Ah hell, Roger, Canada's too dang cold anyway, lets nuke it up a bit, too. A gentle blue glow would contrast nicely with the occasional Aurora. Not Vancouver though. I drank some great local beers there and I'd not like to see any of that incinerated.

Scotland? Now there's a country worth nuking just to steal the whisky industry, let Norway have the oil. A bonus would be had by targeting the universities so you could get all the socialists. They drink too much anyway.

Well zeitgeist, you are right. Iraqi's are not stupid. That's why over 66% of them are greatful to the USA intervention and want US to stay, because they know it's the US, not smarmy French who will bring them prosperity. just check the Gallup poll. Careful, reality of it may shake up your set of beliefs

__________________
1985 190D 2.2l Sold-to Brother-in-law
1996 Mustang 3.8l -"thinks it's a sports car"
1988 Grand Wagoneer - Sold (good home)
1995 Grand Cherokee Ltd -"What was I thinking??!!"

....when you wish upon a star.....your dreams come true.

Gentlemen-- start yer wishin...or else!!!

Published on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 by the Arab News
How the Poll Results on Iraq Were Manipulated
by James Zogby

Early in President Bush's recent public relations campaign to rebuild support for the US war effort in Iraq, Vice President Cheney appeared on "Meet the Press." Attempting to make the case that the US was winning in Iraq, Cheney made the following observations:

"There was a poll done, just random in the last week, first one I've seen carefully done; admittedly, it's a difficult area to poll in. Zogby International did it with American Enterprise magazine. But that's got very positive news in it in terms of the numbers it shows with respect to the attitudes to what Americans have done.

"One of the questions it asked is: 'If you could have any model for the kind of government you'd like to have' - and they were given five choices - 'which would it be?' The US wins hands down. If you want to ask them do they want an Islamic government established, by 2: 1margins they say no, including the Shiite population. If you ask how long they want Americans to stay, over 60 percent of the people polled said they want the US to stay for at least another year. So admittedly there are problems, especially in that area where Saddam Hussein was from, where people have benefited most from his regime and who've got the most to lose if we're successful in our enterprise, and continuing attacks from terror. But to suggest somehow that that's representative of the country at large or the Iraqi people are opposed to what we've done in Iraq or are actively and aggressively trying to undermine it, I just think that's not true."

In fact, Zogby International (ZI) in Iraq had conducted the poll, and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) did publish their interpretation of the findings. But the AEI's "spin" and the vice president's use of their "spin" created a faulty impression of the poll's results and, therefore, of the attitudes of the Iraqi people.

For example, while Cheney noted that when asked what kind of government they would like, Iraqis chose "the US... hands down," in fact, the results of the poll are actually quite different. Twenty-three percent of Iraqis say that they would like to model their new government after the US; 17 .5 percent would like their model to be Saudi Arabia; 12 percent say Syria, 7 percent say Egypt and 37 percent say "none of the above." That's hardly "winning hands down."

When given the choice as to whether they "would like to see the American and British forces leave Iraq in six months, one year, or two years," 31.5 percent of Iraqis say these forces should leave in six months; 34 percent say a year, and only 25 percent say two or more years.

So while technically Cheney might say that "over 60 percent (actually it's 59 percent) ... want the US to stay at least another year," an equally correct observation would be that 65.5 percent want the US and Britain to leave in one year or less.

Other numbers found in the poll go further to dampen the vice president's and the AEI's rosy interpretations. For example, when asked if "democracy can work well in Iraq," 51 percent said "no; it is a Western way of doing things and will not work here."

And attitudes toward the US were not positive. When asked whether over the next five years, they felt that the "US would help or hurt Iraq,"50 percent said that the US would hurt Iraq, while only 35.5 percent felt the US would help the country. On the other hand, 61 percent of Iraqis felt that Saudi Arabia would help Iraq in the next five years, as opposed to only 7.5 percent, who felt Saudi Arabia would hurt their country. Some 50. 5 percent felt that the United Nations would help Iraq, while 18.5 percent felt it would hurt. Iran's rating was very close to the US', with 53. 5 percent of Iraqis saying Iran would hurt them in the next five years, while only 21. 5 percent felt that Iran might help them.

It is disturbing that the AEI and the vice president could get it so wrong. Their misuse of the polling numbers to make the point that they wanted to make, resembles the way critics have noted that the administration used "intelligence data" to make their case to justify the war.

The danger, of course, is that painting a rosy picture that doesn't exist is a recipe for a failed policy. Wishing something to be can't make it so. At some point, reality intervenes. It's a hard lesson to learn, but it is dangerous to ignore its importance.

For the administration to continue to tell itself and the American people that "all is well," only means that needed changes in policy will not be made.

Consider some of the other poll findings:


Over 55 percent give a negative rating to "how the US military is dealing with Iraqi civilians." Only 20 percent gave the US military a positive rating.

By a margin of 57 percent to 38 . 5 percent, Iraqis indicate that they would support "Arab forces" providing security in their country.

When asked how they would describe the attacks on the US military, 49 percent described them as "resistance operations." Only 29 percent saw them as attacks by "Ba'ath loyalists."

When asked whom they preferred to "provide security and restore order in their country," only 6 . 5 percent said the US. Twenty-seven percent said the US and the UN together, 14 . 5 percent preferred only the UN. And the largest group, 45 percent, said they would prefer the "Iraqi military" to do the job alone.
There are important lessons in all of this. Lessons policy makers ought to heed if they are to help Iraq move forward. What the Iraqi people appear to be telling us is that they have hope for the future, but they want the help of their neighbors more than that of the US.

That may not be what Washington wants to hear, but it ought to listen nevertheless. Because if policy makers continue to bend the data to meet their desired policy, then this hole they are digging will only get deeper.

Copyright: Arab News C2003

Speaking of preemption, what's the deal with Syria? Are Syrians too ignorant or stupid to want democracy? I think we should just be patient and let the military dictatorship decide when its best to allow the people self-determination.

I'm sure if we just leave them alone, things will work out just fine.

Botnst

...then we're in agreement--right?

I should've numbered the sentences.

1. Speaking of preemption, what's the deal with Syria?

2. Are Syrians too ignorant or stupid to want democracy?

3. I think we should just be patient and let the military dictatorship decide when its best to allow the people self-determination.

4. I'm sure if we just leave them alone, things will work out just fine.

Ans. 1. Syria is an hereditary dictatorship with a strong military that actively shelters terrorists and promotes terrorism.

Ans. 2. No. Dissenters get murdered or jailed by the government. Tends to repress freedom of expression and political opposition.

Ans. 3. I was French for a moment.

Ans 4. Three possibilities.

a> Sure, let them suffer under the dictatorship. If they don't like it let them change it.

b> Subvert the dictatorship whenever possible. Thawrt it overtly and covertly whenever in engages in support or nurture of terrorism.

c> Depose the government and let freedom ring.

Guess which one I favor?

Botnst

...oh, I guess we're not in agreement afterall.
Where does a person get one of these 'freedom rings'? I don't really like jewelry all that much, but my kids might like one...

You don't buy it.

You earn it or you bestow it.

I'd die rather than lose mine.

freedom rings come from ones ears after a bomb explodes.

...spoken like a true patriot....missile.

If only deposing a government was all that was required to "let freedom ring"

I think we are learning in Iraq that deposing the government is the easy part and that getting the freedom to ring is the hard part. If we were to only depose the government, then the only thing that would be ringing is our ears from the blasts of the improvised explosive devices.

You are much too intelligent to oversimplify like that.

Well, absent that "easy" step, what would we have?

...uh, less instability in the Middle East? Fewer terrorist backlashes in 'moderate' Islamic countries? Fewer terrorists?

Heavy-handed approaches are worse than doing nothing at all...

Relatively Easy (relative to the difficulty of introducing democracy and freedom to previously despotic nations).

Not sure what steps we have:

Sanctions don't seem to work
Grants don't seem to work
Overthrowing the regime doesn't seem to work (so far, still hoping for the best)
Grassroots efforts didn't appear to work in Iran but still hoping there too

Not be a naysayer but we still should objectively evaluate the efficacy of all of these methods. I don't advocate giving up but I do suggest that we continually reassess our approach and learn from our successes and failures. I don't portend to have all the answers, but I do not recommend that we advocate an approach that is questionable.

Your suggestion should read:
Spend 80 billion deposing the government
Spend 80 billion building the country back up
Fight off guerrilla attackers for a year (estimating)
Hurriedly turn over power to the native population in order to do who knows what because election time is nearing