Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (34791)	3/16/2004 2:44:27 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794253

we can only conclude that Americans are good for only one thing: providing unquestioned military support and assistance to those who otherwise wish nothing to do with them. Yep. Hanson nailed it. We are leaning eastward with our Euro bases, and will continue to. We can no longer count on the Spanish seaports or Air Bases in a time of crisis. Remember, we had to fly around Spain with our F-111's when we attacked Libya.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (34791)	3/16/2004 2:52:37 AM
From: Elsewhere	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 794253

Hanson is as dense as most of the time. Aznar was voted out because he lied to his people, trying to exploit the ETA conflict. If Hanson and others interpret the election result as "appeasement" it is a sign of their incapability to see the world without their blinders. Zapatero will fight terror, of course: "Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spain's new prime minister-elect, has said his first priority is to fight terrorism." news.bbc.co.uk But "war on terror" doesn't include the occupation of Iraq.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (34791)	3/16/2004 3:01:13 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 794253

I expected the numbers on the Iraqi polls. The British ones surprised me. Blair is doing much better than I thought. And the Brits have the same problem as us. Their intellectuals are out of step with the masses. Majority of Iraqis See Life Better Without Saddam LONDON (Reuters) - A majority of Iraqis believe life is better now than it was under Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), according to a poll released on Tuesday. A total of 2,500 Iraqis were quizzed for a group of international broadcasting organizations including the BBC in a poll to mark the first anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion. Almost half (49 percent) of those questioned believed the invasion of their country by U.S. and British troops was right, compared with 39 percent who said it was wrong, the poll commissioned by the BBC and other broadcasters found. Some 57 percent said that life was better now than under Saddam, against 19 percent who said it was worse and 23 percent who said it was about the same. Iraqi people appeared optimistic about the future, with 71 percent saying they expected things to be better in a years time, six percent predicting it will be worse and nine percent the same. Overall, 70 percent said that life was good now, compared with 29 percent who said it was bad. Some 85 percent identified restoration of public security as a major priority, against 30 percent who wanted elections for a national government and 28 percent an economic revival. Just a quarter said they had confidence in U.S.-led occupation forces to deliver their needs. There were far higher levels of confidence in Iraqi religious leaders (70 percent), local police (68 percent) and the new Iraqi army (56 percent). Fifty-one percent were opposed to the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq (news - web sites), against 39 percent who supported it. Almost a fifth of those questioned said that attacks on foreign forces were acceptable, while 14 percent said the same about attacks on the civilian administrators of the Coalition Provisional Authority and 10 percent on foreigners working with the CPA. Asked what political system they believed was needed in their country, 86 percent said they wanted democracy, but 81 percent said a single strong Iraqi leader was needed. Opinion was evenly split on whether the invasion of Iraq. The poll found that 41 percent believed that the invasion humiliated Iraq while 42 percent said it liberated the country. BRITONS DIVIDED A separate poll of British people suggested that a slim majority -- 48 percent to 43 percent -- supported UK involvement in the war. Some 40 percent of respondents to the UK poll for the BBC2 "Newsnight" program said that British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) and his government exaggerated the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to war, and 22 percent that they lied about WMD, against 29 percent who said they told the truth. But the survey found that more Britons would trust Blair (32 percent) to take a decision on future military action than Conservative leader Michael Howard (22 percent) or the Liberal Democrats Charles Kennedy (17 percent). Pollster ICM interviewed 1,014 British adults between March 10 and 12. Oxford Research International interviewed 2,500 Iraqis between February 10 and 28 for the broadcasting organizations BBC, ABC News, ARD and NHK.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (34791)	3/16/2004 11:23:13 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794253

Hanson is wrong in denouncing the Spanish as appeasers. It was a dead-heat election before the bombs. Most of the voters did not support Aznar's pro-US policy in Iraq, yet at least half of them were willing to vote to keep his party (and his policies) in power. Hanson does not once mention the blame immediately and unjustifiably cast by Aznar upon ETA. This is unbelievable. Ever single credible report suggests that it played a part in changing some voters' minds. This political dynamic does not somehow transfom the Spanish into appeasers. It is wrong and dngerous to think in such black-and-white terms. Of course, the Spanish will be allies in the WOT. After all, the insano-Islamists have proved to them that they are targets. We need to keep support or lack of it for the Iraq war and the WOT in two different categories. The lack of support for one does not automatically translate into a lack of support for the other. Or into appeasement. Hanson, with whom I generally agree, is way off-base on this one.