[Freedom]

Here are links to a survey conducted by Channel 4 news on how people within Bagdad view postwar Iraq, the coalition presence and the future. It does not paint the picture of either an absolute hell hole or a utopia. Read it and judge for yourself(remember this counts for Bagdad alone):

http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/07/we ... urvey.html

Here is the Channel 4 article explaining the poll: http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/07/we ... _poll.html

Another article painting positive light on Iraq: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedc ... ts/774.htm

Post comments on above articles if you wish. In future these surveys may help guide you're judgement on how much you hate or love America in a slightly different, yet more truthful direction.

[Demosthenes]

I can't wait for the spin on these articles. I can only imagine what the commies will try to claim about these. American propaganda run amouk I suppose. I like the very last line of the third link:

"A man who is cured of cancer does not complain about a common cold."

How true! Any problems Iraq is currently experiencing relate back to those ANY country faces post war.

Another interesting factoid that I find dispells the myth that Bush somehow controlls the American media is the point made that several pro-Saddam publications get their talking points by quoting articles from TIME flippin magazine! Articles which, incidentily have little substance, but only have the goal of making Bush & Blair look bad. So much for that rediculous theory. I believe if Bush truly controlled the media like so many want to claim, then TIME magazine would be reporting some different things entirely. Hell even FOX news hasn't reported some of the things in this article.

How very interesting...

[arcis]

The difference between fact and fiction are the dead soldiers every day, every week, every month ....

[Demosthenes]

uh...obviously you couldn't be bothered to read the links now could you? I was going to leave it at that but, why I ask myself?

First off, oh lazy one, in the first two links which concern the survey, you would find upon further study that the violence perpatrated against American troops is being carried out by a slim minority of people who report being hostile to America. (about 9%) Which in turn roughly equates to the 5% who support a return to Saddam.

Further, these deaths you so smugly trumpet about are ocurring in about 1% (yes 1 whaloping percent)of the country. This is a case, as usual where 1 man with a gun has a louder voice than 100 without one.

[Freedom]

uh...obviously you couldn't be bothered to read the links now could you? I was going to leave it at that but, why I ask myself?

First off, oh lazy one, in the first two links concerning the survey you would find upon further study that the violense pepatrated against Americans is being carried out by a slim minority of people who report being hostile to America (about 9%) which in turn roughly equates to the 5% who support a return to Saddam.

Further, these deaths you so smugly trumpet about are ocurring in about 1% (yes 1 whaloping percent)of the country. This is a case, as usual where 1 man with a gun had a louder voice than 100 without one.

Thank you!

[Boondock Saint]

Well ... all I know is I heard a republican talking head say 'Baghdad was secure' ...

That was a few days after an RPG was fired at an incoming aircraft at Saddam ... oh ... Baghdad international airport.

[arcis]

The difference between fact and fiction are questions from the american government for help in the "post war iraq " to the weasels germany and even france in old Europe. What about new Europe? Freedom fries and www.germanystinks.com. It is disgusting to see this kind of racism. America in on the best way to replace germany as the "bad boy" in history. And why do the allmighty americans need help from us cowards to control such a small antiamerican part of the people in Iraq? Just a question. I know, waking up after a nice drunkenness is always an unpleasant experience and I hope most of the american people will know, what they have to do next year.

[Delphi]

First of all, most of her don't mind the way that America is improving conditions in Iraq. Many of us do disagree with how the invasion was carried out, and how the oil was protected over human needs and Iraq's history.

Also, in reference to www.germanystinks.com, I am in disbelief that people can be that stupid.

For example, they think Hans Blix is German. He is Swedish!

[Delphi]

I have to admit. The mission statement is well written.

Dear Germany: Have you learned anything?
Dennis Prager
April 8, 2003

I grew up, as many Americans and nearly all Jews did, with a deep anger at your country. But as a young man, I began to rethink my views of Germans. Against the wishes of almost everyone I knew -- most of whom would not even buy a German product -- I decided to go to Germany. My visit in 1968, at the age of 20, was the first of at least a dozen trips to your country.

In fact, I became a defender of yours.

I argued that it was wrong to hold any German who had been younger than 13 years old during the war morally responsible for your country's horrific crimes. I chose the age of 13 because in Judaism, that is the age of moral culpability. I argued in 1968 that every German then under the age of 40 must be regarded as blameless, and we should not assume the worst of every German over 40.

I argued that because Volkswagen and Mercedes defied the Arab boycott and did business with Israel, Jews should not boycott German products.

I argued that you were our staunch ally in the Cold War in confronting Soviet Communism.

I argued, most important of all, that Germans were ashamed of their Nazi past and had learned great moral lessons from it.

The last argument, I now realize, was more hope than fact. There is no question that the vast majority of Germans are ashamed of Nazism and the Holocaust. But I am now as certain as I am sad that you learned nothing about good and evil from it, and that you are as confused morally today as you were when you supported Hitler. Not because you are evil, but because you cannot recognize evil.

This is stunning. Unlike the Japanese, who have ignored their atrocities against the Chinese and Koreans, you confronted your evil. You taught the next generations of Germans about Nazism and about the Holocaust.

It is therefore incredible that all that education about evil has produced a generation that shies away from judging, let alone confronting, evil. It boggles the mind that a nation that was liberated from Nazism solely by armies waging war should embrace pacifism, that a nation that saw what appeasement of evil leads to now embraces it.

I was sure that some German leaders would stand up and say, "My fellow Germans, we know a Hitler when we see one, and Saddam Hussein is one." But no German stood up to say this. Instead one of your leaders compared the American president to Hitler.

I was sure that some German leaders would stand up and say, "My fellow Germans, we know genocidal anti-Semitism when we see it, and we see it in the Arab world." But no German leader stood up to say this either.

Few of us expected anything from the French. From the Jacobins and the guillotine, to the Dreyfus trial, to the Vichy regime, to de Gaulle's withdrawal from anti-Communist NATO, France, with rare exceptions, has done little that is moral and nothing that is courageous. So the disdain that many Americans have long felt for France has merely been reinforced.

But I think that I speak in the name of many Americans in saying that we expected more of you. Because of what we did for you after World War II and during the Cold War. Because you, of all people, know that Americans are a decent people. And especially because of your experience with evil. How could you have produced a Hitler and not recognize another one just one generation later? How could you know firsthand about torture chambers and children's screams and not ache to end them in another country? How could you side with amoral France against your friend America?

There is, it would seem, only one answer. Nazism taught you nothing. Instead of learning that evil must be fought, you learned that fighting is evil.

But thanks for Bach.

However, do they honestly think the only reason America went to war was to defeat evil?

[arcis]

"I am sad that you learned nothing about good and evil from"

Maybe he has visited Germany several times, but he knows nothing about
the country and Mr Prager knows ABSOLUTELY nothing about "good and evil".

What is the difference between good and evil?

You american people know exactly, what is good and what is evil because your leaders tell you, what to think about these terms. Good is, what is
good for america and vice versa. If you look at the relation between Saddam Hussein and America, then you will see, there were times when he was good for America (war against Iran) and when he wasn't of any interest for America and suddenly some months ago, he was the biggest threat to the world ever seen. More dangerous than Hitler himself.

Apparently the attribute "good" can change in the course of the time, depending of the point of view. And you american people will learn, that your point of view is not the absolute point of view, is not the measuring system for rest of the world ( coalition of the willing and new Europe ). Nobody should tell us, what is good and what is evil.

We have had enough experience with people teaching others what is good and evil. We know Mr. Goebbels and we know what brainwashing means. And if we watch the american media in the last months, there is brainwashing. What is the list of lies to justify this war else than brain washing? The troubles of the american army in the Iraq are based
on these lies. Everybody in the world knows that.

"Because of what we did for you after World War II and during the Cold War."

The cold war was the war between America and the empire of the evil. And if western germany wouldn't be part of the american interest area, they wouldn`t have paid one single Dollar to rebuild the country. To be honest. :-) Countries don't have friends, they only have interests.

"But thanks for Bach."

He should also be thankful for:
Pachelbel, Scheidt, Händel, Telemann, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Mendelson-Bartholdy, Schubert, Schuman, Brahms, Bruckner, Wagner, Hindemith, Mahler, Reger and Schönberg.

"However, do they honestly think the only reason America went to war was to defeat evil?"

Yesterday there was an interview with Gore Vidal in the "Sueddeustche Zeitung" and he said: "Bush wanted the war because of the oil" (G. Vidal)
and all the other aspects of the whole story are coincidences.

[Boondock Saint]

You american people know exactly, what is good and what is evil because your leaders tell you, what to think about these terms.

I guess YOU dont know much about AMERICA.

But thats fine by me.

[Efrem Da King]

Yeah silly lefties prob wouldn't know what free media was.

[Demosthenes]

Oh no you don't, You don't get to pawn off Germany's chicken shit disposition on America and claim we're just "brainwashed". That is not going to fly.

Since you are incapable of reading links, let me help you mr. shoot off his mouth with little reguard for the truth.

What is the difference between good and evil?

If you really have to ask than the country that reared you is very screwed up!

You american people know exactly, what is good and what is evil because your leaders tell you, what to think about these terms. Good is, what is

What a cop out, what a pure cop out! I thought I was going to receive some deep, well thought out response but instead we get the "Americans are brainwashed" argument. The same thing every anti-american syas when they can't understand something. "Huh? duh amerkans must be brainwashed..." What a completely rediculous statement. Its a shame too, it appears you wouldn't know brainwashing till you had to say "Heil Hitler" and that is truly a crime. Don't you dare lecture Americans about evil. You keep believing France's lies and she will burn you, where we would not have.

If you look at the relation between Saddam Hussein and America, then you will see, there were times when he was good for America (war against Iran) and when he wasn't of any interest for America and suddenly some months ago, he was the biggest threat to the world ever seen. More dangerous than Hitler himself.

What the hell is this supposed to prove I hear this alot on this board and I keep thinking "What, these people have never heard of alliances gone bad? Alliances that turn bad? By this extremely dubious logic, we shouldn't be allies with France or beligerant Germans either because they are now showing signs of being hostile in the future.

We backed Saddam to keep a on hedge on Iran. So what? This is not an unprecedented move. All countries throughout history have backed one regime over another. Sometimes you don't have the luxury of choosing your allies. Sometimes you have to make do with what's there. (which is a no-win situation- either the intelligence community gets blamed for for limiting our contacts based on moral superiority, or we get blamed for having shady alliances) We never once made you absolutely rude, insulting, and dubious claim tha t Saddam was worse than Hitler, that is your buying into the lies of the fanatically liberall european (and CNN) media apparatus.

Apparently the attribute "good" can change in the course of the time,

Well you're learning something I see

And you american people will learn, that your point of view is not the absolute point of view, is not the measuring system for rest of the world ( coalition of the willing and new Europe ). Nobody should tell us, what is good and what is evil.

Are you intentinally blind? Or is it just so cool to be anti-american that you feel compelled to say what your friends say? We have learned wha tEuropeans have to teach, and with just a few exceptions, we're not impressed in any way. You Europeans get so smug and like to view us as some kind of wayward child who justr hasn't learned any better. What a laugh! One of the bloodiest continents on earth doesn't like it that we ask them to measure up to a standard that we, ourselves aspire to?

Apparently, just like in that jewish man's letter you haven't learned a damn thing about good and evil. So apparently you do need to be taught a thing or two. As a final point on this German thing let me pass on that my Grandmother on my mother's side is a first generation American. Her parents were pure blood Germans who fled because Germany at the time wasn't all that great a place to be. My mother is also a pure blood German, thought 100% American. I happen to be somewhere around 50% German myself so I do have an interest in Germany being a good nation. I have 2nd and 3rd cousins there and they act nothing like you are right now.

The cold war was the war between America and the empire of the evil. And if western germany wouldn't be part of the american interest area, they wouldn`t have paid one single Dollar to rebuild the country. To be honest. :-) Countries don't have friends, they only have interests.

I'll tell you what, since you can''t read links, and you posted something this assinine, I'm going to find a quote from Freedom's document to hopefully illistrate to you how America being strong, allows Germany and Europe in general to maintain a posture, and culture of weakness. To wit:

It is not a privilege for the United States to act against Iraq, a favour and an indulgence America seeks from other countries, and a treat for the American armed forces and taxpayers. It is an enforcement of international law, an act of retribution for past provocations by Saddam, and the removal of the greatest political tumour that afflicts the Middle East. It is a service to the civilised world.





Yet there are parts of what passes for the civilised world that resist. Many reasons are advanced for opposing American policy, but most of them are no more than simple anti-Americanism. In order to present an obstacle to American action, an absurdly exaggerated legitimisation of the United Nations has occurred. The United Nations is principally composed of corrupt, failed despotisms, and the suggestion that its opinions can be aggregated into an unappealable world supreme court is bunk. No serious person could imagine that the threats of veto of the French, Chinese and Russians, or the antics of the French, Germans and Belgians at Nato, are based on a moment’s adjudication of the sorts of issues we are talking about today. Those countries have a variety of motives, but some of them are pandering to the radical Islamist terrorists and the flabby soft-left opinion that accommodates them in the West.





How piquant is this turn of events! In the Thirties, no one would stand up even to Mussolini, much less Hitler and the Japanese. Now, a mighty power offers itself in support of enforcement of treaty obligations and sensible Security Council resolutions, and the offer is resisted because self-righteous weakness resents a law-enforcing power that has become unprecedentedly strong.





And while one country has that power, many of those which do not have it are spuriously misusing the United Nations to try to collegialise the power of the United States. The Americans have indicated that they are prepared to pay something for international support. But what we now have is a chicken game. If the French, Russians, Chinese and Germans overplay their hands, they will be exposed as ineffective as well as disingenuous. They will gravely damage the United Nations they claim to be upholding. They could partly dismantle the Western Alliance, too late to help the Russians, isolating Germany, which is the reverse of German desires and a status in which Germany’s history is, to say the least, not encouraging. It would completely debunk France’s masquerade as a great power. These countries can agree on little except their concern about the astounding power and success of the United States. They will not fashion anything durable or geopolitically useful out of mere envy.



this is the summation paragraph fromt he second part of the article:



The paradox of this is that the Europeans do not see that American power, which they resent, maintains their ability to be weak, to have shrunken defence budgets, minimal military capability beyond the borders of the EU, a relatively stagnant economy, and a general attitude of indulgent but righteous lassitude. Chris Patten grandly assures us, ‘We know how important it is to handle failed states properly — and to prevent them failing in the first place. We know how to tackle the root causes of terrorism and violence.’ ‘We’ is the Europeans, in contrast to the Americans, who rebuilt Europe and Japan, created South Korea and Taiwan, reorganised the Mexican currency and democratised and revolutionised the economy of that country in a managed free-trade agreement while Europe has straight-armed the Turks.

So you see my incredibly biased sparing partner, your view hs little substance, no value, and is blatantly Anti-American. As is typical you are putting your bias first and trying to find reasons toi justify that bias. Well I don't have to put up with it and I will continue to counter it as necessary.

1) thanks to Freedom for the article posted in the "North America" forum
2) Many thanks to Lord Black for writing the article in the first place. Truly the English are a great people
3) ah hell while I'm thinking about it, Thanks to foxy for providing the forum, another great Brit! (Damn! you're gonna need a fan to blow all that smoke away from your ass!)

[arcis]

This page is dedicated to all the people, who are complaining about the lefties, liberals and so on. To all the people who are convinced, that the interests of the greedy oil managers and capitalists are their own interests.

The liberals are fighting their own figths, the bush supporters are fighting the fights of the "american government"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/clark6.html


javascript:emoticon(':lol:')
Laugh out loud

[Demosthenes]

Ok, even though this is laughable I'll play along. Suggesting Americans and others who support the Iraq war sre suffering from the very well known "Stockholm Syndrom" is such an absolute stretch that it's hard to take seriously, but like I said I'll give you the benefit of the doubt:

Psychiatrists have identified a few basic aspects of this apparently strange phenomenon. It stems primarily from a person’s feeling of relative helplessness

Nope don't feel helpless.

feeling that one’s survival depends on not upsetting an irresistible force that could punish him

Nope don't feel threatened either, and for all the liberal rhetoric to the contrary they ALSO enjoy quite a bit of freedom of speech!

A person starts to try to rationalize the situation in which he finds himself. It is hard to fathom meaningless violence, or to live in fear of being killed or punished for no reason

We're not under threat of meaningless violence. The second statement is untrue as it relates to Americans also. Although liberals may try to make the dubious claim that they will face scrutiny if they voice anti-war views, the truth is if they face any consequences at all it would be from fellow citizens who are not in the mood to tolerate their foolishness, not the Gubment!

The victim tries to convince himself that the captors are not sadistic beasts, but that they are quite rational and would not do violence to a person unless they had a good reason.

We're not being held captive. Any American citizen is free to leave anytime they wish. America doesn't "do violence to a person unless we have good reason". What is it with this incredibly idealistic, and unrealistic view? Do people really believe a country can exist in this world without the threat of force? WOW! if so, that is an extremely naive viewpoint.

Small acts of kindness (such as allowing the hostage to eat) tend to reinforce the hostage’s desire to see the captors as decent people who would not harm a captive unless that captive did something stupid.

Well if by this : would not harm a captive unless that captive did something stupid you mean, say: not becoming a threatening dictator, or being completely belligerant, or by ignoring tens of warnings intended to get you to stop the actions your taking, or, lest we all forget, the propensity to use dangerous weapons in your possession, then I suppose this one is true.

That helps a captive feel like he is really to some degree in control of the situation, by being a "good" hostage, rather than feeling helpless.

uh...yeah...

Invariably the victims go out of their way to try to placate their captors, or people who have power over them

...or...maybe...you've got the situation entirely backwards...?? it surely wouldn't be the first time a German did this...

When the captors complain how just their cause is, the captive who fears punishment will not argue with the captor, he will say something like, "I’m sure you really do have a lot of legitimate grievances." Under the pressure of the situation people actually begin to empathize with the hostage takers

I'm still not a captive, the greivances are legitimate even though many are blind to rule of international law and would prefer to spout rhetoric to fuel their personal Anti-American resentment...

All of this can perhaps be explained much more simply by saying that when people encounter a circumstance which they cannot change, they try to convince themselves that the situation is not really unbearable. It is understandable why people do this. It is hard (and probably unhealthy) to go through life angry. For the slave who feels that he cannot escape it is comforting to think, "Oh well, I really don’t have it so bad."

That last sentance must be exactly what you are telling yourself right about now. As far as the rest it's simply more re-stating of the same tired rhetoric. I'll just leave the rest to blah, blah, blahs and yada, yada, yadas... your theory is wrong. We are not suffering from some grand Stockholm syndrom. Unfortunately it appears you and your ant-american ilk and suffering from a newer more heinous and equally depraved syndrome called simply: Spoiledbratitus. The only known cure is unfortunately to face real hardship. I hope you don't have to, to overcome this awful syndrome.


Hold it! Stop the presses, just finished that article that, in context, is very good. Right here it says:

"Those damned politicians are stealing half my money, but there’s nothing I can do to fight back." On the other hand, they could think, "Oh well, I don’t really have it so bad, and after all, government does build the roads."

The fact is that most people do not want to go through life feeling helpless and oppressed. It is far easier psychologically to convince yourself that you are not really oppressed at all, and that you send the government half your money because you WANT to, not because you HAVE to.

How intersting that the republicans have been preaching cutting taxes (and no not just for the wealthy, that's the Democrat's demogogery) for years, yet the Democrats can do nothing but make outrageous claims about tax cuts being dangerous, or that they are "risky schemes" or that we can't both cut taxes and increase military spending. They oppose these not on principle but from simple partisanship. Which in turn feeds bigger government.

Why is this relevant you ask? Well since the Republicans are the party largely responsible for our latest action in Iraq, and are also responsible for making at least half-assed attempts at making the government smaller via a smaller tax liablity, then certainly it stands to reason that the party opposing these tax cuts (the Democrats) also happen to be the party more against the action in Iraq. Which by extension proves your assesments false.

[Delphi]

What the hell is this supposed to prove I hear this alot on this board and I keep thinking "What, these people have never heard of alliances gone bad? Alliances that turn bad? By this extremely dubious logic, we shouldn't be allies with France or beligerant Germans either because they are now showing signs of being hostile in the future.

We backed Saddam to keep a on hedge on Iran. So what? This is not an unprecedented move. All countries throughout history have backed one regime over another. Sometimes you don't have the luxury of choosing your allies. Sometimes you have to make do with what's there. (which is a no-win situation- either the intelligence community gets blamed for for limiting our contacts based on moral superiority, or we get blamed for having shady alliances) We never once made you absolutely rude, insulting, and dubious claim tha t Saddam was worse than Hitler, that is your buying into the lies of the fanatically liberall european (and CNN) media apparatus.

We understand that nations have interests. However, we don't enjoy the idea of backstabbing, however you roght-wingers are so used to it. Why is it when ever something doesn't go our way and our oil prices drive up a few cents...why is it we go hunting? Our solution to everything is use a country until it is no longer uselfull than dump it, rig its election, invade, or something else to make it more firendly. I know that is a bit over exagerating. I don't have much time so I will get to the point, and explain my self more later, because I know you are going to respond to this. America has no mkoral superiority. Period.

[Boondock Saint]

It's my opinion that the US has no moral superiority either. Though I dont cloud myself with ideology ... I know why we do what we do ... I don't agree with it but most of the time I am too nationalistic to go against my own nation.

In the situation of Iraq though ... the current method being used to control post war Iraq imo is lacking.

I also feel that post conflict Afghanistan is lacking ...

I don't like Bush at all. I don't like his policy be it domestic or foreign.

I personally see Iraq as becoming something we were led to believe it would not be. I remember Rummy talking about how happy the Iraqi people would be to see our troops ... when he said that I thought he meant they would be happy to see our troops in a freindly way ... not that they would be happy to see our troops in the sights of their rifles.

[Demosthenes]

Actually I wasn't really talking about us having any monopoly on moral superiority either. My point more is about us nt being the epitomy of the opposite either. Perhaps I am taken as claiming such moral superiority based on continuously refuting blanket statements against the US.

[arcis]

@ Demosthenes

It seems to me, that you understood the text of Paul Clark excessively well.

Believe it or not, at the moment it is damned difficult to argue for american postions in Germany without looking like an idiot. The replies are always starting like this: "What? Didn't you hear the last statements of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney or Bush himself .... ". Sorry, after these statements there is nothing left over in favour of America.

[Efrem Da King]

The difference between fact and fiction are questions from the american government for help in the "post war iraq " to the weasels germany and even france in old Europe. What about new Europe? Freedom fries and www.germanystinks.com. It is disgusting to see this kind of racism. America in on the best way to replace germany as the "bad boy" in history. And why do the allmighty americans need help from us cowards to control such a small antiamerican part of the people in Iraq? Just a question. I know, waking up after a nice drunkenness is always an unpleasant experience and I hope most of the american people will know, what they have to do next year.

Thanks for the link its hilarious.