Guy who threw shoe at Bush gets a monument in Iraq

[Lord of the Abyss]

Yeah, so your reasoning boils down to "rar they work with America!11"

Yes, it does. They are collaborators and traitors; why should I trust them ?

Oh, give me a break. You're going to have to do a bit more than assume guilt by association.

Like what ? A fair trial after an objective investigation ? There's no chance of that.

Like I said, the street goes both ways. Demonstrate to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they're lying.

How ?

Why don't YOU demonstrate "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it isn't all yet another lie ?

Is this "unsubstantiated liberal conspiracy" hour or something? You think the 5k people questioned did it out of fear of being taken away by Americans if they said otherwise? Do you have any evidence of this?

Human nature. Do you EXPECT honesty from people who have been conquered and occupied ? And that assuming that the "5k people questioned" even actually exist. And what about the other polls that have shown majority support for killing Americans ?

The pro war side has again and again proven itself to be both dishonest and delusional. As far as I'm concerned, anything they say is a lie until proven otherwise.

[Ryan Thunder]

Yeah, so your reasoning boils down to "rar they work with America!11"

Yes, it does. They are collaborators and traitors; why should I trust them ?

Traitors to whom? Saddam Hussein?

Demonstrate to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they're lying.

How ?

Why don't YOU demonstrate "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it isn't all yet another lie ?

They're innocent until proven otherwise. If you can't find evidence that they're lying, that's not my problem.

Human nature. Do you EXPECT honesty from people who have been conquered and occupied ? And that assuming that the "5k people questioned" even actually exist.

Yes, I expect honesty from people liberated by a bloody war, and that's possibly the stupidest thing I've read all day, respectively.

And what about the other polls that have shown majority support for killing Americans ?

Post them.

The pro war side has again and again proven itself to be both dishonest and delusional. As far as I'm concerned, anything they say is a lie until proven otherwise.

That's fucking gold.

After presuming guilt and strawmanning my position, he calls me delusional and dishonest.

[18-Till-I-Die]

See this is what really gets me about conservatives, they literally DO NOT FUCKING GRASP that they did anything wrong.

I mean really.

Lets just throw our cards on the table ok?

At the end of the day, people in Iraq are not one iota safer now than they were under Saddam, indeed they're several times LESS SAFE than they were a few years ago. Half their country is so bombed out it looks like the surface of the moon, the other half has little or no utilities (power, water, et al) and hundreds of thousands of their people are FUCKING DEAD. Do you people understand what dead is? Do you want me to give you a link to the Wikipedia article so you can read more about it?

And what do conservatives say to this, what possible argument do they have to refute these claims? Well not ones founded in reality by God, cause reality HAET Republicans. So what fucking argument is it? "Oh well, the Kurds have tourism now, and, like, a bunch of people (5000 out of a country of several million, natch) say they love us so huggy, muggy much."

This is literally the crux of everything wrong with conservatives. They literally do not, can not, grasp that these points, true or not, are completely irrelevent. Iraq...is not a country anymore. It's a crater, and the only reason it IS a crater is because we bombed the living fuck out of it and, driven by sheer ineptitude, allowed crime and despotism after the fact to run roughshod across the place. It's practically like teh Road Warrior at this point, i almost expect that we'd actually have a better chance of settling this if we sent Mel Gibson over there with a dingo and a 70's musscle car to handle the matter, i mean having starred in the original he should be a shoe in for the remake right?

Who fucking cares if they were able to get a few thousand people (assuming they even exist) to say how much they hated Saddam. How does that change the fact that we've annihilated their country and if it goes Balkan on us, we'll be lucky. Who cares if the Kurds are living the life now, they were a nest of revolutionaries before anyway and five seconds from breaking off as it is, and THAT will only cause even more problems if the Turks get angry at the idea of a sovereign Kurdistan on their doorstep. Who cares about weather or not Saddam was a mean old man, because apparently, he was at least twice as competent a leader as anyone we've had in the last decade or so because he managed to keep Iraq from catching fire and exploding...something Americans seem scientifically incapable of accomplishing.

But yea, tourism, that REALLY matters *I'm a smarmy asshole*.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Yeah, so your reasoning boils down to "rar they work with America!11"

Yes, it does. They are collaborators and traitors; why should I trust them ?

Traitors to whom? Saddam Hussein?

Iraq, obviously.

Demonstrate to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they're lying.

How ?

Why don't YOU demonstrate "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it isn't all yet another lie ?

The fact that war supporters are the ones who say something is grounds for reasonable doubt about that something. When one side in an argument lies again and again and again, it becomes rational to assume that everything they say is a lie.

Human nature. Do you EXPECT honesty from people who have been conquered and occupied ? And that assuming that the "5k people questioned" even actually exist.

Yes, I expect honesty from people liberated by a bloody war, and that's possibly the stupidest thing I've read all day, respectively.

In what way were they liberated ? If anything they have less freedom, and less of everything else.

And what about the other polls that have shown majority support for killing Americans ?

Post them.

Looking; my old links are dead.

The pro war side has again and again proven itself to be both dishonest and delusional. As far as I'm concerned, anything they say is a lie until proven otherwise.

That's fucking gold.

After presuming guilt and strawmanning my position, he calls me delusional and dishonest.

Or simply vermin, if you support the war. If you support the war, you deserve nothing but contempt and hatred.

[Rye]

Human nature. Do you EXPECT honesty from people who have been conquered and occupied ? And that assuming that the "5k people questioned" even actually exist.

So it is unsubstantiated liberal conspiracy hour. After all, if the BBC report something you don't agree with, the people must be lying or nonexistent and the BBC just want to paint that picture.

And what about the other polls that have shown majority support for killing Americans ?

What about them (assuming you're actually repeating something accurate heard elsewhere and are not just making it up)? Wait, wait, wait, that response doesn't make sense. You just said "Do you EXPECT honesty from people who have been conquered and occupied ? And that assuming that the "5k people questioned" even actually exist." So, uh, does that rule not apply anymore? I wish I could have my cake and eat it too.

The pro war side has again and again proven itself to be both dishonest and delusional. As far as I'm concerned, anything they say is a lie until proven otherwise.

Amusingly, your level of proof includes ignoring any proof offered and assumptions of conspiracy. How about you provide proof of these things beyond literally useless "human nature" assertions and assumptions of Iraqi stupidity?

If you support the war, you deserve nothing but contempt and hatred.

So you hold the Kurds who supported the war, gassed and oppressed by Saddam Hussein, in contempt and hatred. Good to know that your blind, idiot partisanship is so willing to dismiss the voices of Iraqis in the Iraq war.

[Axis Kast]

Iraq, obviously.

This is a completely arbitrary standard. In short, you've self-righteously arrogated to yourself the privilege of determining what is, or is not, appropriate political behavior in Iraq. Seems that George Bush and the "war whores" are in good company.

Equally amusing is that you obviously believe that only a "free and independent" Iraq, exercising something close to perfect popular democracy, is a morally acceptable end-state, while ignoring that George Bush has done more to take Iraq toward that destination that did anybody before him.

Newsflash: the average Iraqi Security Forces soldier is at least associated with an outfit fighting for an ideal society. What do you think sectarian militias are responsible for? I may sympathize with somebody who believes there is no choice -- that he must take up arms to defend his neighborhood, livelihood, and blood relatives. But I don't delude myself into believing that those militias represent a political ideology worth five cents.

The fact that war supporters are the ones who say something is grounds for reasonable doubt about that something. When one side in an argument lies again and again and again, it becomes rational to assume that everything they say is a lie.

Garbage. Nobody here has lied to you. If you cannot address cogent argument, just say so.

Klavo remarked that Iraqis have far more leave to criticize their government today than they did seven years ago. That is true. He was then shouted down by people who tried to disprove the adjective "more" by arguing as if Klavo had said "perfect" or "completely acceptable; needing no revision."

In what way were they liberated ? If anything they have less freedom, and less of everything else.

They have less safety from random violence, not less freedom.

[Rye]

See this is what really gets me about conservatives, they literally DO NOT FUCKING GRASP that they did anything wrong.

Are you saying I'm a conservative?

And what do conservatives say to this, what possible argument do they have to refute these claims? Well not ones founded in reality by God, cause reality HAET Republicans. So what fucking argument is it? "Oh well, the Kurds have tourism now, and, like, a bunch of people (5000 out of a country of several million, natch) say they love us so huggy, muggy much."

Are you saying that those 5000 are not representative? Do you have any evidence for this? Are you saying the kurds do not matter?

This is literally the crux of everything wrong with conservatives. They literally do not, can not, grasp that these points, true or not, are completely irrelevent. Iraq...is not a country anymore. It's a crater, and the only reason it IS a crater is because we bombed the living fuck out of it and, driven by sheer ineptitude, allowed crime and despotism after the fact to run roughshod across the place. It's practically like teh Road Warrior at this point, i almost expect that we'd actually have a better chance of settling this if we sent Mel Gibson over there with a dingo and a 70's musscle car to handle the matter, i mean having starred in the original he should be a shoe in for the remake right?

You'd be better off reading this. Frankly, your whole post reeks of an American who's had his view of Iraq dictated by news media images with no accounting for how the media selects shots and stories.

Who fucking cares if they were able to get a few thousand people (assuming they even exist) to say how much they hated Saddam. How does that change the fact that we've annihilated their country and if it goes Balkan on us, we'll be lucky.

It matters because it's the voice of the people who live there, the ultimate arbiters on whether it's better or not.

Who cares if the Kurds are living the life now, they were a nest of revolutionaries before anyway and five seconds from breaking off as it is, and THAT will only cause even more problems if the Turks get angry at the idea of a sovereign Kurdistan on their doorstep. Who cares about weather or not Saddam was a mean old man, because apparently, he was at least twice as competent a leader as anyone we've had in the last decade or so because he managed to keep Iraq from catching fire and exploding...something Americans seem scientifically incapable of accomplishing.

Woo, totalitarianism produces moderately stable societies.

But yea, tourism, that REALLY matters *I'm a smarmy asshole*.

Yeah, it does. The North is relatively safe with a quality of life and absence of oppression from the Baathist regime that existed before. The area is progressing to a more modern standard of living. The tourism and investment opportunity there are testament to this, and will actually be required to give them an economy. You, obviously, have no intention of supplying anything to Iraqis, but not everyone feels that way, especially in areas that are stable and comfortable enough to visit on holiday. But hey, you said, with typical American pride in your ignorance that they're "annihilated" and live in a blighted moonscape.

[K. A. Pital]

Are you saying the kurds do not matter?

Who decides who matters and who does not? You? The Bush Administration? Kurds do matter, but the Ossetians do not? Albanians do matter, but the Serbs do not?

Frankly, this debate was better without venturing into a territory where nothing can be said with any certainity - unless of course you are most sure that the deaths and suffering in the current war is not worse than the continued opression of the Kurds. How can you say that with a certainity? The same of course applies to your opponent, but I do see the debate is losing any hint at substance very quickly.

It matters because it's the voice of the people who live there, the ultimate arbiters on whether it's better or not.

It depends on which people are asked. Where is the poll data and the methodology behind it?

Woo, totalitarianism produces moderately stable societies.

Saddam's rule hardly classifies as totalitarian - very few societies can claim to be one, but that aside, so? Yeah, the website about "peaceful Kurdistan" is so totally representative. Of course the PKK, for example, are a fringe minority. Or are they?

The area is progressing to a more modern standard of living.

That requires substantiation - and a better one than an opinion poll, the methodology and sampling of which are not demonstrated and clarified.

But hey, you said, with typical American pride in your ignorance that they're "annihilated" and live in a blighted moonscape.

To be frank, this does indicate that the area is very, very far from anything vaguely like a "modern standard of living". Interestingly enough, the North isn't faring good on the water supply and electricity - two key measures of infrastructural health. Hmm.

But maybe I'm wrong. I do see a rather substance-less debate between two extreme viewpoints, but it's an undeniable fact that Iraq's infrastructure has gone down the shitter, causing countless deaths. Trying to say that it doesn't matter because the Kurds are better off without the opressive regime of Saddam, or that Saddam's dictatorial rule is a greater evil than hundreds of thousands of deaths is a claim that needs strong support.

More substance here, I would like to see.

[Ryan Thunder]

Yeah, so your reasoning boils down to "rar they work with America!11"

Yes, it does. They are collaborators and traitors; why should I trust them ?

You know, I should've just written "concession accepted" when you confirmed your ludicrous belief that "works with America" => "traitor" and "untrustworthy". But I'll humour you.

Traitors to whom? Saddam Hussein?

Iraq, obviously.

So, what should they be doing instead? To not be traitors, that is.

The fact that war supporters are the ones who say something is grounds for reasonable doubt about that something. When one side in an argument lies again and again and again, it becomes rational to assume that everything they say is a lie.

Oh, that's sound logic.

I really shouldn't need to point out what's wrong with this, but since your skull seems to be about as dense as uranium, I will anyways.

You assert that the negation of everything the war supporters say is true, because they are always lying. Of course, there are problems with this, the biggest one being that even if a statement is a lie, it does not imply that the negation of that statement is true.

Unless, of course, I've yet again underestimated your stupidity, and you're asserting that the authorities themselves are war supporters and therefore lying.

In what way were they liberated ? If anything they have less freedom, and less of everything else.

They vote. For women candidates and stuff. And the women can go to school. They don't have Saddam's Fedayeen hanging over their heads threatening to run them through wood chippers for looking at them the wrong way. Stuff like that.

Though I'll grant that the infrastructure has gone to shit. If I had to guess as to why it hasn't been repaired yet, its probably something to do with the insurgency knocking stuff down every chance they get.

Of course, the Americans are responsible for what the insurgency does, too, right?

After presuming guilt and strawmanning my position, he calls me delusional and dishonest.

Or simply vermin, if you support the war. If you support the war, you deserve nothing but contempt and hatred.

I'll let that slide. Even if I did support it, you'd still be an idiot for asking me to prove that the Iraqi authorities aren't lying when you made the accusation that they were.

[Rye]

Who decides who matters and who does not? You? The Bush Administration? Kurds do matter, but the Ossetians do not? Albanians do matter, but the Serbs do not?

I have no idea what the hell this means, but yes, Iraqi Kurds do matter in determining if Iraqis prefer living in modern or Baathist Iraq. Ossetia isn't in Iraq, so no, their opinions don't matter?

Frankly, this debate was better without venturing into a territory where nothing can be said with any certainity - unless of course you are most sure that the deaths and suffering in the current war is not worse than the continued opression of the Kurds. How can you say that with a certainity? The same of course applies to your opponent, but I do see the debate is losing any hint at substance very quickly.

Numerically it may be worse, however, the perception from the people who live there is that it is better, as recently as 2007:

One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.

It depends on which people are asked. Where is the poll data and the methodology behind it?

ORB did it, they're pretty respectable as far as I know.

Results are based on face-to-face interviews amongst a nationally representative sample of 5,019 adults aged 18 years + throughout Iraq.
•The standard margin of error on the sample size is +1.4%
•The methodology uses multi-stage random probability sampling and covers every one of the eighteen governorates within Iraq.
•Interviews conducted 10th – 22nd February 2007.

Their results are in pdf format here and here.

Saddam's rule hardly classifies as totalitarian

An autocratic dictator with a cult of personality who had no compunctions in using torture and mass murder on anyone who opposed him sounds pretty totalitarian to me. He kept his state in terror and formed his secret police along soviet lines. Large amounts of the Iraqi workforce were in the expressly authoritarian military, police and political militias, who would wipe out hundreds of people in sanctioned attacks.

- very few societies can claim to be one, but that aside, so? Yeah, the website about "peaceful Kurdistan" is so totally representative. Of course the PKK, for example, are a fringe minority. Or are they?

Northern Iraq was a counterpoint to 18's stereotype.

That requires substantiation - and a better one than an opinion poll, the methodology and sampling of which are not demonstrated and clarified.

I already linked to it and you link to it right after this. "An estimated 3.1% of Iraqi households - 930,000 people - are described as "food insecure" in the latest World Food Programme survey. But that represents a considerable improvement on 15.4%, the figure when the survey was last carried out in 2005. " A reduction from 15.4% down to 3.1% sounds like progress towards a more modern standard of living. TVs, cookers and fridges going up and the demand for electricity going up. They can't satisfy that demand yet, but the demand is there.

To be frank, this does indicate that the area is very, very far from anything vaguely like a "modern standard of living". Interestingly enough, the North isn't faring good on the water supply and electricity - two key measures of infrastructural health. Hmm.

I never said it was a modern country already, I said it was progressing towards one, which it is.

But maybe I'm wrong. I do see a rather substance-less debate between two extreme viewpoints, but it's an undeniable fact that Iraq's infrastructure has gone down the shitter, causing countless deaths. Trying to say that it doesn't matter because the Kurds are better off without the opressive regime of Saddam, or that Saddam's dictatorial rule is a greater evil than hundreds of thousands of deaths is a claim that needs strong support.

Which is handy since I never said that. I responded to the claims that a) Iraqis don't consider themselves "saved" (I am unaware of any polls that contradict the BBC and ORB ones I've mentioned on this, by the way), and b) their country is a total wasteland. Let's not assume I was for the war as Bush pursued it (I never was), or that I thought a war was necessarily the best course of action at all. At the same time, let's not pretend it's worse than it is, that there's no hope or that things are not getting better.

[K. A. Pital]

At the same time, let's not pretend it's worse than it is, that there's no hope or that things are not getting better.

Oh, certainly - I don't think saying that it's "the worst place ever" or that it's worse than it was a few years ago is fair - although to be more or less objective, we should be gouging the indicators of Saddam Iraq, immediate post-Saddam period and the current period for comparison to see if life has yet improved to a level better than that of the pre-invasion Iraq.

An autocratic dictator with a cult of personality who had no compunctions in using torture and mass murder on anyone who opposed him sounds pretty totalitarian to me.

That includes the absolute majority of dictatorial rule in history of the world, which is hardly a useful descriptor at all. Saddam's Iraq would be a typical despoty, but it's also true that totalitarianism is more about the level of pervasiveness of the autocracy, rather than about it's brutality or the cult of personality.

Also, thanks for providing the poll results. This is interesting, because I do believe a few years ago the polls indicating an opposite slant were mentioned in a few threads. I'll be reading this.