• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hagel:Iraq looking like Vietnam

Navy Pride said:
The majority of Americans polled believe that....I am not sure the majority of Americans believe that.......I think it depends on who and where you poll.......
If the sample is not random, then the poll is invalid.

Consider how many grains of sand would you need to get from a beach to find out about the composition of the sand at the beach. Would you need to test every last grain of sand? Half of all the grains of sand?

Consider how much water from a lake you'd need to collect to get an analysis of the lake's water. Would you need to take all of the lake's water back to the lab with you? Ten percent of the lake's water?

I'm open to persuasion.

Feel free to explain the errors in the sampling process used by the Gallup organization.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
If the sample is not random, then the poll is invalid.

To my understanding, the polls are not usually random. Instead they are as carefully chosen as possible to most accurately reflect the views of the nation. I was always under the impression that they choose a certain number of each demographic as it corresponds to the general populous. The only times I could see a completely random poll is when a small area is polled (i.e. city or state) on a simple 'yay' or 'nay' bill.

By scientifically asking people in strict relation to the demographics of the population, you're going to get a more accurate estimate for the smallest amount of people polled.

If you're going to ask for the same type of accuracy with a random poll, you're going to have to poll a greater number of people.

Again, I'm not sure on this 100%, but believe this is how they're run. If anyone knows for sure one way or the other, please show.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Feel free to explain the errors in the sampling process used by the Gallup organization.
I suppose his argument would be that they sampled a portion of the population that would say what they wanted the poll results to show. They could look up a counties that voted overwhelmingly against Bush and decided that would represent America in their poll. I highly doubt Gallup did any such thing though.
 
IValueFreedom said:
To my understanding, the polls are not usually random.
Gallup polls are suppose to be random. Some groups definitely only poll portions of the population that will say what they want the poll to say though.
 
kal-el said:
That is exactly the mindset of someone caught up in this terifying logic. Non-violence Always comes out the victor. You just have to be patient though. It is true that some died defending non-violence.
.

Is it a "mindset" to be merely realistic ? Criminal laws are finally predicated upon latent violence. There is no point in pretending that moral coercion can be trusted to sort out differences: at some point you (or the state on your behalf) must be prepared to be physically violent in order to keep the peace.

Jaw, jaw, is obviously to be preferred over war, war - but the "victories" you claim for the non-violent are almost always the result of a loss of nerve by the authority which is being challenged.
 
I live in Nebraska-a very red state- where Chuck Hagel represents.
Needless to say he is being dogged here for speaking his mind. No matter what his party is he has always served his people very good and follows up on what he promises. He has always standed on his ground on the war and that it was not the right thing to do because of all the shady dealings behind the doors. He was saying this stuff from the beginning of the war.
 
Iraq was a Stalinst Secualr Dicatorship there was no terrorists there till the invasion. Hussien fought Funides at every turn. Descirbed as a secualr wanting to unite the Arab penninsula under a secular Stalinst flag.

What has occured now is a exactly like Vietnam. Only those shrouded in the veil of denial and propaganda will deny the obvious simularities.
 
nefarious_plot said:
Iraq was a Stalinst Secualr Dicatorship there was no terrorists there till the invasion. Hussien fought Funides at every turn. Descirbed as a secualr wanting to unite the Arab penninsula under a secular Stalinst flag.

What has occured now is a exactly like Vietnam. Only those shrouded in the veil of denial and propaganda will deny the obvious simularities.

No Terrorists there!!!!! With all due respect that is and idiotic statement..Saddam himself was a terrorist.........He paid suicide bombers families in Israel $25.K when they blew up innocent women and children....If that is not a terroist I don't know what one is...........
 
Navy Pride said:
No Terrorists there!!!!! With all due respect that is and idiotic statement..Saddam himself was a terrorist.........He paid suicide bombers families in Israel $25.K when they blew up innocent women and children....If that is not a terroist I don't know what one is...........




Please stop Navy....Saddam was a bad man for many many other reasons but not that one. Saddam paid 25k to the family of any person killed in the infidata against Israel....Now that includes suicide bombers but it isnt exclusive to them(and thats what made him so popular amongest the Palestinians because he gave them more money than the PLO and at a time when he was under the harshest sanctions in history).....it seems that many like to hold on to that myth though because it's the one of the few bad things that he did without U.S. approval



peace
 
Last edited:
You can call anybody a terrorists all you want. The competely ludicis assertion was that Hussien was conneced to Islamic fundemntalists. The exact oppostie was the case. he fought them for the entire length of his rule.

The sucide bombers thing, is pathetic propaganda. There is not one shred of evidence to support that at all. its goes against basic logic. And it assumes the Isrealis are totaly incompetant and unable to protect themselvs in anyway. Wich is beyond stupid its inaccuracy.

The hysterical thing about these illogical arguments is that the war supporting armchair generals always take hussiens word for Gospel truth. As if hes incabable of lying. Another comic one is the same armchair generals talking about starting a war becuase of the threats from this man's mouth. As if the american people can handle harsh language from some insigifigant 3rd world dictator. pretty lame excuses.
 
nefarious_plot said:
...there was no terrorists there till the invasion.
Where does this myth come from?

It's very, very, very, very, very, very well documented that Saddam funded, harbored, armed, and provided bases to a group of international terrorists known as the Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq-e Iran.

Now, members of Team Bush have been helping them raise funds and have expressed an interest in taking over where Saddam left off.


 
Surenderer said:
Please stop Navy....Saddam was a bad man for many many other reasons but not that one. Saddam paid 25k to the family of any person killed in the infidata against Israel....Now that includes suicide bombers but it isnt exclusive to them(and thats what made him so popular amongest the Palestinians because he gave them more money than the PLO and at a time when he was under the harshest sanctions in history).....it seems that many like to hold on to that myth though because it's the one of the few bad things that he did without U.S. approval



peace

The definition of a terrorist is one who targets civilians, innocent women and children..........That is who the suicide bonbers targeted............Saddam was a terrorist............How can you defend a scum bag like that? That is so sad........I feel sorry for you.........
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Where does this myth come from?

It's very, very, very, very, very, very well documented that Saddam funded, harbored, armed, and provided bases to a group of international terrorists known as the Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq-e Iran.

Now, members of Team Bush have been helping them raise funds and have expressed an interest in taking over where Saddam left off.


Theres no documentaion. Only cheap assertions that anybody withan ounce of uderstading of the Iraqi regime would find laughable. The man despised islamic fundimentalism fought a long conflict with Iran over it. Battel the fundy shi'ites in the south. Secualr Stalinst Dictator. Bush jr tryiing to say by these assertions is, bsuh Sr Reagen, Clinton, and carter as well almsot 30 years of CIA study was all 10 posite opposite of fact. Its ridiculous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
nefarious_plot said:
Simon W. Moon said:
Where does this myth come from?

It's very, very, very, very, very, very well documented that Saddam funded, harbored, armed, and provided bases to a group of international terrorists known as the Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq-e Iran.

Now, members of Team Bush have been helping them raise funds and have expressed an interest in taking over where Saddam left off.

Theres no documentaion. Only cheap assertions that anybody withan ounce of uderstading of the Iraqi regime would find laughable. The man despised islamic fundimentalism fought a long conflict with Iran over it. Battel the fundy shi'ites in the south. Secualr Stalinst Dictator. Bush jr tryiing to say by these assertions is, bsuh Sr Reagen, Clinton, and carter as well almsot 30 years of CIA study was all 10 posite opposite of fact. Its ridiculous.

Here is a guy defending Saddam..........Next you will be defending Bin Laden........Disgusting........
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Navy Pride said:
The definition of a terrorist is one who targets civilians, innocent women and children..........That is who the suicide bonbers targeted............Saddam was a terrorist............How can you defend a scum bag like that? That is so sad........I feel sorry for you.........

Please Navy, Even though Saddam tortured and killed many of his co-citizens, he has Far less blood on his hands than the coalition, wait, what coalition, I mean the Americans. George W. Bush sent his troops into a Soverign nation, for the past couple years, ravaged the country. All this fuss under the pretense of eradicating the totalitarian regime of Saddam Hussein and all forms of terrorism, and they Never found any WMD's, which W so boldly boasted that they have.

The result: almost 2,000 dead US soliders for nothing, and several thousand wounded. The Iraqi population weeps for almost 100,000 civilian deaths. Iraq, a ruined and devestated country, has as you know, become the "sanctuary" for all of Islam's armed groups, a place where they can perpetrate attacks, kidnappings, fierce struggles against the illegal occupant, who is a symbol of the "infidel" and delinquent West, which imposes its democracy with missiles and its Christian values through the use of torture, and all this for a few more barrels of oil....
 
Last edited:
nefarious_plot said:
Theres no documentaion.
I provided you a link to reams of it.

nefarious_plot said:
Only cheap assertions that anybody withan ounce of uderstading of the Iraqi regime would find laughable. The man despised islamic fundimentalism fought a long conflict with Iran over it. Battel the fundy shi'ites in the south. Secualr Stalinst Dictator. Bush jr tryiing to say by these assertions is, bsuh Sr Reagen, Clinton, and carter as well almsot 30 years of CIA study was all 10 posite opposite of fact. Its ridiculous.

From: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/WMD_Timeline_Events.html

295 POL April 2001 Major Iranian missile attack on Mujaheddin el-Khalq (MEK) facilities in Iraq
From:
http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/mujahedeen_print.html

Where does MEK operate?
The group’s armed unit operated from camps in Iraq near the Iran border since 1986. During the Iraq war, U.S. troops disarmed MEK and posted guards at its bases. In addition to its Paris-based members, MEK has a network of sympathizers in Europe, the United States, and Canada. The group’s political arm, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, maintains offices in several capitals, including Washington, D.C.
The group is right at this very moment holed up in Iraq on the base that Saddam gave them, Camp Ashraf:

From: http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/mek.htm

The group’s worldwide campaign against the Iranian Government stresses propaganda and occasionally uses terrorism. During the 1970s, the MEK killed US military personnel and US civilians working on defense projects in Tehran and supported the takeover in 1979 of the US Embassy in Tehran. In 1981, the MEK detonated bombs in the head office of the Islamic Republic Party and the Premier’s office, killing some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials,

Baghdad armed the MEK with military equipment and sent it into action against Iranian forces. In 1991, the MEK assisted the Government of Iraq in suppressing the Shia and Kurdish uprisings in southern Iraq and the Kurdish uprisings in the north. In April 1992, the MEK conducted near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian embassies and installations in 13 countries, demonstrating the group’s ability to mount large-scale operations overseas.

Over 3,000 MEK members are currently confined to Camp Ashraf, the MEK’s main compound north of Baghdad, where they remain under the Geneva Convention’s "protected person" status and Coalition control. As a condition of the cease-fire agreement, the group relinquished its weapons, including tanks, armored vehicles, and heavy artillery. A significant number of MEK personnel have "defected" from the Ashraf group, and several dozen of them have been voluntarily repatriated to Iran.

Before Operation Iraqi Freedom, the group received all of its military assistance, and most of its financial support, from the former Iraqi regime.

Camp Ashraf

The Mujahedin el-Khalq (MKO or MEK) main base is at Camp Ashraf, Iraq, about 100 kilometers west of the Iranian border and 60 kilometers north of Baghdad. The People's Mujahadeen, also known by its Persian name Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), has been classified by Washington as a terrorist organization. Washington announced on 22 April 2003 that it had reached a ceasefire with the MEK. The next day MEK officials said the agreement allowed the MEK to keep its weapons and carry on its activities in Iran from Camp Ashraf. But June 2003 the US Military Police took control of Camp Ashraf and the MEK was consolidated and all weapons secured by MPs. As of September 2003 the 4,000 MEK members in the former Mujahedeen base were consolidated, detained, disarmed and were being screened for any past terrorist acts.

The 530th MP Battalion, maintained the MEK Detention Facility at Camp Ashraf
What exactly would it take to convince you that the relationship between Saddam and the MEK is well documented?
 
Navy Pride said:
Here is a guy defending Saddam..........Next you will be defending Bin Laden........Disgusting........

Nobodies defending him youur an ill informred insutling bufoon. Think before you speak. Im done with you. Your not capable of rationality or civility. Go back to the playground, boy
 
nefarious_plot said:
Nobodies defending him youur an ill informred insutling bufoon. Think before you speak. Im done with you. Your not capable of rationality or civility. Go back to the playground, boy
[mode mode]

Leave the name calling on the playground. If you'd like to discuss your personal feelings for Navy Pride, then start a thread in The Basement. This forum is for debate, not personal attacks.

SWM

[/mod mode]
 
I Thinkk Navy Pides Personl Feelings And Personal Attacks Can Be Adreswsed. What Would Make You Tihnkn Somebody Would T Not Rreact Negavtiley Towards That?
 
I Thinkk Navy Pides Personl Feelings And Personal Attacks Can Be Adreswsed. What Would Make You Tihnkn Somebody Would T Not Rreact Negavtiley Towards That?
 
nefarious_plot said:
I Thinkk Navy Pides Personl Feelings And Personal Attacks Can Be Adreswsed. What Would Make You Tihnkn Somebody Would T Not Rreact Negavtiley Towards That?

The mod team works for free and we would not read every single post even if we could. If you come across a post that violates DP guidelines, please report it using the small button at the bottom left of each post. The button is looks similar to this:
attn1.gif
. It reads "Report Bad Post" when you mouse over it. This button starts a thread in a moderator forum where anyone from the mod team can address it.

Not all disciplinary actions will be public. Furthermore, moderators are not obligated to notify general membership of whether a particular member has received a warning. Nor are moderators obligated to discuss any disciplinary actions taken against a member with any other member.
 
Back
Top Bottom