Bush or Kerry: slam the US!

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by unregistered

sooner or later, the population has to be addressed
and we MUST do first at home what we would then tell others to do

There is an interesting article in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs, called The Global Baby Bust (Phillip Longman). Longman's major premise is that the world population growth is actually now on the backside of the curve. He makes a very good argument based on hard data.

Some of his ideas on China's long-term economic growth are interesting, basically they have only about 20 years of sustained economic growth then their population will dramatically decline thus dramatically shrinking there economy. He sites the ratio of men to women in China.

Most interesting is his view of the EU. He shows that countries like France are "living dead" because the average age of their native populations are past their productive years and going into retirement. Moreover, that the younger populations of African and ME coming into EU countries are not highly skilled.

It is a very interesting read. One that changed my perspective on a few long held assumptions of our world.

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Wow, Bill thats getting a little 1932ish

The eugenics movement did start in the US. Heinlein picked up on that one as well (Methuselah stories) albeit not on the sterilization part.. The interesting part about his life (for me) is that he did not have himself frozen after death (Door into Summer).
Oh and way, way back at the beginning of this thread, on Phaestus' mention of "the Jesus party" I found myself thinking of his "If This Goes On" (revolution against a theocracy in the once-US).
Interesting that the Marines should read Troopers. Too bad about the movie. Of course, beyond eye candy, the point Verhoeven was making was about totalitarian societies - which BillA's sterilization fits right into.

So much for being SF literate.

Recently, I've been wondering if the best thing might be to try to organize Iraq into states/regions/whatever and let them decide if they want to stay together. Why should we impose a British-made border on them? The Turks'll have a fit over Kurdistan, the Iranians will try to absorb the south, but wouldn't this actually give the Sunnis less reason to fight. They've lost their control of the country and, with democracy, are facing a tyrany of the majority (something Dems here in the US might understand... :-))

[BillA]

re Iraq
the probable end point

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by bobkoure

Interesting that the Marines should read Troopers. Too bad about the movie.

Despite popular belief Marines can read a little I think some of the philosophies expressed in the book fit into the Marine Corps philosophy about our place as individual Marines/citizens and the role of the Corps as an institution. I also think the book borrowed heavily from Plato's Republic...it's much easier to get an 18-21 year old to read Sci-Fi than the dry ramblings of a dead guy Only we effete old farts have a real appreciation for such things.

The movie did suck, I was very disappointed. However, it is rare to have a movie come close to a book in terms of depth.

Originally Posted by bobkoure

Recently, I've been wondering if the best thing might be to try to organize Iraq into states/regions/whatever and let them decide if they want to stay together. Why should we impose a British-made border on them? The Turks'll have a fit over Kurdistan, the Iranians will try to absorb the south, but wouldn't this actually give the Sunnis less reason to fight. They've lost their control of the country and, with democracy, are facing a tyrany of the majority (something Dems here in the US might understand... :-))

From what I experienced in Iraq, they are a very nationalistic people, despite the ethnic issues. They all fear the other ethnic groups will start a civil war but none really wants to divide the country. I think now that some of the more radical elements in the Sunni provinces have been removed the Sunnis will buy into the democratic process. Politically this is a lot like South Africa once apartheid was lifted. Like white South Africans most of the Sunnis will still have the benefit of better education and expertise running the large institutions thus they will still have a large roll in the new order.

[superart]

Originally Posted by unregistered

sooner or later, the population has to be addressed
and we MUST do first at home what we would then tell others to do

it does not have to be the violent scheme you allude to
implant a no-concieve chip at birth, deactivate it upon completion of service

Tell me your joking.

Who would be in charge of deciding when someone's service is paid? What would be enough service to have the right to procreate turned on?

What would it take for this system to evolve into a way to prevent descent against government and popular opinion? "Person X has displayed signs of "un-patriotism", which leads us to believe that he is not appreciative of his great government that gives him lots and lots of freedom. In order to to prevent him from corrupting the future generation, his chip shall be turned on. Furthermore, in order to instill appreciation for his great great government that grants him lots and lots of freedom, he will be sent to a special camp where he will perform service to his nation until he has realized how good his government is. This is, of course, all for his own good, as well as the good of his fellow nation"

[BillA]

hey, better put some extra features in the silicon

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Despite popular belief Marines can read a little

There was never a doubt5 in my mind

I also think the book borrowed heavily from Plato's Republic...

Yep - or at least it was one of the underpinnings of the 1940s - 50s conservative philosophy - which I don't necessarily disagree with (well, I had issues with Edward Teller's approach to foreign policy ).

it's much easier to get an 18-21 year old to read Sci-Fi than the dry ramblings of a dead guy

So... are they reading other Heinlein works? Wondering how Stranger might go over in the Corps...

The movie did suck, I was very disappointed.

Me too - it was a lot worse than missing depth, though - they turned it into a parody. Sad when that's done to a favorite book...

I think now that some of the more radical elements in the Sunni provinces have been removed the Sunnis will buy into the democratic process.

Of course that leaves open the question of whether the Kurds want anything to do with them. I'm just suggesting we let them choose - sort of the way Puerto Rico gets to choose every so often.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by bobkoure

Yep - or at least it was one of the underpinnings of the 1940s - 50s conservative philosophy

I think it is very interesting to contrast our "use" of Plato's Republic and compare it with the Nazi approach. Family, not necessarly "Family Values", has always been the center of our conservative values vice the state. However, the Nazis put the state above family units. I think in doing so they lost a great deal of the morality, which develops from familial bonds.

Originally Posted by bobkoure

So... are they reading other Heinlein works? Wondering how Stranger might go over in the Corps...

No but Enders Game was also required reading...it is still on the list so is Troopers

Here is a link to the list if you are curious.

Originally Posted by bobkoure

Of course that leaves open the question of whether the Kurds want anything to do with them. I'm just suggesting we let them choose - sort of the way Puerto Rico gets to choose every so often.

Actually, the Kurds are totally on board with the plan, in many ways they will, and have been allot like Puerto Rico, semi-autonomous. Over time, there will be less division, just as things evolved here in the US.

[Guderian]

But if we start dividing up Iraq into cultural zones, we would be shooting ourselves in the foot by setting a precedent we wouldn't necessarily want to follow (in the Balkans).

We need to develop nationalism on a national scale, not reduce the nation to suit its current cultural divisions.

[Evarus]

it would basicaly be like northen ireland and ireland.... and look that has now been going on for ages!

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Guderian

We need to develop nationalism on a national scale, not reduce the nation to suit its current cultural divisions.

Cultural Zones...my girlfriend is from Texas and you would swear it was a separate country from the way she talks about it.

See my point

Evarus-That mess seems more a classic issue of "Haves and Have-nots" vice a real cultural divide. Honestly, the whole Catholic and Protestant thing seems to be a mask for what are now real economic problems.

[Guderian]

Cultural Zones...my girlfriend is from Texas and you would swear it was a separate country from the way she talks about it.

As am I, and I agree, sometimes we act as if we are our own country. But we also recognize that we are a (large) part of a country that is very different from us, and sometimes we have to put aside our differences and work together.

The main reason we(US) are able to do this is the fact that we are nearly devoid of single generation oppressors/oppressees ( IE There isn't anyone who has been signifcantly oppressed in their generation now living side by side with their real or imagined oppressors.)

The hardest part of Nation building is the developement and maintenance of trust between the different cultures. The only way to help this along is free press without the biases of the west (Fox News, CBS), or the mid-east (Al Jazeera, Al Arabia). Unfortunately, sensationalism seems to be the only thing that sells these days.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Guderian

As am I, and I agree, sometimes we act as if we are our own country. But we also recognize that we are a (large) part of a country that is very different from us, and sometimes we have to put aside our differences and work together.

The main reason we(US) are able to do this is the fact that we are nearly devoid of single generation oppressors/oppressees ( IE There isn't anyone who has been signifcantly oppressed in their generation now living side by side with their real or imagined oppressors.)

I agree but the attitude is a left over from the early days of the Republic when States were really States, not just a province. Let us not forget our own differences did lead us to civil war and ultimately reconciliation. However, you still hear murmurings in some parts of the south, although it is now mostly "tug and cheek"

I agree with you that in the case of Iraq maintaining the nation state of Iraq is in everyone’s best interest. Further, the average Iraqi sees this as well. However, there are some cases, visa vi, Yugoslavia where maintaining a nation state is imposable and new boarders need to be drawn.

Originally Posted by Guderian

The hardest part of Nation building is the developement and maintenance of trust between the different cultures. The only way to help this along is free press without the biases of the west (Fox News, CBS), or the mid-east (Al Jazeera, Al Arabia). Unfortunately, sensationalism seems to be the only thing that sells these days.

I think that the news has far less effect on the people living in Iraq then it does on the people living outside Iraq.

[Lothar5150]

Well it looks like the Bush policy to ensure and spread democracy around the world is consistent. We are speaking up about the Ukrainian election, even if we may loose their support in Iraq.

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

consistent

Yup. Even as your Federal Election Commission processes complaints against the anti-Bush "human Halliburton" George Soros, the Bush administration plays right along with this latest production, as it did in Georgia. Consistency emerges.

There really were irregularities, that was plain to foreign observers. All fingers point to Viktor. Reminds me of how a person can listen to some crappy music, but ask who it is before passing judgement.

Ah well, power to the astroturf. The photographers love it.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Yup. Even as your Federal Election Commission processes complaints against the anti-Bush "human Halliburton" George Soros, the Bush administration plays right along with this latest production, as it did in Georgia. Consistency emerges.

There really were irregularities, that was plain to foreign observers. All fingers point to Viktor. Reminds me of how a person can listen to some crappy music, but ask who it is before passing judgement.

Ah well, power to the astroturf. The photographers love it.

Honestly Kobuchi, I really don't know what you are trying to say. :shrug:

[bobkoure]

I hope you're having a good thanksgiving, in spite of being so far from home...

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by bobkoure

I hope you're having a good thanksgiving, in spite of being so far from home...

If that was to me, I appreciate the thought but I'm fortunate to be home. I Just finished dinner with My family...on behalf of the Marines away from home...Thanks

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Honestly Kobuchi, I really don't know what you are trying to say. :shrug:

Wikipedia: astroturfing

Example: Aljazeera: Lebanese march to back Syrian troops

Contrast Ukraine's city of orange tents.

The Bush policy regarding people power is "consistent" - the voices inharmonious with his interests aren't heard. The majority of Iraqis surveyed by a CNN/ABC News sponsored Gallup poll responded yes the US and its allies should leave immediately, even if it means the security situation will deteriorate. A nihilist majority? Then there are the optimists who believe the situation will improve after US forces leave. Is the Bush admin "speaking up" about the overwhelming popular will of all those people? On the contrary, it confidently predicts the elected government of Iraq "will invite" US forces to remain.

As for his own own shaky support, President Bush observes, "When you win, there is a feeling that people have spoken and embraced your point of view", and vows, "I've earned capital in this election and I'm going to spend it". Imagine if Yanukovych had claimed such endorsement at his own election.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Wikipedia: astroturfing

Example: Aljazeera: Lebanese march to back Syrian troops

Contrast Ukraine's city of orange tents.

The Bush policy regarding people power is "consistent" - the voices inharmonious with his interests aren't heard. The majority of Iraqis surveyed by a CNN/ABC News sponsored Gallup poll responded yes the US and its allies should leave immediately, even if it means the security situation will deteriorate. A nihilist majority? Then there are the optimists who believe the situation will improve after US forces leave. Is the Bush admin "speaking up" about the overwhelming popular will of all those people? On the contrary, it confidently predicts the elected government of Iraq "will invite" US forces to remain.

I have a Gallup account and I have attempted to find that poll, However, I did find these polls.

Let us look at some intellectually honest ground truth per Gallup.

Gallup, in partnership with CNN and USA Today, conducted 3,444 70-minute, in-home, in-person interviews with a nationally representative sample of Iraqis in 350 separate locations throughout the country in late March and early April 2004. The resulting data offer a wealth of insight on the current climate of opinion among Iraqis nationwide.

"While 61% of all Iraqis believe that Saddam Hussein's ouster was "worth" any hardships they have personally suffered since the invasion, opinion is sharply divided on whether the country itself is better off. Forty-two percent believe the country is in a better situation than before the invasion (31% "somewhat better off," 11% "much better off"), but nearly as many (39%) hold a contrary assessment (24% "somewhat worse off," 15% "much worse off"). Similarly, the third of Iraqis (33%) who say the coalition invasion of Iraq has "done more good than harm" are offset by a larger proportion (46%) who say that thus far, the invasion has "done more harm than good."

Furthermore, sentiment often divides sharply along ethnic and sectarian lines. For example, members of Iraq's Kurdish minority are overwhelmingly likely (87%) to view the country as better off now (somewhat: 51%, much: 36%). However, only a third of Iraq's ethnic Arabs (33%) share this positive appraisal (somewhat better off: 27%, much better off: 5%).

Similarly, perspectives and perceptions in overwhelmingly Sunni areas* can differ dramatically from those in strongly Shiite areas**. One particularly stark example is the fact that nearly three-quarters (74%) of those in overwhelmingly Shiite provinces and neighborhoods believe that the ouster of Hussein was "worth" any subsequent hardships, while only about a quarter (28%) of those in heavily Sunni areas share this assessment. "

"Hopes, Dreams, and Fears

When Gallup asked Iraqis to articulate their hopes for the future, a basic desire for security easily topped the list of replies.

Nearly half (47%) of the 3,444 Iraqis interviewed volunteered a desire for stability and security as their greatest dream. This percentage is significantly larger than the 20% who hope that the country will develop to a standard equivalent of that in other advanced countries, or the 16% who wish for a democratic form of government.

Somewhat smaller percentages of Iraqis referred to their desire for coalition forces to leave Iraq (13%) , for the country to be free, sovereign, and independent (12%), and for the future to be one of unity and cooperation between the country's sectarian and ethnic groups (9%)."

That hardly sounds like a people whom are glib about their collective security.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

As for his own own shaky support, President Bush observes, "When you win, there is a feeling that people have spoken and embraced your point of view", and vows, "I've earned capital in this election and I'm going to spend it". Imagine if Yanukovych had claimed such endorsement at his own election.

Bush won honestly in both the electoral collage and the popular vote. This is not disputed in the US or Internationally. He did earn some political capital that normally happens when any elected politician wins; I fail to see the equivalence.

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Nearly half (47%) of the 3,444 Iraqis interviewed volunteered a desire for stability and security... or the 16% who wish for a democratic form of government... Somewhat smaller percentages of Iraqis referred to their desire for coalition forces to leave Iraq (13%)

Aha. So what they really want is a US military dictatorship. They plainly have less desire for democratic government, in that translation of the survey.

And I thought Iraq had to be shoved into chaos on behalf of Iraqis who secretly crave democracy, silly me.


But we could play with these statistics 'till Armageddon, especially as neither of us know the true phrasing or structure of the surveys, and then we're reading someone's selective interpretation of the results. I remember there was a much cited survey last year that had asked Iraqis if they felt more secure then or at the end of March (while Saddam's regime was still in power). Of course most Iraqis would think mainly of the bombing, power outages, etc. when recalling the end of March, but their answer was taken to mean relief the Ba'ath party had been abolished by the Coalition Authority. Likewise you could get sharply different answers from me by asking if I approve of "the Saddam regime", or, "Iraq's Ba'ath party", yet most westerners would think that the same question.

I'm confident the vast majority of Iraqis would like the occupiers to start leaving today. Pollsters can insert all sorts of conditions in that like, "even if you blow up?", "even if you starve?", or "even if that makes everything worse?" and so forth, but the basic sentiment is still true, I believe. For some reasons you believe most Iraqis want US troops there. They have to like it. I think that vision will grow eventually ridiculous (as have previous visions of Iraq), but by then we'll have yet another "unforeseeable" crisis unfolding, so Iraqi consent of US military/political intervention can be a moot point and you may avoid embarrassment.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Bush won honestly in both the electoral collage and the popular vote. This is not disputed in the US or Internationally.

Barring international monitors from the states of key interest did raise some eyebrows.

Let's take a rude gauge of controversy:
Google "Yanukovych election fraud" = 72,100 results
Google "Bush election fraud" = 1,300,000 results
Now, even admitting some pages in the second search happen to mention Bush but are really about Yanukovych, we still have 1,227,900 pages with just "Bush" and "election fraud" to account for. That's a lot of people behind all those unique pages. I'm surprised by the volume. We haven't even considered like-minded readership. You sure it's "not disputed"?

My own opinion is that election fraud in the US is unthinkable. I don't question the fact of your President winning a second term.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

He did earn some political capital that normally happens when any elected politician wins; I fail to see the equivalence.

"When any" and no "equivalence" in the same sentence? You contradict yourself neatly.

Yanukovych won with a better margin than Bush. Now Yanukovych is saying there should be new elections, but neither he nor Yushenko should run in them. He says neither can unify the country, and the unity of Ukraine is paramount. Contrast Bush saying that Americans "stand behind" him, "determined", even that they "embrace (his) point of view", and so on. Again, just imagine Yanukovych declaring Ukrainians stand behind him while riot police and road blocks break the protester's siege of government buildings. Imagine Bush offering to step down because his election is too divisive. There can be no equivalence in your mind? Why not?

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Aha. So what they really want is a US military dictatorship. They plainly have less desire for democratic government, in that translation of the survey.

And I thought Iraq had to be shoved into chaos on behalf of Iraqis who secretly crave democracy, silly me.

No Kobuchi, all that data shows is that people put security at the top of the list. This rational human response. We are far from establishing a dictatorship; in fact, you may have read that there will be elections in January.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

But we could play with these statistics 'till Armageddon, especially as neither of us know the true phrasing or structure of the surveys, and then we're reading someone's selective interpretation of the results.

I do and the cut and paste is directly from the Gallup site. By the way, where is the link to your data?

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

I remember there was a much cited survey last year that had asked Iraqis if they felt more secure then or at the end of March (while Saddam's regime was still in power). Of course most Iraqis would think mainly of the bombing, power outages, etc. when recalling the end of March, but their answer was taken to mean relief the Ba'ath party had been abolished by the Coalition Authority. Likewise you could get sharply different answers from me by asking if I approve of "the Saddam regime", or, "Iraq's Ba'ath party", yet most westerners would think that the same question.

Your full of it Kobuchi, you are the one who sited polls, now that I am hanging you with your own rope you want to invalidate the polls. At least attempt to be intellectually honest.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

I'm confident the vast majority of Iraqis would like the occupiers to start leaving today. Pollsters can insert all sorts of conditions in that like, "even if you blow up?", "even if you starve?", or "even if that makes everything worse?" and so forth, but the basic sentiment is still true, I believe. For some reasons you believe most Iraqis want US troops there. They have to like it. I think that vision will grow eventually ridiculous (as have previous visions of Iraq), but by then we'll have yet another "unforeseeable" crisis unfolding, so Iraqi consent of US military/political intervention can be a moot point and you may avoid embarrassment.

This is your problem Kabouchi; you inject your opinion into a supporting premise. A good supporting premise should consist of facts or data supporting a conclusion. If you are going to attempt to support a conclusion based on opinion you need to have expert qualification or personal experience in the matter...you have nether. Therefore, you should stick to support via qualified third parties.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Barring international monitors from the states of key interest did raise some eyebrows.

Here is another example of you using your opinion to support a premise. I have held on to this one for a while. How many times have you stated we kicked out international observers?
Click and Enjoy the Crow

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

all that data shows is that people put security at the top of the list. This rational human response.

Yes. That's why the issue of whether or not they want US forces in the country (or a democratic government) can't be addressed cleanly within the framework of that survey. Foremost, as you say, they wish to survive.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Your full of it Kobuchi, you are the one who sited polls, now that I am hanging you with your own rope you want to invalidate the polls. At least attempt to be intellectually honest.

Sure. I believe polls by their nature take issues out of context. They shouldn't be read at face value. I think we both see that.

Now, I believe that a strong majority of Iraqis today, if asked directly with no conditions attached (uncoerced), if they'd like US forces to leave, would say, "yes". You could argue that meaningless in the absence of other conditions. I'm confident that so long as US forces remain in Iraq there will somehow always be conditions to justify continued occupation. We'll see different causes behind those conditions. I'll blame US interventions, call it a self-fulfilling truth; you'll blame Iraqis or other foreigners, say it just happens. I think that you could eventually take the position that Iraqis didn't really want US intervention, but that this is irrelevant because we have to deal with present realities. I believe that this context of insecurity in Iraq a direct result of US occupation.

For now, you appear to be arguing that Iraqis, all coercion aside, don't really mind US forces in their country. Now your turn to be honest.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

How many times have you stated we kicked out international observers?

Zero. My words: "Barring international monitors from the states of key interest"

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

you should stick to support via qualified third parties.
Click and Enjoy the Crow

OK, I'll paste from your link then:
"The OSCE observers were able to assess aspects of the pre-election environment and were granted access to polling stations in a number of states, sometimes only in specific counties. The OSCE believes that in order to further enhance transparency and to meet U.S. international commitments, Congress and individual states should consider introducing legal provisions allowing unimpeded access for international observers invited by the U.S. government."

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Yes. That's why the issue of whether or not they want US forces in the country (or a democratic government) can't be addressed cleanly within the framework of that survey. Foremost, as you say, they wish to survive.

Sure. I believe polls by their nature take issues out of context. They shouldn't be read at face value. I think we both see that.

Don’t site anymore poll then. I only used the Gallup Poll because you mentioned a supposed Gallup taken in Iraq. In fact, that poll does not exist. However, the poll I sited does. 13% said that they want American Troops out…hardly a majority

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Now, I believe that a strong majority of Iraqis today, if asked directly with no conditions attached (uncoerced), if they'd like US forces to leave, would say, "yes". You could argue that meaningless in the absence of other conditions. I'm confident that so long as US forces remain in Iraq there will somehow always be conditions to justify continued occupation. We'll see different causes behind those conditions.

Your belief holds no weight you need at least two premises sighting some qualified evidence. Have you been to Iraq, had tea and talked with Iraqis. I did think so. On the other hand, I have. I can make a statement about my belief and have some credibility. Further, my opinion backed by a reputable third party…Gallup.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

I'll blame US interventions, call it a self-fulfilling truth; you'll blame Iraqis or other foreigners, say it just happens. I think that you could eventually take the position that Iraqis didn't really want US intervention, but that this is irrelevant because we have to deal with present realities. I believe that this context of insecurity in Iraq a direct result of US occupation.

You can blame the security situation on the US. After all, it is our legal and moral obligation as an occupying force. However, the alternative was total security and with a totalitarian state. Which practiced state sponsored torture, murder and rape in order to insure stability. Say what you will, Iraq is about to become the first Arab Democracy thanks to the USA and allies.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

For now, you appear to be arguing that Iraqis, all coercion aside, don't really mind US forces in their country. Now your turn to be honest.

No that is not what I am arguing. The Iraqis would prefer not to have a foreign power occupying them. Just as any country would not want to be occupied. However, they will tolerate occupation in order to insure that civil war does not erupt or anarchy to insure.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Zero. My words: "Barring international monitors from the states of key interest”

Kobuchi how about the first paragraph in the article. At no time did the OSCE believe the elections were rigged in any way.

WASHINGTON, D.C., 4 November 2004 - The 2 November elections in the United States were conducted in an environment that reflects a longstanding democratic tradition, including institutions governed by rule of law, free and professional media and an active civil society involved in all aspects of the election process.

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Don’t site anymore poll then. I only used the Gallup Poll because you mentioned a supposed Gallup taken in Iraq. In fact, that poll does not exist. However, the poll I sited does. 13% said that they want American Troops out…hardly a majority.

I incorrectly named the survey sponsors ABC and CNN, when in fact we're both reading from the same USA Today and CNN sponsored Gallop poll.

Confirm my link (USATODAY.COM)

Now let's clear this up. I'd said earlier that, according to this poll, 61% of Iraqis wanted US forces to leave immediately. That number comes from question G8:

"Should US/British forces leave immediately (next few months) or stay longer?"


Baghdad
Immediately 75%
Stay longer 21%

Shi’ite areas
Immediately 61%
Stay longer 30%

[]Sunni areas[/i]
Immediately 65%
Stay longer 27%

Kurdish areas
Immediately 3%
Stay longer 96%

Total
Immediately 57%
Stay longer 36%

OK?

Now, your "13% said that they want American Troops out…hardly a majority" plainly doesn't come from this part of the survey. But it is from the same survey: the unscripted portion where "Gallup asked Iraqis to articulate", in other words to freely offer their opinions, as they came to mind. 13% repeated or elaborated on their answer "leave immediately" to question G8.

All we can draw from this 13% is that they feel just answering "leave immediately" isn't enough.

So according to Gallup we had a majority wanting US/British forces to leave immediately (within a few months), and we can guess many of the others wanted US/British forces to have left some time after that.

OK?

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Further, my opinion backed by a reputable third party…Gallup.

Now what?

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

the alternative was total security and with a totalitarian state. Which practiced state sponsored torture, murder and rape...

Occupation by foreign superpower or torture, murder, and rape? You should write polls.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Iraq is about to become the first Arab Democracy thanks to the USA and allies.

I wish. If this comes true, my son will be extracting the $20,000 (I think that's about it - BillA?) yours owes. Do you really want Iraq in a position to sell oil on its own terms, as best profits the Iraqi people? Got euros in your mattress?

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

they will tolerate occupation in order to insure that civil war does not erupt or anarchy to insure.

A wiser programme.

***

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Kobuchi how about the first paragraph in the article. At no time did the OSCE believe the elections were rigged in any way.

WASHINGTON, D.C., 4 November 2004 - The 2 November elections in the United States were conducted in an environment that reflects a longstanding democratic tradition, including institutions governed by rule of law, free and professional media and an active civil society involved in all aspects of the election process.

Never mind that paragraph, read this one. This first paragraph describes the background.

I repeat my position: the elections were not rigged. There was no electoral fraud.

I'll back my statement that there is controversy about the elections. Here's what the OSCE Preliminary Report had to say:
"Allegations of electoral fraud and voter suppression, primarily among minorities,
were widely reported and presented to the EOM in the pre-election period. The EOM is concerned that the widespread nature of these allegations may undermine
confidence in the electoral process."

I'll also back my statement that international observers were denied the access they wanted.
"OSCE observers were granted access to polling stations in a number of states. Access was sometimes limited to specific counties or to specific polling stations within a particular county. In those places where access was granted, OSCE observers noted that the key elements of HAVA were being implemented. There were, however, a number of concerns."

These are just facts you've challenged. I'm not denying the Republican party should be in power for the next four years.