Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Israel refuse to co-operate with UN on nuclear inspections

Options
1234568

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No you won't. You believe only what you want to believe. I don't think you understand the meaning of majority. The polling was fine, considering Kurds make up only 15% of the Iraqi population. Why should their be an oversampling of Kurdish? Afterall, we're trying to see what the majority want - are we not? And the MAJORITY think that the US is causing more harm than good - What exactly is difficult to grasp about this? You're just unwilling to accept the reality of the matter. That's fine.


    Considering Sunnis make up a minority of the population, and you base your opinion on a poll of 1,150 people with an admitted over-sample of Sunnis, already partial to Saddam and his regime, I will take the poll with a fistful of salt re what "the majority" of Iraqis feel. How's that?


    So, no luck finding a majority of Kurds saying the US did more harm than good then no? Quelle suprise.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7 Goudance


    This is some evience of the cover up regrding the attack on the USS Liberty by Israel.
    This is a link to video and articles on it.

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html
    Cover-Up Alleged in Probe of USS Liberty
    A former Navy attorney who helped lead the military investigation of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 American servicemen says former President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, ordered that the inquiry conclude the incident was an accident.
    In a signed affidavit released at a Capitol Hill news conference, retired Capt. Ward Boston said Johnson and McNamara told those heading the Navy's inquiry to "conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."
    It was "one of the classic all-American cover-ups," said retired Admiral Thomas Moorer, a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman who spent a year investigating the attack as part of an independent panel he formed with other former military officials. The panel also included a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins.
    liberty_torp.jpg
    Torpedo hole in USS Liberty
    "Why would our government put Israel's interests ahead of our own?" Moorer asked from his wheelchair at the news conference. He was chief of naval operations at the time of the attack.

    Moorer, who has long held that the attack was a deliberate act, wants Congress to investigate


    Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and then held extensive interviews with former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested.

    Later, a dual-citizen Israeli major told survivors that he was in an Israeli war room where he heard that pilot's radio report. The attacking pilots and everyone in the Israeli war room knew that they were attacking an American ship, the major said. He recanted the statement only after he received threatening phone calls from Israel.

    The pilot's protests also were heard by radio monitors in the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon. Then-U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter has confirmed this. Porter told his story to syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak and offered to submit to further questioning by authorities. Unfortunately, no one in the U.S. government has any interest in hearing these first-person accounts of Israeli treachery


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    prinz wrote: »
    Considering Sunnis make up a minority of the population, and you base your opinion on a poll of 1,150 people with an admitted over-sample of Sunnis, already partial to Saddam and his regime, I will take the poll with a fistful of salt re what "the majority" of Iraqis feel. How's that?

    I'm going to have to do up the math for you, because I'm getting tired of going around in circles with you on this.

    Sunnis make up 35% ish, Shia make up 65% ish. 15% of the entire population are Kurdish.

    So, let's look at the largest population base in Iraq (Shia) to give you a "fistful" of what the majority feels.

    Only 17% of Shia felt that the US forces were "stablizing forces".

    82% of Shia felt that American forces were doing more harm than good.

    You're welcome.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,263 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Interestingly, though support for the US forces is fairly low when taken in isolation, the Iraqis do seem to think they're better than the alternative of having them pack up and leave. For example, see this poll published about six months ago:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_03_09_iraqpollfeb2009.pdf
    An agreement between the Iraqi and U.S. governments says all U.S. troops are to be withdrawn by 2011. Do you think U.S. forces should leave sooner than that, stay longer than that, or is this timetable about right?

    Leave sooner than 2011 46
    Stay longer than 2011 16
    The timetable for withdrawal is right 35
    Refused/don’t know 2

    That puts a slight majority who do not believe it would be in the best interests for the US troops to hurry up and leave.

    Interestingly, the previous year's poll has 80% say that the US military should participate "in security operations against al Qaeda or foreign jihadis in Iraq"

    The timescale in the 2008 poll had a similar makeup.
    "How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq?" resulted in 38% saying 'Leave now', 35% saying "Stay until security is restored", 14% saying "Stay until the Iraqi government is stronger" and 14% saying to stay even longer than those options.

    I tend not to like voting for either a Republican or a Democrat for President. I would give either party a poor score in isolation. But they're both better than voting for Nader.

    NTM


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Interestingly, though support for the US forces is fairly low when taken in isolation, the Iraqis do seem to think they're better than the alternative of having them pack up and leave. For example, see this poll published about six months ago:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_03_09_iraqpollfeb2009.pdf

    That puts a slight majority who do not believe it would be in the best interests for the US troops to hurry up and leave

    No it doesn't. Only 16% wanted them to stay longer than 2011. 46% of them wanted the troops out even before then. Leaving in 2011 isn't exactly far away. If they really wanted the troops there, much more than 16% would have wanted them to extend their stay beyond 2011.

    Also, in the same survey 73% of the population had no confidence in the US occupation forces.

    When asked who the felt controlled things in their country, 53% stated the United States, with only 32% favouring the Iraqi Government. That's quite disturbing.

    Furthermore, nearly 70% of people felt that the US forces have performed a bad job since the assault.

    Even further telling is the response towards the man who threw his shoe at George Bush - with 62% considered him a hero.

    It's quite clear what's going on here.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,263 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No it doesn't. Only 16% wanted them to stay longer than 2011. 46% of them wanted the troops out even before then. Leaving in 2011 isn't exactly far away

    It was two full years less one month at a minimum (The departure deadline appears to be end 2011, making it almost three years in theory) at the time that poll was taken. Not that close either. What is your theory as to why the people who said '2011 is good' chose that answer instead of 'get out now' if they thought that having US troops present was the worse option?

    NTM


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    dlofnep wrote: »
    You're welcome.


    Anything out of the "poll" is completely discredited in my book. So go elsewhere.


    QUESTION 3 What is the biggest single problem in your life?

    US occupation/presence 2%


    QUESTION 7
    In terms of Iraq as a country, what is the biggest single problem facing Iraq?

    US occupation/presence 7%

    It seems to be a preoccupation (excuse the pun) with them alright....

    dlofnep wrote: »
    It's quite clear what's going on here.

    Yeah, you're taking a flawed 3 year old poll and attempting to infer various things from it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    prinz wrote: »
    Anything out of the "poll" is completely discredited in my book. So go elsewhere.

    Of course it is, it doesn't suit your agenda. Weak rebuttal. You first came from the angle that it was too much in favour of Sunnis, then when I demonstrated that the majority of the Shia were also disgusted with the US occupation, the survey now becomes discredited.

    Although, it is interesting that you still use similar surveys to twist your own logic.

    prinz wrote: »
    QUESTION 3 What is the biggest single problem in your life?
    US occupation/presence 2%

    And you find it peculiar that issues such as lack of clean water and poor living conditions and lack of employment would take priority over it?

    Fail. It has already been demonstrated that 70% of the population were discontent with the US forces and the work that they do and that the majority of people find the US to do more harm than good. The fact that the US occupation doesn't rank above lack of clean water, or jobs doesn't say anything, other than these issues are rightfully more important in the the short term.
    prinz wrote: »
    QUESTION 7
    In terms of Iraq as a country, what is the biggest single problem facing Iraq?

    US occupation/presence 7%

    Along with lack of security, that was actually the highest percentage response in the survey. Did you actually read the responses to the question?

    Lack of security: 8%
    US Occupation: 7%

    prinz wrote: »
    Yeah, you're taking a flawed 3 year old poll and attempting to infer various things from it.

    No I'm not. How is the poll flawed? You don't seem to have even a basic grasp on statistics. I have already outlined that even the majority population (Shia) were pretty much on par with all the issues I outlined. And moreover, the poll listed by MM taken in 2009 still demonstrated "no confidence in the US occupation forces" and that the US forces had done a bad job. The only thing flawed is your pick and choosery. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    It was two full years less one month at a minimum (The departure deadline appears to be end 2011, making it almost three years in theory) at the time that poll was taken. Not that close either. What is your theory as to why the people who said '2011 is good' chose that answer instead of 'get out now' if they thought that having US troops present was the worse option?

    NTM

    Coming from the same population that had 65% of it's people consider a man who threw a pair of smelly shoes at George Bush as a hero.

    Yeah, I'm sure they just love you guys. :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Of course it is, it doesn't suit your agenda. Weak rebuttal. You first came from the angle that it was too much in favour of Sunnis, then when I demonstrated that the majority of the Shia were also disgusted with the US occupation, the survey now becomes discredited.

    It is, flawed from the get-go. Too small a sample and politically loaded.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    Although, it is interesting that you still use similar surveys to twist your own logic.

    I may be open to correction but I didn't see any caveat on the poll Manic Moran linked about the over sampling of particular groups.

    Seems to me the US presence in Iraq is actually fairly far down the list of priorities I agree, on an individual or a national level. You may notice most of the other concerns are improving ( see later questions about fuel, food etc, even the feeling of security is improving ).

    Along with a 61% with a lot or a good deal of confidence in the government and 55% approval rating for al-Maliki

    dlofnep wrote: »
    No I'm not. How is the poll flawed? You don't seem to have even a basic grasp on statistics.

    See above. We've clarified repeatedly why it is.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    prinz wrote: »
    It is, flawed from the get-go.

    No it's not.
    prinz wrote: »
    Too small a sample

    No smaller than any standard political survey.
    prinz wrote: »
    and politically loaded.

    It's a political survey. The questions are going to be of a political nature. There is nothing obtuse about it.

    Do you really think a nation where the majority of it's people consider the shoe-pelting of the occupation force's president as a "heroic act" are really content with the occupying forces? In both polls, they are discontent with the US actions. There is nothing complex about this. It's very transparent.

    You still don't seem to be able to absorb these facts. It's quite amusing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2 smallpox


    Iran's ruled by Muslim fanatics! The Ayatollahs have brutally suppressed any democratic freedom in Iran, they've opressed women, murdered minorities, journalists, and anyone who speaks out. And you want them to have nukes?

    what do you think about George W. Bush? he wasn't a Christian fanatic?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

    a lot more to read.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No it's not.

    So like I asked a few pages back, if a survey was done of 900 loyalists and 250 nationalists...... you wouldn't call it a flawed representation of the average opinions of Northern Irish?
    dlofnep wrote: »
    It's a political survey. The questions are going to be of a political nature. There is nothing obtuse about it.

    An over representation of a particular minority.... loaded to give a particular outcome.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    prinz wrote: »
    So like I asked a few pages back, if a survey was done of 900 loyalists and 250 nationalists...... you wouldn't call it a flawed representation of the average opinions of Northern Irish?

    Not if it breaks down each demographic individually like it does in that poll.

    So what that means (since you seem to be failing to grasp this for the 10th time), is that - for each demographic you can have individual polling data.

    Now - if they demostrated a majority, without showing individual demographics, then I would whoreheartidly agree with you that it did not represent the full picture of each demographic. But since all demographics are represented on an individual level, then this is not the case - and thus, the poll is valid, and not invalid as you keep stating.

    So just to add further depth, incase you still fail to understand all this - here is the data on an individual basis.

    On the matter of US forces provoking more conflict than preventing.

    Shia: 82%
    Sunni: 97%
    Kurd: 41%

    Overall average based on samples used: 78%

    If I was to give equal weight to all demographics, it would still be an average of 73.3%. Is it getting through to you yet?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2 smallpox


    does anyone remember reading about the "Lavon Affair"? it didn't happen but they were given presidential honor.. but the Libyan guy or whatever it was is hated for killing people -- I think that killing anyone, no matter who it is, my friend or foe is stupid... but it's amazing how they forget so easily.

    my "conspiracy theorist" opinion tells me that the attacks of 9/11 were just about on par with what happened with the Lavon Affair if anyone wants to read up on it.

    second of all, insurgency my ass -- i'm tired of hearing about insurgents. I live in California, if anyone were to come here and fight the U.S., i'd be shooting at the them too, I LIVE HERE. NO MATTER WHAT I AM, CONSIDER ME AN INSURGENT. If china drops troops and starts shooting up my neighborhood, i will be behind the national guard. (or in front because i'm impatient, i'll end up getting killed.) You can't blame people for supporting the insurgency in their country.

    We need to stop backing Israel, sanction them for nukes and all the war crimes they've committed and apologize to the mid-east for all the bull**** America has done and said about them for Israel.

    I dont hate jews, I think of everyone equally -- I just deeply believe in the Zionist theory that Ahmadinejad talks about and I have absolutely no loyalty or care in the world about him, I do think he's a bright guy though and I'm tired of hearing 'anti-semite' tossed around, doesn't mean ****.. maybe Israel needs to stop considering everyone else a 'gentile'.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    prinz wrote: »
    Are you denying Israel and Turkey are strategic, economic, military and intelligence allies are you? :rolleyes:

    Oh thats right answer a question with a question....

    and round and round we go.....


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    jank wrote: »
    Oh thats right answer a question with a question....

    and round and round we go.....


    :confused: Oh right sorry, I thought yours was rhetorical. Ehm no, I wasn't a fly on the wall in the agreeing of military and trade deals between Israel and Turkey. However they are public knowledge. Now your turn to answer....


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    dlofnep wrote: »
    On the matter of US forces provoking more conflict than preventing.

    That is interpreted US is an unwelcome occupying military force now?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    prinz wrote: »
    That is interpreted US is an unwelcome occupying military force now?

    How do you interpret the following when..
    • The majority of the people consider a man who attacked the occupying force's president with shoes as a "hero".
    • The majority of the people regard the work that the occupying force do as bad or very bad.
    • The majority of the people regard the occuyping force as a provoker rather than a protector.
    • The majority of the people have no confidence in the occupying force.

    Do you really believe that they are content and welcoming towards the US occupation forces, where they have seen a million people die and complete demolishment of their infrastructure since the US-lead invasion?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    prinz wrote: »
    :However they are public knowledge. ...

    So what happens in closed door diplomatic meetings is always made public....
    You should really think before posting.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,263 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Coming from the same population that had 65% of it's people consider a man who threw a pair of smelly shoes at George Bush as a hero.

    Yeah, I'm sure they just love you guys. :rolleyes:

    That doesn't answer the question. They don't have to like us to understand that it could be the better of two evils. I repeat for clarity: Why would the slight majority believe that it would not be a good thing for the US troops to pull out immediately, and the overwhelming majority believe that the US should continue to have a role in fighting insurgents in Iraq if they did not accept that there was some benefit to the US military presence?

    NTM


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    That doesn't answer the question. They don't have to like us to understand that it could be the better of two evils. I repeat for clarity: Why would the slight majority believe that it would not be a good thing for the US troops to pull out immediately, and the overwhelming majority believe that the US should continue to have a role in fighting insurgents in Iraq if they did not accept that there was some benefit to the US military presence?

    NTM

    That's not how I see it.

    They were given 3 options -

    Leave sooner: 46%
    Stay Longer: 16%
    Stay until 2011: 35%

    Firstly, the largest portion of respondents opted to have troops out immediately, almost half of the population infact. A further 35% opted to have them stay til 2011 - this could mean anything, from wanting the US troops to clean up the mess they made before they leave, to accepting that 2011 is the only realistic timeframe that they will leave on.

    Then way I see it is that, only 16% of the population want the US troops to really stay on until "the job is done". 2011 is really just an arbitrary time-scale if you think about it.

    I guess it depends on how you look at the figures. Considering all of the data shown which demonstrates complete discontent for the US troops, I take it as 81% of Iraqis want American troops gone by 2011 or sooner. If they wanted the troops there to do their work, they would rather they as long as required to finish their job and this is really only the case for 16% of the respondents.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,263 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I guess it depends on how you look at the figures. Considering all of the data shown which demonstrates complete discontent for the US troops, I take it as 81% of Iraqis want American troops gone by 2011 or sooner.

    Even that doesn't defeat my point, it's a slightly different issue. I think you'll find that most American troops would be quite happy to have American troops gone by 2011 or sooner. That doesn't mean to say that American troops are unhappy with American troops and think that American troops are the worst thing that can be happening in Iraq right now, just that there's an ideal state which doesn't involve American troops being there.
    If they wanted the troops there to do their work, they would rather they as long as required to finish their job and this is really only the case for 16% of the respondents.

    That position does not preclude the possibility that they believe that the job should be pretty much finished by 2011, which does look like being fairly much the case.

    NTM


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    That position does not preclude the possibility that they believe that the job should be pretty much finished by 2011, which does look like being fairly much the case.

    NTM

    You really think the US can sort out that mess by 2011? The tribal attitude in Iraqi society won't end in 2011 I'm afraid to say.

    I guess it's up to what you consider the "job" to be? Since it's not weapons of mass the destruction anymore, we can only assume it to be inserting democracy into Iraq, and stabilizing the region. Since the respondents have already stated that they feel that the US troops are provoking rather than stablizing and that they felt the US controls Iraq, surely - isn't the US presence counter-productive? (Although, mass amount of death since the US-lead assault is pretty much proof of that).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    prinz wrote: »
    Considering Sunnis make up a minority of the population, and you base your opinion on a poll of 1,150 people with an admitted over-sample of Sunnis, already partial to Saddam and his regime, I will take the poll with a fistful of salt re what "the majority" of Iraqis feel. How's that?


    So, no luck finding a majority of Kurds saying the US did more harm than good then no? Quelle suprise.
    Hold on a sec, Manic Moran don't you have an opinion on this?
    In the past MM has posted that the Sunnis were largely coming-round and seeing the US as their protectors.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    Hold on a sec, Manic Moran don't you have an opinion on this?
    In the past MM has posted that the Sunnis were largely coming-round and seeing the US as their protectors.

    Not in 2006 they weren't :rolleyes: which was when the poll was conducted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    jank wrote: »
    So what happens in closed door diplomatic meetings is always made public....
    You should really think before posting.


    Are you going to answer the question?

    As it happens, yes various arms, economic and strategic deals between Turkey and Israel are public knowledge.. so do you have a point?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,388 ✭✭✭Riddle101


    This is basically the UN. They tell people not to do things, and they refuse. I can't imagine how anybody thought the UN would be an effective body when it can't even work without co-operation.

    My thought on the issue are simple, if Isreal think it's above inspection then I believe sanctions should be placed on it, as well as any other country who refuse to co-operate. The UN's easy going style is completely useless, it's time for a no tolerence policy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Riddle101 wrote: »
    This is basically the UN. They tell people not to do things, and they refuse. I can't imagine how anybody thought the UN would be an effective body when it can't even work without co-operation.

    Actually, it can't work with even 90% agreement, due to the power to actually do anything being with the UNSC. And its that way because thats the way the powers of the day wanted it.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,263 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    dlofnep wrote: »
    You really think the US can sort out that mess by 2011? The tribal attitude in Iraqi society won't end in 2011 I'm afraid to say.

    Oh, I fully agree. But as they say, "perfection is the enemy of 'good enough.'"

    As it currently stands, the US forces are generally off the streets right now, but are still occasionally requested to go out by the Iraqi security forces. As long as the stability holds to reasonable levels, I think there will be further increases in confidence in and of the Iraqi Army and Police, with equivalent reductions in the requests for US assistance. There was, as expected, a blip in violence when the Iraqis took over primary effect, this seems to have passed now. So, yes, I think the Americans can begin to draw down, with the expectation that the vast majority can be gone by end 2011 whilst always maintaining a suitable response capability appropriate to the level required at that time.
    I guess it's up to what you consider the "job" to be?

    At this stage, it's aiding the Iraqi forces, not doing the stabilisation job themselves.
    (Although, mass amount of death since the US-lead assault is pretty much proof of that).

    There is little indication that if the US forces had left as soon as they had completed the overthrow of the Iraqi government that the internecine strife would not have surfaced anyway. It's easy to blame the foreigner, though.
    old on a sec, Manic Moran don't you have an opinion on this?
    In the past MM has posted that the Sunnis were largely coming-round and seeing the US as their protectors.

    I don't believe I have. What I have said is that the Sunnis had largely come around and decided that working with the US was a better alternative than letting groups such as AQI run rampant in their areas.

    NTM


Advertisement