| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2003/12/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11465 Activity:insanely high 66%like:12871 |
12/15 liberal media:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,561468,00.html
\_ p.s. - the "liberal" thing was intended ironically. oh well. -op
\_ excellent troll. 2 cookies for you.
\_ Time is a piece of crap, but that article doesn't appear
biased one way or the other. -tom
\_ "We can measure the meaning of his capture by the measures we
have taken -- old alliances and long traditions discarded to
go to war to take him out and, in the name of democracy, a war
that was opposed by vast majorities in most democracies on earth."
Now, is this really true? Vast majorities opposed the war?
Or is it vocal minorities?
\_ Polls in many european countries rode anywhere from 70-90%
against US actions. How 'bout this one: "by far the vast
majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum"
--scotsman
\_ You're deeply confused about what democracy is all about.
Just because other democratic countries may disagree with
our democratic country does not lead to the conclusion
that our actions were wrong. It only follows that the
people in those countries have a different culture and
belief system from our country. There is nothing that
says all democracies have to agree with each other. It
a simply a form of government, not a rating of good vs.
evil or which team you belong to in the world. If 100%
of people in other 100% of other democratic countries were
opposed to our country's actions that carries no more
\_ not biased? c'mon. 3rd paragraph? Nothing but agrandizing
weight, value or meaning than if 100% of the people of
100% of totalitarian states disagree with our actions.
\_ Even if this is true (how many countries?)... There are
other democracies besides those in europe. Was the vast
majority opposed to the war in some sort of non-changing
sense? Do the polls show consistent 70-90% opposition,
and still do?
\_ You can look for the answers yourself. This is another
thing that gets me about the o'reilly effect. They
bring up questions like this that are relatively
news-magazine-murdered-cheerleader special reports. please.
answerable if you have the time, but people who don't
have the time simply base their outrage on them..
\_ Well, the thing is ... if you don't know the answers
to these questions you can't really say Time isn't
full of shit. Which is the point.
\_ The answer is that the vast majority of countries
opposed the US war and still do. You are just too
lazy to do the research yourself.
\_ Look, in France, the very bastion of
anti-(american unilateralism/english speaking
hegemony), only 59% oppose the war. Where
are the vast majorities in _most_ democracies
of the world? Show me.
Time is full of shit.
\_ http://csua.org/u/59w
http://csua.org/u/59y
\_ Uh... the best this says is that
majorities (far from vast) in _several_
european countries (far from most
democracies in the world) opposed the
war at one point. But poetic hyperbole
is ok, because it's Time, right?
\_ Give it up. You are just making
yourself look bad. They polled 45
countries and a majority opposed the
war in 2/3 of them.
\_ Sure. Now let's compare what the
facts say and what Time says.
Facts: Simple majorities in 2/3rd
of 45 nations in the world opposed
the war in iraq at one point in
time.
Time: Vast majorities in most
democracies of the world oppose
the war in iraq.
Time is full of shit.
\_ 59%? Show me.
_/
http://www.iraqcrisisbulletin.com/archives/041603/html/french_doubts_over_war_opposit.html
This is from april.
\_ Honestly, come on now. It's common knowledge that
the war was opposed by everyone except a couple of
eastern europeans desperate to suck up to the USA.
As if anyone in Poland gives a shit about Iraq.
\_ not biased? c'mon. 3rd paragraph? Nothing but aggrandizing
and romanticizing sensationalist language. the thing of
news-magazine-murdered-cheerleader special reports. please.
\_ What in that paragraph do you think was aggrandizing
\_ besides the whole thing? how about:
"It was an antidote to the contempt expressed by Arab
and European commentators who poked the American
tiger: See, you can't even catch Saddam."
\_ One man's "bias" is another's "perspective." Go away,
dittohead.
\_ I like Time. I read all the major newspapers as well.
Each source has its own problems.
\_ I don't like any media, yet I read them all the time. Each
source has its own bits of useful information. |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,561468,00.html Merry Christmas, said the soldiers to one another, and they lit cigars and took pictures and smiled. It was a relief to see him made small enough to handcuff because the phantom had become too big, and you cant bring peace to a haunted house. Bribes and threats and rockets and satellites had failed to find him, even with the worlds mightiest army conducting the manhunt. The President had stopped talking about him, as if he were superstitious or trying to change the subject. People bought Saddam golf balls, Saddam piatas, voodoo dolls, to satisfy the need to hit back and not feel helpless every time he taunted his hunters with a new videotape to rally his followers, every time we heard of a new ambush conducted in his name. With his capture, we exhale, after a long, deep breath we have held for a year. We can measure the meaning of his capture by the measures we have taken old alliances and long traditions discarded to go to war to take him out and, in the name of democracy, a war that was opposed by vast majorities in most democracies on earth. Hundreds of soldiers killed, hundreds more wounded, $4 billion a month spent and billions more to come, a country broken in pieces that we will be helping rebuild for years to come. Perhaps a true taste of freedom from fear for 25 million people who could never quite have faith that the tyranny was over while the tyrant was still loose. It was an antidote to the contempt expressed by Arab and European commentators who poked the American tiger: See, you cant even catch Saddam. The capture of this man was crucial to the rise of a free Iraq, Bush said in a nationally broadcast address from the Cabinet Room. It marks the end of the road for him and for all who bullied and killed in his name. Will it encourage Bush to reach out to other European allies to help in the policing and reconstruction of Iraq, or will he be encouraged to stick to his current course? And how will this victory affect Bushs re-election campaign in 2004 and, perhaps more to the point, the campaigns of the Democratic candidates, including front runner Howard Dean, who want to replace him? It was a team of 600 soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division and United States special forces that acted on the tip that Saddam was hiding in a little town called al-Dawr, 15 miles from his hometown of Tikrit. These soldiers had been scouring the area for months in the belief that he would stay close to home, where loyalty among those who most benefited from his rule still ran deep. United States intelligence sources tell Time that over the past month they were getting better leads. In the last three to four weeks, our forces have been able to capture people weve been hunting all summer, said Lieut. Colonel Steven Russell, the commander of the 4ths 1-22 Infantry Regiment. Four days ago, an individual was captured that led to the capture of the man we believed was Saddams right-hand man, Russell told Time. Information he had led to information that led to the capture of Saddam Hussein. Just the week before, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was in the region pressing the officers about why this was taking so long. Sitting in front of walls lined with maps and flat video screens, Rumsfeld marveled at the elusiveness of the quarry. Im dumbfounded when I think about it, he told Army Major General Raymond Odierno, commander of the 4th Infantry. The chances of us using that kind of money to find somebody to figure out how to invest some time and develop a network and produce the information that would do it I mean, that ought to be doable. |
| csua.org/u/59w -> www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3405.htm Key Findings from the survey: Only in the USA itself, in Albania, and in UN administered Kosovo do citizens feel the world is a safer place since the recent military action (48%, 64% and 59% respectively). Majorities in all other countries think that as a result of recent military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place. It is not a surprise then that in almost all countries included in the survey, majorities also disagree that the threat of terrorism has been significantly reduced by the war. Global opinion is less clear cut on whether military action by the US and its allies in Iraq was justified or not. However, large majorities in several European countries opposed to the war, still think even now that the regime of Saddam Hussein has been destroyed that military action by the US and its allies was not justified. This is particularly true in France (65%) and Germany (68%) but also in Spain (68%) and even more strongly in Greece (83%). Outside of Western Europe, in two key countries Israel and Turkey almost 9 out of 10 citizens in Israel (87%) think military action was justified whilst only a quarter of the Turkish population agree (23%). Regarding the re-construction of Iraq, significant majorities in most countries around the world think the US and its allies should be involved. But they also strongly agree that the United Nations should be involved. A majority of citizens in many countries would also give Arab countries a role but global opinion is clear that those countries which opposed the war, like France Germany and Russia should not be involved in the re-construction of Iraq. Most countries agree that the US is too keen to use military force, notably highest in Russia (87%) and France (87%), But agreement is also high in Finland (81%), Switzerland (80%), Serbia (former Yugoslavia 84%) and Turkey (75%). Highest disagreement levels are found in the USA (51%), Philippines (52%); Large majorities in all countries agree there can be no peace in the region without a settlement of the Israel/Palestine issue. It follows that in most countries, the majority of the population does not agree that the war will result in greater peace and stability in the Middle East. The exceptions are again the USA itself, Albania and UN-administered Kosovo. A supplementary question was asked in Israel only, which shows that 51% think that, in light of the military action in Iraq and the end of the Saddam Hussein regime, this development in itself has increased the chances of resolving the Israel/Palestine conflic t. Nine percent feel it has decreased the chances and 35% feel it has had no effect. Diplomacy is also recognised as a sensitive issue around the world. Global opinion in many countries is not clear whether the diplomatic rift between the US and its allies with countries opposed to the war like France, Germany and Russia can be easily repaired or not. In key countries, French opinion splits with 43% agreeing and 47% disagreeing that the diplomatic rift between the US and its allies with countries opposed to the war like France, Germany and Russia can be easily repaired. In Germany, thefigures are 37% agree and 58% disagree, in Russia 42% agree and 44% disagree. Among the allied countries in UK 38% agree and 51% disagree and in the USA 45% agree and exactly the same proportion (44%) disagree. Finally, in almost all countries, most citizens agree that the United Nations has been seriously damaged by recent events, perhaps this is why so many global citizens want to see the United Nations play a significant role in the re-construction of Iraq The Gallup International Association, now registered in Zurich, Switzerland as a verein, was established in 1947 by George H Gallup and his colleagues. It now has member agencies in 60 countries across the world, regularly conducting market and opinion research in more than 80 countries. |
| csua.org/u/59y -> www.gallup-international.com/default.asp?content=http%3A//www.gallup-international.com/ContentFiles/survey.asp%3Fid%3D9 FRAME: gia_top FRAME: gia_left FRAME: gia_content FRAME: gia_empty FRAME: gia_bottom References 1. |
| www.iraqcrisisbulletin.com/archives/041603/html/french_doubts_over_war_opposit.html SEARCH IRAQ CRISIS BULLETIN APRIL 16, 2003 FRENCH DOUBTS OVER WAR OPPOSITION LISA BRYANT PARIS French President Jacques Chirac spoke with President Bush for the first time in more than two months Tuesday. President Chirac may take comfort in a poll published Tuesday in France's Liberation newspaper. It said 70 percent of Frenchmen and women surveyed said they approved of his performance. Chirac's approval rating has dropped four percent since March. The percentage of French opposed to the war has also declined. A weekend protest in Paris against American intervention in Iraq was far smaller than previous anti-war marches. Now that Saddam Hussein's regime has fallen, political analyst Etienne Schweisguth says, many French are not so certain the war was a bad thing. Schweisguth, a researcher at the Paris-based Center for the Study of French Political Life, says the French still remain skeptical. At the same time, the conflict appears to be exacting a financial toll on the nation. Other businesses are worried about being left out of the potentially lucrative contracts for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq. Questions are also growing about the country's transatlantic diplomacy. During a parliamentary debate last week, for example, one lawmaker from Mr. Another, more pointedly, suggested that Paris had mistakenly picked Washington as its enemy, rather than Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Some French media have also cautioned the government against following a confrontational diplomacy -- most recently by insisting that the United Nations, not Washington, should assume interim administration of Iraq. An editorial in Le Monde newspaper called on Paris to work with Washington in finding a diplomatic solution. Other experts, such as Philippe Moreau Defarges, Special Advisor at the French Institute of International Relations in Paris, believe the anti-war coalition, which includes Germany and Russia, may soon crumble - leaving France isolated: "It's clear this coalition between Paris, Berlin and Moscow was really an artificial coalition. Particularly, but not only, because of Iraq and the oil contracts. Defarges says, the United States may be too busy trying to reconstruct Iraq to worry about sparring with France. That, he adds, may ultimately be very good news for the French government. |