do you have a link to a poll or study that proves that the people in the middle east 'love' america and it's policies more than ever as you say?
why, yes: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050829/29barone.htm -- By Michael Barone Of Minds and Metrics Metrics are hard to come by in the war on terrorism. We can know the number of improvised explosive devices that go off in Iraq and the number of suicide bombers there, but we can only guess at whether these numbers represent the last throes of a terrorist movement or its continuing growth. We can count the number of days the Iraqi parliament has moved the deadline for drafting a constitution--seven, as this is written--but cannot be sure what the effect of a finally drafted constitution will be. We can note that some 220,000 Iraqis took part in deliberations over the constitution and that the Iraqi electricity supply now exceeds that of prewar levels. But the most important changes occurring, not just in Iraq but across the Muslim world, are changes in people's minds. These are harder, but not impossible, to measure. George W. Bush has proclaimed that we are working to build democracy in Iraq not just for Iraqis but in order to advance freedom and defeat fanatical Islamist terrorism around the world. Now comes the Pew Global Attitudes Project's recent survey of opinion in six Muslim countries to tell us that progress is being made in achieving that goal. Minds are being changed and in the right direction. Most important, support for terrorism in defense of Islam has "declined dramatically," in the Pew report's words, in Muslim countries, except in Jordan (which has a Palestinian majority) and Turkey, where support has remained a low 14 percent. It has fallen in Indonesia (from 27 to 15 percent since 2002), Pakistan (from 41 to 25 percent since 2004), Morocco (from 40 to 13 percent since 2004), and among Muslims in Lebanon (from 73 to 26 percent since 2002). Support for suicide bombings against Americans in Iraq has also declined. The percentage reporting some confidence in Osama bin Laden is now under 10 percent in Lebanon and Turkey and has fallen sharply in Indonesia. Similarly, when asked whether democracy was a western way of doing things or could work well in their own country, between 77 and 83 percent in Lebanon, Morocco, Jordan, and Indonesia say it could work in their country--in each case a significant increase from earlier surveys. In Turkey, with its sharp political divisions, and Pakistan, with its checkered history, the percentages hover around 50 percent. Polls in the United States may show that Americans have become less supportive of our efforts in Iraq as the suicide bombings and roadside-bomb attacks continue. But the Pew polls in these Muslim countries show that those attacks have moved Muslim opinion against the terrorists and toward democracy. Muslims around the world cannot help but notice that Iraq is moving, however imperfectly, toward representative government. They can't have missed the "Cedar Revolution" in Lebanon and the expulsion of Syrian forces from Beirut. They may have noticed the small concessions to democracy in Saudi Arabia. New stakeholders. They may also have noticed that Egypt will have its first contested election for president this year. "There were no arguments over the United States, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, or any of the other 'hot spots' that used to dominate every meal and spill over into tea, coffee, and dessert," writes Mona Eltahawy in the Washington Post of her trip to Egypt this summer. "This time, all conversations were about a small but active opposition movement in Egypt that since December has focused on ending the dictatorship of President Hosni Mubarak. I have never heard so many relatives and friends take such an interest in Egyptian politics or--more important--feel that they had a stake in them." Minds are indeed changing. This is not to say that everybody in these countries has good things to say about the United States. But we are not engaged in a popularity contest. We're trying to construct a safer world. We are in the long run better off if Muslims around the world turn away from terrorism and move toward democracy, even if we don't like some of the internal policies they choose and even if they don't have much affection for the United States. Two generations ago Americans, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of deaths, changed minds in Germany and Japan. The Pew Global Project Attitude's metrics give us reason to believe that today's Americans, at far lower cost, are once again changing minds in the Muslim world.
First thing that I noticed is that the man wrote the article with the help of a time machine That is a good article that shows people in the middle east don't support terrorism. It doesn't show that they love the U.S. I'm not saying that they do or don't love the U.S. and neither is this article.
Blade to give basso the benefit of the doubt. It might be from USNews' next week issue. Sometimes they publish the online version early. But yes, I agree that the article states that people of the Middle East don't like terrorism (big surprise) but not necessarily like the US any more. Even the article says it.
not trying to butt in, but he didn't say anything about them loving america. he made statements about how liberal democracies are very stable and give people outlets for their aggression. just because he stated america is the catalyst of the attempt at democracy in iraq doesn't mean he is implying that they love america. you are jumping a couple steps ahead.
Doesn't look good for today's deadline.... Iraq Lawmakers Won't Meet on Constitution By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer BAGHDAD, Iraq - Parliament announced it had no plans to meet Thursday night and no date for a future session, signaling Iraqi factions were failing to reach agreement on a new constitution before a self-imposed midnight target. The statement from National Assembly's top spokesman, Bishro Ibrahim, came as negotiators struggled for consensus on a draft by the close of a 72-hour extension granted Monday night by parliament, after Sunni Arabs blocked a vote on a charter accepted by Shiite and Kurdish negotiators. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050825...RFX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
thats my point! he first said that he is willing to admit he is wrong if hatred towards the US grows.. then I responded with this then he made statements about how liberal democracies are very stable and give people outlets for their aggression. just because he stated america is the catalyst of the attempt at democracy in iraq doesn't mean they don't hate america more. that's why I asked him if he has proof that our policies has either made them love us more or hate us less.. if not and they still hate us more, then he should admit he is wrong.. you are jumping the one who is a couple steps ahead or behind, or ...
A democratic system allows for the voice of the people. Much of the extremist in much of the middle east is due to a lack of basic freedoms and economic opportunities which creates despair. The man with nothing to lose is the most dangerous. And i'm not gauging the 'hatred of the US' in the midst of a few months or a year, but in the long-run affect of the policies. There were Japanese against the US and MacArthur's aide actually wrote their constitution. Though there was initial animosity, I would imagine over 95% of Japanese today are happy that we made the changes which led to their economic and social prosperity.
so you're denying that you did not write this? then I told you it has already hatred grown.. then now you flip-flopped and say its about long-term affect of its policies.. really? you must have one hell of an imagination.. we use them as a guinea pig and nuke two japanese cities and they are thankful for it? until now, there are long term effects of those nukes.. so what changes did america make? they fixed the destruction they did to put Japan back to preWWII status? I thought they were already prosperous before WWII.. Isn't their prosperity mainly becasue of their own hardwork and innovation..
I didn't say they were thankful for getting nuked. But because a free, democratic and capitalistic system was placed in both Japan and Germany, they have been some of the strongest economies in the world. Much of their progress IS due to the system we put in place. It seems many of you have not learned from past mistakes. After world war I, Europe left germany in shambles similar to Iraq after the Gulf War. That left the seeds of economic despair that grew into Nazi Germany and WWII. As to not repeat the mistakes of the past we took a role in helping the country to succeed. A company with a strong economy which is built by capitalism has people that have lives and savings and more to lose. Then again.....Russia and your communist friends took over East Germany and Eastern Europe and it became the toilet of Europe. Thats how Venezuela will ultimately end up if it continues w/ Chavez's communist leanings.
YOu know...we all don't worship at the capitalist alter to the same extent as Khan . But no need to attack him personally or twist his words. He's added reasoned discussion here that's been lacking. Lots of pissing matches in other threads, if that's your thing. Challenge his ideas, if you like. But I, for one, am welcoming his posts.
Its ok. I try to put reason in my posts and state what I believe. Many try to discourage that by using personal attacks by multiple 'similar thinking' posters. I enjoy the discussion and if everyone thought as I did, life would be pretty boring. I honestly was originally very much against the war in Iraq, yet ironically, I now feel it can better the landscape for the future of the region.
what you dont seem to realize is that the mess in the Middle East in the first place was created by the U.S...so i guess its their duty to fix it up... there is only one reason they keep coming back to that region...i've said it once and ill say it again .....if the ME was more like Africa...nobody would even give a rats a$$.... i would just like you to admit that F.D. Khan.
Iraq Misses Third Constitution Deadline By BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press Writer 22 minutes ago BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq missed yet a third deadline Thursday for finishing the new constitution as faction leaders failed to make enough progress toward compromise even to schedule a parliamentary session. Faced with an impasse, some lawmakers said the document may bypass parliament completely and instead be sent straight to the voters to decide in a referendum Oct. 15. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050825...6lX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Of course its because of the oil. Oil fuels the economy. I am not naive enough to think otherwise. But because of the oil we played around quite a bit, so now we are finally trying to fix the problem. I posted this in the Chavez/Oil thread but its probably more relevant here: I was originally very much against the war in Iraq. I felt there was not much of a threat and that Saddam was more secular in nature and though he probably had ties to terrorism, I wasn't sure if that warranted invasion. Now my feelings about the situation are more that containment was not an option. I feel its better to go in and push for change then to slowly starve a country with UN Trade Embargo's and the such. I think we must correct the problem in the region and not simply put band-aids on it. I think much of the problems lie in the fact that post-colonization, we were not as willing to play active roles to push for democracy in these new countries and what happened was a vicious cycle of totalitarian dictators whether they were called president, king, shah or general. We in the US really didn't care who ruled as long as the precious oil kept flowing. As our dependance grew, we needed to maintain those open lines and probably supported those that did not deserve it. Those rulers oversaw there people with an iron fist and attempted to limit freedom of speech, thought and democracy. These people today are the result of a generation that has been held down by a thumb. We all know that human nature will force us to survive and fight. The result is religious extremism which is a means to fight those who enslave the people. These dictatorships are corrupt and inefficient (not ruled by the most intelligent or for the people but for their family or own wallets), therefore the society's were economically deprived as well. I think the administration realized that drastic steps were neede to correct past wrongs. They saw Saddam as a threat, and that though we have a short attention span now days, they wish to do things right. Push for democracy and let the people speak. Use Iraq as an example that if people have a voice, they will not have to use a bomb. I think we are starting to see the signs of democracy throughout the region and the freedom and capitalism will allow people to live and have families and not vent in despair. Its not the easy solution, or the quick solution, but I believe it could be the right one. Just my opinion of course.
I agree with you about a lot of this, but there is a fundamental difference. I agree that a stable democracy would be great for Iraq, and the middle east in general. I don't think forcing that democracy at the barrel of the gun shows the U.S. to be a good role model, nor does it foster what democracy is really about. Furthermore, I believe the best place to set up that model democracy was Afghanistan. We should have kept the focus there, gathered up Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and the rest of the Al Qaeda, and TAliban groups that are still hanging around. We should have worked to stabilize the huge sections of the country which are unstable, and provided as much support and aid as it took to turn that country into self sustaining model democracy. There was some outrage, but in general the world did not object to our invasion of Afghanistan, and Americans were largely unified behind the president in that mission. The support was there. Having making the entire nation stable instead of just one fraction of it would have been good for Afghanis, good PR for America throughout the rest of the middle east, and been a shining example with little of the PR problems that Iraq has had, which I believe will make establishing American style democracies harder. The result is that we have two projects neither of which were done well, instead of one project completely finished and a nation where American good will could be on display for everyone to see. We could have held up AFghanistan as a model of what democracy with help from America could be. We also announce and pursue efforts to help other nations make their OWN democtratic reform.
Afghanistan does not have oil, so its potential to be an economically thriving democracy is much poorer. Iraq, though its wealth, has a greater chance to be an influencing factor in the region. I think the Pres has been dishonest with his methods and his intentions. I think, at this point, he's done more damage than good. But I do hold out hope for the type of change Khan talks about. To cut out now...and let them sort it out for themselves would ensure the worse case comes about. While it's true you can't force democracy at the barrel of a gun, it is also difficult to establish democracy without help -- especially against an all-powerful, wealthy opponent. If the US leaves now...and lets them fight it out for themselves, the resultant government will be whomever can gain the most power at that time-- not what 'the people' want, or what will serve them best. The Regan years taught me that sometimes what i consider to be foolhearty...somehow works out well. I was concerned he'd throw us into a global war with his arms build up and sabre rattling. Instead, the 'iron curtain' fell, and Eastern Europe opened up. Lots of other factors involved,of course, but Regan's policies certainly had a big impact. That's why I'm cautiously hopeful for Iraq. I still am strongly against how it came about, and how it has been executed. And for those reasons, I don't think the US will ever be seen as the 'good guy' here. But I can see potential for good coming from it.
