"I killed 2 Americans...Now I just want to kill more and more."

Eh?

The poll was done by Gallup, I believe. And it was of people who live there. And there's a forumla for determining exactly how accurate they are, as opposed to single first person accounts.

 

i just found this

http://www.grunt.com/vietnamwarcasualites.htm

they have it around the million number that i thought, but then i am going thru other links and i am not sure if that number is on the low side or what. the other sites i have looked at one which has americanstateterrorism in its name, so take that with a grain of salt, says 500,000 more civs died in laos.

another site puts it at 3 million civ deaths then later lists it around 1.2 million and puts civ deaths in laos around 2,000. those numbers were from the Peace Pledge Union

but this is the most consistent number i have seen listed

VIET CONG & NORTH VIETNAMESE ARMY DEATHS, TOTAL (EST): 666,000

SOUTH VIETNAMESE CIVILIAN DEATHS (EST): 300,000

NORTH VIETNAMESE CIVILIAN DEATHS (EST): 65,000

 

Like I said, I'd trust primary sources as opposed to seconday, like the media portrays. But I guess that's just me.

 

Two things:
A. As I've said before, since hate is the strongest negative emotion (the opposite of love, the strongest positive emotion), there can be no levels of hatred. I don't believe and will not believe a strong American foreign policy creates more terrorists. People who believe that also believe that we can get along with terrorists, which is something that will never happen. They will find new ways to hate us, even after we leave Saudi and Iraq. They hate Western civilization and would love to see it destroyed.

B. I seriously doubt pollsters in Iraq are able with the conditions there (if our slanted media is to be believed) to get a large enough sample for the poll to be accurate. If they are able to get a representative sample, what does that say about conditions in Iraq? People aren't going to go door to door with bombs exploding everywhere and people brandishing AK's all over the place.

C. I still say General Zinni has some kind of ax to grind with the Admin. He has to know that the anti-war left in this country would use his words to harm our troops by attempting to turn public opinion away from the war, causing us to run away without accomplishing anything of value (like Vietnam). I love how the liberals react "See, we're right. Some general supposedly confirms every negative thing we say." They almost jump up and down in jubilation to see the chance of us running with our tail between our legs to the UN. Who cares if we lose the war. It's worth it if we get rid of Bush.

 

They hate Western civilization and would love to see it destroyed.

There is simply no evidence to back this claim up, no matter how often it gets repeated.

I seriously doubt pollsters in Iraq are able with the conditions there (if our slanted media is to be believed) to get a large enough sample for the poll to be accurate.

You're not too familiar with polling there. You can get a scientifically accurate result with 30 people (yes, 30). Most likely, they got a few hundred - normally, the polls say exactly what the sample size is. It's not difficult to randomly call 300 Iraqis. They do have phones. These's organization's credibility is based on the scientific accuracy of their polling methods - Gallup and such organizations are not going to distort their methods under any circumstances.

I still say General Zinni has some kind of ax to grind with the Admin. He has to know that the anti-war left in this country would use his words to harm our troops by attempting to turn public opinion away from the war, causing us to run away without accomplishing anything of value (like Vietnam).

Getting out of Vietnam saved thousands of American lives. I thought that was a good thing. They didn't want us there, we didn't want us there. We were fighting to prop up a dictator instead of a communism. It was the definition of a war we needed to get out of.

 

Okay.... They tried to attack our economy by blowing up the Trade Center in the 90's. They rammed airplanes into it and later destroyed it in 9/11. In every communique, they talk about the decadence of the West and how it offends them. And you just think that if we leave Saudi and Iraq, everything will be hunky-dory? No.

I am a poly-sci double major and one of the many jobs I held in college was as a telephone poll taker. I took plenty of classes on political polling. We learned that the larger and more diverse the sample...the more accurate the data until you reach a point where the cost of contacting an ever-larger sample exceeds the worth of the data. So it's a compromise. But like with offensive lineman, bigger is always better (when it comes to a representative sample.) Well, you're surrendering to me a major point and that is, if things are going that badly in Iraq, how are the phone systems, which require trained people to operate and are vulnerable to attack, allowing pollsters to call random Iraqis?

We hung the South Vietnamese out to dry after we left, which was a crime. The Congress would not allow any aid to Vietnam, hastening its downfall at the hands of the Communists, who butchered thousands. Real noble.

 

Perhaps because it wasn't a telephone poll, and also because, as has been noted, the April revolt happened after it was taken.

I'm sure you'll find some other way to dismiss it though.


BTW, I still await an amusing, hyperbolic denunciation of your heroic leader GWB for pussing out and toadying to the UN (please, don't say he's doing it because of pansies like me, I'd never vote for him anyway). I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.