t been back probably realized his “facts” were a little off. or his boss came along and told him to get back to work.
July 6th, 2005 at 3:27 pmSKID, No, Ed was NOT rude from the beginning. He posted opposing views on the situationâ€â€views which I [personally find absurd and ridiculousâ€â€but he was perfectly civil, and has, for the most part, remained civil even while being called names.
There is no comparison between this thread and Durbin’s situation. I’m not apologizing for making a factual statement. I’m apologizing for people from my side acting like children. The fact that the Right is negligent in policing it’s idiots doesn’t give the Left a license to fail to police ours.
I’d like to think we’re better than that. Insults have no place in rational debate. Period.
July 6th, 2005 at 3:33 pmGuav,
Check ED’s other posts on other topics.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:22 pmGuav,
I don’t mind the insults, but thanks.
You said, “But forget that for a minute. Your argument is based on the assumption that not only are the War On Terrorâ„¢ and the War In Iraqâ„¢ the same thing, but that everyone agrees that they are exactly the same thing.”
No, what I’m saying has nothing to do with whether Iraq and the war on terror are related.(Though I think they are).
Let’s look at it in more general terms. Those making the chickenhawk charge are saying “if you support war X, then you must enlist to fight war X.”
Rove said liberals don’t support the war on terror.(And it is a fact many do not. Rove did not say “all liberals”.) Therefore, if X = WOT, then those making the chickenhawk charge, who support the WOT, but have not enlisted to help fight it, are hypocrites. Or, by their standard, the fact they aren’t enlisting is evidence they don’t support the WOT, and therefore Rove was correct.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:27 pmyour entire chickenhawk charge relies on the war in Iraq being the same thing as the war on terrorists. your trying to prop up your error filled argument with more errors.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:39 pmWhat department of the government sponsored this survey and is it representative of all of Iraq? You can get a poll to say anything you want it to say by asking the question in the right way or by sampling a specific portion of the population. Wouldn’t the January elections, where there was a 60% turnout be a better judge of whether the average Iraqi is supporting our efforts. I’m relatively sure that there was not the same threat of death surrounding this survey as there was in the election.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:41 pmEd/AFJ: I’m sure you don’t mind the insults, but I do.
First of all, the difference between conservatives and liberals is not that one supports the War On Terrorâ„¢ and one does not. Both support War On Terrorâ„¢, the difference is on HOW that is best done. It’s an argument of means, not of ends. Many liberalsâ€â€myself includedâ€â€feel that the war in Iraq CONTRADICTS and actually sets us back in the War On Terrorâ„¢. We feel that the Iraq invasion helps al Qaeda and breeds terrorists, so we don’t support it. I won’t join the military because in all liklihood, I’ll be sent to Iraq, not sent to the War On Terrorâ„¢, wherever the fuck that is.
Now, onto the “chickenhawk” thing. The war in Iraq would not exist if Americans did not want to go to war. Americans wanted the war, and the war was created. But now this creation needs more people, or else it will have a difficult time surviving. Therefore, the original WANT has now created a NEED. But the need for war never existed on its own. There was never an independent need for Americans to fight in Iraq. For this reason, I believe that the pro-war people have a duty to satisfy the needs of their creation. Otherwise, their creation will die. It’s a simple choice: let your creation live or die.
So ultimately, it’s not even so much a matter of hypocrisy, it’s a matter of whether pro-war people are going to see THEIR wants through to the end, or deny the needs of their creation and let THEIR war fizzle out into defeat.
You can try to compare it to liberals and the War On Terrorâ„¢, but it’s not the same. First of all, the War On Terrorâ„¢ isn’t an actual war. “Terrorism” is not a country. The need to fight terrorism exists regardless if people want to fight it or not. The need to fight a war in Iraq only exists because pro-war people wanted it in the first place.
It’s all a matter of which came first: the want or the need. If the need is independent and original of any want, then there is no real duty (other than altruistic morality) to help. But if your want created the need, if the need is dependent on your wants, then there really is a duty to help.
So when all you pro-war types rant and rave about how America is going to be destroyed if we don’t win this war, yet you are quite happy to avoid actively serving as in necessary for such a victory, it strikes many of us as being somewhat hypocritical, if not a bit cowardly.
Understand?
July 6th, 2005 at 5:03 pmYes Randy, we need to see the background on poll instead of selected results. But there are some interesting notes to take from the linked bloomberg article that are conveniently ignored by the irrational left. Such as:
A majority of Iraqis also says the coalition should stay at least until a permanent government is elected, indicating they are as conflicted and contradictory in their attitudes toward the U.S. presence as the American public is.
The poll suggests the insurgency is unpopular, despite pockets of support in places such as Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit.
Professional pollsters cautioned about the reliability of data from people living in an area where the security situation is unstable.
The poll also appears to show that Iraqis, again even in restive areas, do not want U.S. forces to depart before stability returns.
The poll is the fourth conducted since October 2004 by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. The bureau distributed an 11-page report of analysis and data titled “Iraqis Sense Improved Security.”
I’m looking for this report.
July 6th, 2005 at 5:10 pmAll war is wrong, some wars, very few….are unavoidable. And please, don’t reference WWII, while we were working to liberate Europe and the individuals in concentration camps we were imprisoning the Japanese by the train load….and African-Americans were relegated to the motor pool for the most part…..segregation was rampant, xenophobia was the order of the day…..the past is prologue…….
The war in Iraq need not have occurred. Pure and simple. It could have been done another way.
July 6th, 2005 at 5:11 pm“The war in Iraq need not have occurred. Pure and simple. It could have been done another way.”
What other way?
July 6th, 2005 at 5:16 pmGiven that the ones responsible for 9/11 were in another country all together I have to agree. If we needed to invade a country besides Afhanistan it should have been Saudi Arabia. It is not a democracy, the majority of the 9/11 hijackers came from there, and much of the funding for Al Queada comes from there.
July 6th, 2005 at 5:17 pm“The war in Iraq need not have occurred. Pure and simple. It could have been done another way.�
What other way?
we could have caputured bin Laden in afghanistan.
July 6th, 2005 at 5:18 pm“we could have caputured bin Laden in afghanistan.”
Non sequiter. The question was what could have been done differently regarding Iraq.
Incidentally, Clinton didn’t capture bin Ladin with 8 years in office. Where’s your indignation? *L*
July 6th, 2005 at 6:22 pmWhat other way? Not to invade Iraq. That way there would be no Iraqi war with American soldiers being killed. Afghanistan obviously wasn’t “fixed” yet of its ills, and we could have kept focus on Osama. Don’t even try that Iraqi-Al’Queda connection spiel because the facts say otherwise.
July 6th, 2005 at 6:48 pmEd/AFJ: I posted you a very long, detailed comment. Did you miss it?
As far as your question about how Iraq could have been done a different way, it’s dependent on what the actual purpose for the invasion is.
If the actual purpose was to “liberate the Iraqi people from a horrible dictator,” then there’s not many ways aside from a direct invasion that could accomplish that. But since that was not the reason given to the American people that garnered their support, and since only a 5 year-old would believe that we invaded to liberate the Iraqi people, we’ll discard that one.
So which rationale for intervention is it? To get the inspectors back in? To make him comply with the UN? To take away his vast stockpiles of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons that he’s going to use to annihilate us? To kill all the terrorists that were launching attacks on the US from Iraq?
We were told we had to invade because he had WMD and was a direct threat to this nation and our allies. But if we had let the inspectors that Bush’s THREAT* of invasion allowed us to get back in there finish their job, we could have ascertained then what we know now: that Iraq had no such stockpiles and was not a threat. All without killing thousands of US soldiers, horribly maiming thousands more, killing god knows how many Iraqis, spending $200 billion, ruining our final shreds of credibility, and creating a giant terrorist training camp. All without invading.
*I agree with Bush’s bluster about invading, it got the inspectors back in. The invasion itself was not necessary, and has only made everything worse.
July 6th, 2005 at 6:49 pmActually that was not a non-sequitor I was stating how it could have been done different. Resources diverted for an unecessary war in Iraq could have gone to help stabilize Afghanistan, and capturing bin laden, thus bringing the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks to justice.
Clinton did not catch Bin Laden, but he did not invade the host country bin laden was staying in either. Clinton did haved bin laden on his scopes and was aware of terrorists threats, something the bush admin downplayed until it smacked them in the face.
July 6th, 2005 at 6:57 pmGlad to see Editor is trolling on this thread, too.
What a character this guy is…the Republicans must be paying him well since he has managed to post at least 60 messages so far today between this board and this one.
You will marvel to notice his modus operandi:
- Never cites any supporting facts
- Never responds to direct questions
- Always on the attack
- Blames everything on “liberals”
- Makes it up as he goes along
Sound familiar?
July 6th, 2005 at 6:57 pm“I have no interest in spoon-feeding you data. I don’t see how you’re at all worth the effort.”
A nice little quote from that thread. He’s not interested in providing information in order to back up his claims because we’re not worth it.
July 6th, 2005 at 7:11 pmJustin-
This is a classic example of the fallacious argument known as:
-Burden of Proof
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. Failure to do so results in the classic above fallacious argument.
Of course, when one makes as many hasty generalizations as Editor does, it is difficult not to have to fall back on one fallacious argument to defend another, but that is another matter altogether…
July 6th, 2005 at 7:18 pmGreat, I have stalkers. *L*
July 6th, 2005 at 7:23 pmGuav,
“We were told we had to invade because he had WMD and was a direct threat to this nation and our allies. ”
The Iraq war resolution, voted for by a bipartisan majority of Democrats and Republicans, contained 23 rationales for invading Iraq. So to suggest WMD was the only rationale is false.
“But if we had let the inspectors that Bush’s THREAT* of invasion allowed us to get back in there finish their job, we could have ascertained then what we know now: that Iraq had no such stockpiles and was not a threat.”
Given that Hussein was not fully compliant with the inspectors, we could not have concluded anything with certainty without an invasion. A president does not have the benefit of hindsight when making a decision, the intel Bush had before the war said Iraq had WMD.
We had enforced no-fly zones and sanctions against Iraq for over a decade. We were basically in an extended cease-fire. If we didn’t finish it now, we would have in all likelyhood been faced with finishing it at some later date. Better to get it done, I believe.
July 6th, 2005 at 7:29 pmMy goodness, so many fallacious arguments in just a few short paragraphs…
Check out a list of fallacies and have fun unravelling Editor’s gibberish for yourself!
July 6th, 2005 at 7:34 pmOh and regarding post #72…
That’s the best red herring I have seen all day!
July 6th, 2005 at 7:36 pmRegardless of your opinions and how you express them, I say ALL REPUBLICANS WHO BELIEVE THAT THE IRAQ WAR IS LEGAL ARE STUPID!
July 6th, 2005 at 7:40 pmSKID, No, Ed was NOT rude from the beginning.
Comment by Guav
Actually, he was. Even if this were not the case, he comes not for “rational debate” as you put it. And even if he did, never apologize or concede anything to his ilk. You will just regret it. Best thing to do is to ignore him. If you want rational debate, wait till the war is over, and I don’t meant the one in Iraq, or the WOT. The civil war we will have to refight. Lincoln was wrong. Eradicate them this time around.
July 6th, 2005 at 7:55 pmThey intend to eradicate you. So you go right on apologizing. I’m buying ammunition. I already own enough guns. You should buy a few yourself.
And I’m not joking, nor am I being alarmist or extreme.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/06/hunting-of-liberals.html
I was not there, but if I had seen the above personally, the owner of that vehicle would not be driving it, it would be a fiery wreck. If I saw the owner, he would be lucky to be walking at all.
July 6th, 2005 at 8:01 pmsort of off-topic (but still about iraq), skippy writes a letter to usatoady chastizing al neurharth’s op-ed piece bemoaning the lack of a latter day “walter cronkite” to debate the iraq situation.
shorter skippy: gee, al, it’s too bad you don’t know anybody who runs a national newspaper who could get the discussion going!
July 6th, 2005 at 8:03 pmIt’s no wonder they bristle at comparisons to Pol Pot. I don’t like Pol Pot, but I can tell you I have no desire to be marched off to re-education camps by the same people who propped him up against the Viet Namese after war, after they caused that holocaust they accuse Pol Pot of today. The same ones in power here.
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/polpotmontclarion0498.html
July 6th, 2005 at 8:08 pmVisit Skippy, and arm yourselves, even though a mad kangaroo can kick a conservative’s ass, we will still need to put them out of our misery. The cons, not the roos.
July 6th, 2005 at 8:12 pm“I say ALL REPUBLICANS WHO BELIEVE THAT THE IRAQ WAR IS LEGAL ARE STUPID!”
And yet another intellectual milestone! *L*
July 6th, 2005 at 8:30 pmI wonder how the administrators of this website will feel about KillCon2005 issuing death threats from their site?
Liberal tolerance, on display. Can’t you just feel the love and compassion?
July 6th, 2005 at 8:31 pmA Republican talking about compassion and love…
Yes, that is sentiment we all get from KillCon’s link to an actual bumper sticker suggesting that is open hunting season on all liberals.
I can reall feel that compassionate conservatism now!
July 6th, 2005 at 8:36 pmHey buckshot/fake/whatever your name is today.
No holds barred, Rove want’s a verbal war, he’s got one.
And by the way, I will never click on your link. I wouldn’t want my brain to fry out like yours has.
July 6th, 2005 at 9:56 pm“I wouldn’t want my brain to fry out like yours has.”
Really? How did you fry yours? *L*
July 6th, 2005 at 10:01 pmSusan,
July 6th, 2005 at 10:25 pmEd is just a bit hot and cranky(read above and elsewhere here). You’ll have to excuse him. He’s not been sheared yet and we are already into July.
The so-called Iraq War Resolution contained 23 clauses. Perhaps the Editors could enlighten us on the key clause and primary reason Congress authorized force. Because by my count, of the twenty-three whereas clauses, nine explicitly mention WMD. Three are about UN resolutions. At least two are about Iraqi ties to 9/11. One covers all other terrorists. One for the assassination attempt on fmr Pres Bush, one mentions regime change. Two state that we want to fight terrorism. One to “restore peace and security to the Persian Gulf” (now that’s ironic in hindsight).
And exactly one for repression of the Iraqi people and failing to account for stolen Kuwaiti property.
July 6th, 2005 at 11:30 pm88 posts, and no intelligent discussion about what the Iraqi people want! Look what Ed is doing to us, so let’s ignore him/her..
By the way Rumsfeld has already admitted to intense negotiations:
Russert : “… there have been two meetings between Iraqi and U.S. officials and some members of the insurgency.” Rumsfeld : “I think there have probably been many more than that.”
I don’t remember right-wingers getting outraged at this. That’s probably because Rumsfeld, war criminal though he is, is smart enough to know that an insurgency isn’t good for business, and is following on a good plan by separating the Zarqawi-crazies and the anti-U.S. resistance, which is too difficult a concept for most right-wingers to grasp.
Since negotiations are going on, and we know from the London Independent’s Feb 22 article that they definitely are, I would assume that phased withdrawals could be on the table. But don’t look for detailed discussions on this topic on cable news any time soon..
July 7th, 2005 at 10:03 amIraq would have gone differently if we had the broad support of Arab nations…..and most importantly, their troops…..this is not a coalition…American soldiers are dying….they are the soldiers in the hot-spots and…many other countries have withdrawn their troops altogether…in some instances all 24 of them. It’s not a coalition.
Hmmm, seems as if North Korea has ejected inspectors also, it’s a dictatorship, actually possesses WMD’S, Big Dick Cheney has publicly stated that Kim is essentially a tyrant who starves his people…what are we waiting for???!!!!!…..when are we invading? When are you not suiting up? I say it here and now…..if you approve of the war….go and fight…you can go in someone’s place..let them come home…..When you are done there be sure and head over to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Syria….um….Cuba….just to name a few…oh and don’t forget Afghanistan….yeah, thought you FORGOT about that one…….
July 7th, 2005 at 10:10 amI’ll tell you what the Iraqi peole want. Electricity, a sanitary place to take a dump ,clean water, food, medicine, work, money, security, safety etc. That is what any American would want under such horrible conditions. The occupier can’t even meet these basic needs, who has time for f’n politics.
July 7th, 2005 at 11:36 amAnd what happened to winning the hearts and minds of the people? By winning their respect, you make the job of insurgent hunting much easier, as the people will trust you more implicitly than those fighting against you. How come more of our boys and girls aren’t trained in Arabic? A friend of mine in the Army was discouraged from taking Arabic as another language, and was suggested to take Japanese or Spanish instead. They don’t know the basic cultural taboos, and lack of Arabic keeps them from quickly reading any documents that are found during raids, which would save time, manpower, and heartache from taking a mistakenly identified suspect. As long as we’re in it for “the long haul” we might as well make it as efficient and bloodless as possible. By knowing the people, and them knowing us, trust will follow, making our job over there easier.
July 7th, 2005 at 12:21 pmKillCon2005: thanks for the tip, but I already own several guns myself, and I have no doubt that there will be all-out civil war with the theocons in my lifetime. I’m ready.
Be that as it may, I refuse to allow myself to exhibit the same shitty traits that I abhor in my adversaries. And I will continue to apologize for those people who I feel give our side a bad name and play into the stereotypes that the right paints of us.
July 7th, 2005 at 2:12 pm“I have no doubt that there will be all-out civil war with the theocons in my lifetime. I’m ready.”
We “theocons” beat the British in 1776, we’ll beat you too. *L*
Aways remember, right-wing Christian gun nuts founded America.
July 7th, 2005 at 2:48 pmSo Editors, basically you represent the American Taliban……you must be very proud…..read on..
“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”–Benjamin Franklin
“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity [of opinion]. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.”–Thomas Jefferson
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”–Thomas Paine
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”–First Amendment to the U.S.A. Constitution
“One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian.”–The Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, p. 420
July 7th, 2005 at 2:57 pmThe “American Taliban”:
“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”
- George Washington
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
- George Washington’s farewell address, 1796
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
- Thomas Jefferson
“We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, the labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.”
- Benjamin Franklin
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
- John Adams
“…each individual has certain basic rights that are neither conferred by nor derived from the state. To discover where they came from it is necessary to move back behind the dim mist of eternity, for they are God-given…”
July 7th, 2005 at 3:05 pm- Martin Luther King Jr.
One hundred years before that, they were burning witches at the stake. Some of us like to think we have also progressed in the two hundred years since.
If you could get the Republican presidential candidate in ‘08 to run on a platform of, “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.â€?
You would be doing the Democrats a huge favor.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:47 pmThank God for Google…ha, ha, ha…(Insert Presidential Theme Music Here) “However fickle or vacillating the Founders may have been, it is just common sense to have a separation of Church and State…according to our quotes, they at least may have changed their minds…and actually devoted thought to these topics, unlike the current administration, who’s single-mindedness will never be trumped….”
“There are no atheists in foxholes!” MASH
July 7th, 2005 at 5:05 pmcynical,
I’d like to see the Democratic candidate run as an avowed atheist. America is a religious nation, religion is integral to our history.
If you hate that, you can move to France or Saudi Arabia, where they hate Christians like you do.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:46 pmEd-
You make me laugh!
Thanks for all the wonderful jokes, and please keep them coming.
July 7th, 2005 at 8:58 pmJohn S.
You’re welcome, glad to oblige. But are you sure it’s not the medications making you laugh?
July 7th, 2005 at 9:36 pmBut are you sure it’s not the medications making you laugh?
It’s not the medication, stupid! It’s the fresh fruit and vegetables and exercise!
July 8th, 2005 at 5:32 am[...] (Click here for Part I) [...]
July 8th, 2005 at 7:00 amIt’s not the medication, stupid! It’s the fresh fruit and vegetables and exercise!
Well, it is certainly that, but also the idiotic ramblings of a conservative shill that can barely string a cogent argument together.
Coupled with the fact that said shill is supremely convinced of his pwn intellectual superiority, well, it really does bring a smile to one’s face.
I wonder if Magellan laughed this hard at the people that kept telling him the world was flat after he had circumnavigated the globe…
July 8th, 2005 at 8:48 amIt’s clear that the “Editors of the American Federalist Journal” are either closeted gays or perhaps eunuchs.
July 8th, 2005 at 12:20 pmIt’s also clear that the “Editors of the American Federalist Journal� are hacks:
>>America is a religious nation, religion is integral to our history.
The founding fathers were almost ALL Unitarians/Deists : a good description would be to call the Agnostic Humanists.
http://www.famousuus.com/american.htm
They were not churchgoers – remember that the “religious” teachings were that Kings were chosen by God. Would it not be hersy to fight a King chosen by God? The reality is that most of the Colonists left Europe to ESCAPE religion.
The reality is that you are lying, and that you have no credibility. You are not “Federalist” or anything but power-driven political HACKS. Your positions and policies serve only to further comfort the comfotable and further afflict the afflicted. How you can look in the mirror without vomiting is beyond me.
July 8th, 2005 at 12:33 pm“I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature…..Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion?To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world.”
Thomas Jefferson
July 8th, 2005 at 1:12 pmThomas Jefferson attended church services in the capitol building. Unconstitutional theocracy! *L*
July 8th, 2005 at 5:37 pmSo did I, but what does that mean? Nothing.
July 9th, 2005 at 7:38 pmThomas Jefferson attended church services in the capitol building. Unconstitutional theocracy! *L*
Not today. He most definitely wouldn’t. And I would approve.
July 9th, 2005 at 8:30 pmsports betting system
Please take a look at the pages on bETTING LINE ON us OPEN GOLF
October 12th, 2005 at 12:31 amIf the majority of Iraq want us out then we should abide. Many people say that this may lead to genocide and, “…rivers of blood” but what is more democratic than allowing the majority to rule. Yes, there will be collateral damage but at least it wont be our soldiers while they are directed to right something that we couldn’t possibly correct. The Iraqi people do not think like we do. They don’t understand democracy but they do understand freedom. Why do democracy and freedom always go hand…it doesn’t. Some people need a “boss” but cant the boss that gives direction also allow freedoms. Democracy and freedom are all we know and if some force tried to tell us different…would we not oppose?
November 17th, 2006 at 11:54 amoil futures chart
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..
March 21st, 2008 at 10:41 amhot arabic girl
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:11 amPee Public Pee Public Pissing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 12:52 pmgovernment grants for school
Hi there. Just read your info. Gotta say – nice site! You can see my government grants for small business website.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:33 pmYoung Girls Young Girl Models Young Puffy Nipple
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 5th, 2008 at 12:27 pmPee Female Pee Pee Hole
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 12th, 2008 at 10:52 am