Reasons for Why Iraq Was Better of Under Saddam…, page 2

Liberal's point, for me, is twofold. Firstly, we have taken a situation that was, admittedly, bad (the Iraqi people under Saddam), and made it worse. Around 1000 Iraqis a month are dying through violence, and there is reason to suppose that the US is behind some of this, through organising death squads. There are threads on ATS here and here about this. Plus, Iraq has been asset-stripped by the US, the multinationals are using the instability as an excuse to make their oil contracts even more of a rip-off for the Iraqi people, the much-vaunted 'reconstruction' is a sham - unless you're talking about the US embassy which will be visible from space, and there are precious few jobs to go round. Have you heard about Iraqis marching in the streets, demonstrating for jobs?

Secondly, in order to demonise Saddam to the point that the Great Unwashed could be persuaded invasion was a Good Thing, his positive achievements (and there were some) had to be ignored. Yes, Saddam spent a lot on himself and his cronies, but the rulers of neighbouring oil-rich states spent at least as much if not more on themselves, and precious little on their own people. Saddam, as another poster pointed out, had literacy and health care programmes. He also had a massive public works building programme, and before Gult War I (which, incidentally, had a huge effect on public health thanks to the introduction of DU pollution) infant mortality rate - a rather good guide to the well-being of a populace - was rather better than in some US cities.

And because Saddam was a secularist, Shia and Sunni lived alongside each other in peace, and women could get jobs, go out in public without the hijab, and do so in safety.

To throw away all that in exchange for a purple thumb voting for a puppet government is hardly progress, imo. And I think the Iraqi people would agree.

If the purpose of the US had been simply and solely to liberate the Iraqi people from an Evil Dictator, they'd have left by now.

No doubt I'll get the kind of "Saddam is your boyfriend" argument seen all too often on this board, but all I'm trying to do is bring a little grey scale to the black and white. Saddam DID do SOME good things for the Iraqis, and it is a notable achievement of the US that many of them are starting to look back on his time as the good old days.

As for Saddam's trial, has anyone asked themselves why it's restricted to only one case, in which he gave the death penalty (admittedly, to a LOT of people) for an assassination attempt on him? Why IS that, I wonder? Could it have anything to do with the fact that there is no chance that any US politicians could be called upon to testify in such a purely internal matter? It's a show trial, is what it is... and the Soviets did this kind of thing so much better...

Originally posted by Rightwingpatriot

It's not people's fault that they don't realise the good aspects of Saddam.

What in the world have you been smoking? Saddam had no good aspects. He slaughtered people by the thousands. Look at what he did to the Kurdish people. By the way, ask the average Kurdish person what they think of the coalition. A recent poll said that something like 95% approved of the invasion, still do, and want coalition troops to stay.

Could you possibly provide a link to this "recent poll"? Because a recent one I've seen, reported in the London Telegraph and conducted by the UK Ministry of Defence in late 2005, seems to suggest otherwise:

Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.

The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.

It demonstrates for the first time the true strength of anti-Western feeling in Iraq after more than two and a half years of bloody occupation.

The nationwide survey also suggests that the coalition has lost the battle to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, which Tony Blair and George W Bush believed was fundamental to creating a safe and secure country.

And fyi, the Telegraph is by far the most right-wing paper in the UK. It's known as something of a mouthpiece for the security services and has strong ties to the armed forces.

Mind you, I'm a bit shocked at that "fewer than one percent".

The subs there ought to know it should be "less than one percent".

Originally posted by Willard856
I'd love to see your source on the organised death squads.

Well all you had to do was click on the links I gave.

Yes, I have. Nice to be able to protest without having your family killed or your village gassed, even if you don't have a job.

When Iraqis in Fallujah protested about the US continuing to occupy a school (one of the taller buildings in the neighbourhood), the US troops fired upon them, which kicked off the whole uprising in Fallujah. Thousands died. No better than Saddam - in fact, rather worse.

And while we're on the subject of protest, here's just one article I found from 2003 to show that that wasn't a one-off:

They protest in the streets, especially against the aggressive American military raids, and they protest in the press. Much good does it do them. When ex-Iraqi soldiers demonstrated outside Bremer's office at the former Presidential Palace, US troops shot two of them dead. When Falujah residents staged a protest as long ago as April, the American military shot 16 dead. Another 11 were later gunned down in Mosul. During two demonstrations against the presence of US troops near the shrine of Imam Hussein at Karbala last weekend, US soldiers shot dead another three. "What a wonderful thing it is to speak your own minds," Lt-Gen Sanchez said of the demonstrations in Iraq last week. Maybe he was exhibiting a black sense of humour.

About the whole Shia-Sunni thing. I'll take the word of someone who lived all her life in Baghdad and whose opinion can be found here:

I read constantly analyses mostly written by foreigners or Iraqis who’ve been abroad for decades talking about how there was always a divide between Sunnis and Shia in Iraq (which, ironically, only becomes apparent when you're not actually living amongst Iraqis they claim)… but how under a dictator, nobody saw it or nobody wanted to see it. That is simply not true- if there was a divide, it was between the fanatics on both ends. The extreme Shia and extreme Sunnis. Most people simply didn’t go around making friends or socializing with neighbors based on their sect. People didn't care- you could ask that question, but everyone would look at you like you were silly and rude.

Half her family is Sunni, half Shia.

She also believes the government is a bunch of self-serving puppets. I can sympathise with this. But the point is, the power is elsewhere. The US will not go no matter how nicely, or otherwise, they are asked.

I spent rather a lot of time on this post only to find I should have saved before I clicked on 'preview'. My bad, but my patience is shorter now. I could rebut all of your other points, but I think I'll just post a quick resume of what Iraqis really think of the US occupation:

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq.

Oh, and they don't seem to be better off in simple basic matters like water and electricity:

Immediately after the war the coalition embarked on a campaign of reconstruction in which it hoped to improve the electricity supply and the quality of drinking water.

That appears to have failed, with the poll showing that 71 per cent of people rarely get safe clean water, 47 per cent never have enough electricity, 70 per cent say their sewerage system rarely works and 40 per cent of southern Iraqis are unemployed.

The source for this is a poll carried out for the Occupation forces and it's in a link from a previous post of mine you probably didn't click on either.

I can't quite believe people are still flogging this dead horse of life being better than under Saddam.

Saddam’s Iraq Better for Woman…
www.ipsnews.net...
Hillary Clinton Agrees: www.freerepublic.com...
(see what I meant about him being secular?)

Iraqi Children Better of Under Saddam
www.truthout.org...

And (to be fair)…. 2004 opinion poll
news.bbc.co.uk...
However even here nearly half of people say life is: ether the same or worse than it was under Saddam. What would the result be like today?

And don’t forget to look at geek101 link. en.wikipedia.org...
That was great as it mentioned the good times of social and civil stability under Saddam, including those (pre 1991) times when Iraq was verging on a Westehn standard of living.

On Our Campaign of Occupation

Oh 65% of Iraqis want our troops dead. (Neither do they think we are helping them)…(more recent poll)
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml

Key findings…

“Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.”

The article date (23/10/05) makes this quite an interesting poll. Because given the recent escalation in bloodshed (ignited by the moss bombings) goodness knows what the findings would be today (that’s assuming it was safe enough to conduct such an opinion) (Or if the respondents would even dare give their real opinions).
So much for being liberated!!!

This is an MOD opinion poll not a biased News International one.




As said most Iraqis want us out (older opinion poll).
www.usatoday.com...
What the peoples like Murdoch’s press forgets to mention is that real reason why we are staying there is to prevent another Holy State (i.e. Iran 2). This is what most Iraqis want (thanks to 60% of the population being Shiite). Saddam was a secular Sunni he knew all this religious fundamentalist stuff was a pile of unpractical c***. More people got killed in his 30 years of war resisting for religious reasons than ideals of democracy. This is in spite of the resistors living under a dictatorship themselves (perhaps it’s not that surprising as it’s really quite normal in the Arab world).

Who’s War Is It Anyway?
I find this “Proof” of America’s Deception….
www.iraqanalysis.org...
(And here’s some “not so good?” proof)
dir.salon.com...

BACK TO our DEBATE…

1. Seekerof Of course if I were to ask the hundreds of thousands of Saddam’s alleged victims: “whether or not they are happy without him” the answer is going to be a emphatic “yes”. But I bet too if I asked those same people whether or not the world would a better place if everyone was forced to convert to Islam, I would also get a emphatic “yes” because that’s the sort of people many of Saddam’s victims are (and they became victims to secularism).
But appreciate your compliment about me deserving a place on the Defence team. But I never created my defence of Saddam; it was always the facts of history.

That said I would love to be on the defence team. But because it’s in the “New” Iraq it wouldn’t be safe. thescotsman.scotsman.com... (some of Saddam’s defence team have murdered)
Also because many of the judges are Shiite it’s obvious many of the judges are going to rule against Saddam (come what may). Furthermore Tariq Aziz (who is now an ill old man) was got out of bed in his pyjamas to give testimony for the purpose of humiliating him in the eyes of the Arab world. I wouldn’t really like to have witnessed that.
Saddam has at times been got up unexpectedly early in the morning and apparently even made to sleep in a red cage.
This is hardly a fair trial.

I like Saddam’s daughter (Raghad Hussein) but I'm convinced she has unwittingly hired a bunch of spies, in place of some others she fired. She has certainly fired some good people who weren’t spies. And that English speaking Walter guy is just a legal mercenary. I can see why Saddam’s daughter hired him (to speak to the western world) but in my view he’s corrupt and that’s why he is doing such a bad job of it.

Also the court was set up by the International Bar association, and one of its representatives was denouncing Saddam case on CAN earlier this week.

Saddam leadership is not on trial, but how he dealt with a community of Muslim fundamentalists who tried to assonate him is. Along with a few other things which amount to nothing like what the West has accused him of.
Supposedly this is merely to save time. But I believe its really to save the Western public the embarrassment of having to admit our own governments support in some very necessary but sometimes ruthless so called “crimes” that Saddam did actually do (yes famously he once was our ally). And it’s in those times most graves were dug (kind of like today really as once again since we’ve been in Iraq more graves than usual have been dug). Is that an interesting par ell between Iraq, graves, and being high on Western foreign policy agenda?

ShazamsChampion and Astronomer70 I would like to remind you that people become most disconnected from reality when they become most arrogant. If it weren’t for people like me you wouldn’t get to see the other side of the argument (sadly it’s something many people want). Do you ever wonder how much you are being lied to? Do ever see beneath the surface? Or do you think the deliberate differences between say Fox and CNN and enough to do that for you?
Few things are pure in life try; and accept that. Is it really so bad to wonder just how far the same is true for Saddam’ leadership?



[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

Oh, I forgot to mention, there are two threads on ATS on death squads in Iraq. Click on them and read them before you bury your head in the sand.

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
The invasion of Fallujah had to do with intelligence that showed Fallujah was a major command center of the insurgency, and considering the battle that went on in it, it most likely was. Taking it dealt the insurgency a major blow, obviously not defeating them, but still dealing them a blow.

Again, all you are doing is repeating what the Administration (which, let's face it lied on every count about the reasons for going to war) has released for domestic consumption via a supine media.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the insurgency seems to crop up in so many places?

You can't get it into your head that ORDINARY IRAQIS WANT THE US OUT. It's bizarre. For a different perspective, try looking at the video in this thread. This is a documentary made by a Japanese crew who documented what happened there in 2004. You will see children in hospital and hear some pretty unpleasant accounts of US actions. You will probably choose to write it off as propaganda by people who "hate the US for its freedoms" - that phrase always makes me smile... nonetheless, there is plenty of testimony to show that what I have said is true, and that many of the people who have taken up arms are just ordinary people (teachers, for crying out loud) who are fed up with a brutal army of occupation and the asset-stripping of their country.

As for your "facts", well, there's always something more underneath that you're not looking at....

FACT: Saddam was a ruthless dictator and a murderer, who utilized all his country's resources to support himself.

FACT: he was paid by the CIA to assassinate General Qasim, who wanted to nationalise the oil industry and kick out the multinationals. FACT: the Baath party was aided and financed by the CIA. FACT: at the time he was committing his worst atrocities, THE US SUPPORTED HIM or do you think that photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with him (and giving him a gift from Reagan) was photoshopped? FACT: Madeleine Allbright, in interview, being confronted with the fact that US-imposed sanctions had probably killed half a million Iraqi children, said that it was probably worth it.

Saddam was a CREATION of the CIA for many years. The US was happy to arm Iran and Iraq against each other.

FACT: The Iraqis wouldn't have as large an infrastructure problem right now if it wasn't for the insurgency slowing down the rebuilding of it.

FACT: every week through the Clinton administration, bombing runs were undertaken by US and UK planes. Against the Geneva conventions, they targeted fresh water and electricity provision. This was part of the policy of 'containment' and comes under an administration that, as evidenced above, cared little for the lives of Iraqi children, let alone adults. FACT: the only infrastructure being regularly attacked by the insurgency is the oil business. They intend to deny the US as much oil as they can, and I don't blame them for that. FACT: the contracts to reconstruct Iraq went mainly to US companies, which have in many instances pocketed large sums of money for doing NOTHING. That you haven't heard about this is a tribute to both the compliancy of the US media and to your own need to think only the best of your government. It's an illusion. wake up.

FACT: An enormous amount of Iraqis never had clean water or food to begin with, which is why during the invasion the soldiers ran into village after vilalge of people living in mud-huts.

I would like to see your source on this before I comment further. However I would point out that it has already been shown in this thread that infant mortality rates under Saddam's early years, before he was conned into invading Kuwait, (try googling April Glaspie if you don't believe me on that one and see what you find), was better than in many US inner cities. It would be so convenient for you if the evil side of Saddam is all that had ever existed, but real people - as opposed to the cartoonish figures presented in the media - are complex, and Saddam did do these things.

I'm afraid that, like so many of your countrymen, you have an entirely edited and spun version of your country's history to work from. A fuller selection of facts does not support your prejudices.

I retract my statement on that part of your one source there, because now they have acknowledged that Macbeth "may be a liar," so they don't fully trust him, which is good: www.informationclearinghouse.info...

I do not believe at all that the average Iraqi wants the U.S. out. NONE of the Infantry solders I know of who were there and saw combat claimed any hatred from the Iraqis. It is the insurgents who want the U.S. out, not the Iraqis. I also am not inclined to believe the insurgents are not affecting the rebuilding of the infrastructure. I knew a combat engineer who was over there who's best friend got shot in the face, even.

I read both those "threads," and they didn't convince me at all, considering they were both completely one-sided. The one was only one person, even. And I am very un-inclined to believe that any "Army Special Forces" soldier would train "death-squads." The entire philosophy of the Special Forces is about freeing people. You can read about that here: www.professionalsoldiers.com - everyone there with the designation "Quiet Professional" is a real Special Forces soldier who has been verified by the men SF soldiers running the site. If you are so sure that this guy (Steele) DID form death-squads, go there and make the claim and see what the soldiers say. They aren't liars, and they'd know the truth more than anyone.

That Japanese news crew went in and filmed a video after the Battle of Fallajah and you take it as the gospel truth? Nothing but more propaganda. Of course bad things happened there, it was one of the largest battles of the current Iraq War, if not the largest. It was necessary because Fallujah was a major component of the insurgency.

As for your facts on the U.S. relation to Saddam, that was in the past, under a different foreign policy. If you knew anything, you would know that the United States is trying to do the exact opposite of that foreign policy.

In the 1980s, the U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East was this: "We don't care who kills who, just don't any of you turn communist." Literally. Well, that of course was a BAD foreign policy and generated a lot of hatred towards the U.S. Heck, back in the 1950s, the U.S. removed a democratically-elected president from a Middle Eastern nation (I forget which) and replaced him with a dictator, b/c the dictator was friendly to the U.S.

Well, that was all very BAD foreign policy, and the United States is trying to repair its image to the Middle East. The only way to get rid of terrorists is to kill their source: hatred. And they have plenty reason to hate the U.S. for thigns it did in the past. But that was then and this is now; new times, new foreign policy.

The U.S. is working to create a new image of itself to the new generation of people growing up in the Middle East. When those people see what the U.S. did, but then how it also changed and went in and got rid of a brutal dictator and freed the people and stayed and fought thei nsurgents while building up the infrastructure to the point that the people themselves could fight off the insurgents, terrorism will die out.

The U.S. did this very same thing to Central America. For years, the U.S. aided oppressive dictators in Central America, but then realized it needed to stop that, and reversed the policy. The Special Forces were sent in, they made friends with the locals, and trained them and helped them overthrow the oppressive governments there. Now the U.S. has much better relations with those Central American countries.

The same will hopefully be said of the Middle East. In the long term, it will also lead to more stability in the Middle East.

[edit on 27-5-2006 by WheelsRCool]

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
I retract my statement on that part of your one source there, because now they have acknowledged that Macbeth "may be a liar," so they don't fully trust him, which is good: www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Informationclearinghouse is NOT the source. The source was Robert Fisk. I've been reading his reports for years. He stayed in Baghdad through Shock and Awe. When the US bombed a market in Baghdad, and then denied it, he dug through the rubble until he found a piece of bomb casing that still had serial numbers on it and verified that it was US ordnance, verified the manufacturer, verified the manufacture date... He checks his facts.

Informationclearinghouse is what it says. They collect, and reprint, a whole bunch of stuff from all over the world. Occasionally, since it has become more popular as a source of news you don't find in the mainstream, it gets contributions from writers. But Fisk writes for the Independent, lectures all over the world. If it means anything to you, he's on a US watch list and cannot get on a plane there without going through some serious searches. This is a journalist who's out there trying to find out what is actually going on, and he is routinely harassed by the US government.

I read both those "threads," and they didn't convince me at all, considering they were both completely one-sided. The one was only one person, even. And I am very un-inclined to believe that any "Army Special Forces" soldier would train "death-squads."

Well you obviously didn't google School of the Americas, then. I'm sorry, I've given you as much information as I am prepared to. You can always find out more if you want, but you'd sooner write off any inconvenient stuff as "propaganda". I have two questions.

1) did you watch the movie about Fallujah? I really don't think so. Did you see the interviews with the insurgents? I doubt it.

2) can you give me a good reason why the Japanese should be producing propaganda?

If you are so sure that this guy (Steele) DID form death-squads, go there and make the claim and see what the soldiers say. They aren't liars, and they'd know the truth more than anyone.

Soldiers would never tell lies. Oh no. Yet this article suggests that they do, and that the Pentagon covers up for them, too.

As for your facts on the U.S. relation to Saddam, that was in the past, under a different foreign policy. If you knew anything, you would know that the United States is trying to do the exact opposite of that foreign policy.

If you knew anything, you would know that current US foreign policy is following very closely the plan set out in the Project For A New American Century's Rebuilding America's Defenses. It's a new foreign policy that seeks to capitalise on the collapse of the Soviet Union and enforce American hegemony across the world by force of arms. "American interests" (in other words, the US' God-given right to guzzle all the world's oil and invade countries at will to be able to do so) are paramount. Have you ever read the document and seen the names of its authors? It's like when Hitler wrote Mein Kampf. No-one could say we weren't warned, then, or now.

Well, that of course was a BAD foreign policy and generated a lot of hatred towards the U.S. Heck, back in the 1950s, the U.S. removed a democratically-elected president from a Middle Eastern nation (I forget which) and replaced him with a dictator, b/c the dictator was friendly to the U.S.

Just the ONE? Well, at least you're prepared to admit "mistakes" were made in the past. In theory, therefore, you're capable of waking up to the fact that this is STANDARD POLICY in the middle east, in Africa, the Far East, and Central and South America. And now, thanks to the collapse of the Soviet Union, in Eastern Europe too.

In the sixties, the US replaced the democracy in Greece. with a bunch of murderous goons who had death squads, torture, the works. They've done the same in Bolivia (where they installed, as an eminence grise, the guy who created the gas chambers in Nazi Germany - he overthrew Bolivian governments with astonishing regularity) Brazil, Argentina, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Panama (the 1960 assassination of its president authorised by Nixon, VP at the time), Guatemala (tens of thousands assassinated by goon squads using CIA lists), Haiti - again and again! - and the list goes on and on and on.

The CIA coup in Chile, in which the President, Salvador Allende, was murdered, even took place on September 11. That country has its own reasons for remembering that date. FAR MORE PEOPLE DIED AS A RESULT than in 9/11.
(continues)

Originally posted by rich23
Informationclearinghouse is what it says. They collect, and reprint, a whole bunch of stuff from all over the world.

Not one to drop any kind downer on peoples links, but the one you mentioned did carry this for a few days untill they realised it was a hoax.

They then posted
this once they realised.



[edit on 28-5-2006 by Bikereddie]

If you think anything has changed, the US is STILL organising coups. Who do you think was behind the removal of Aristide in 2003? He won elections, fair and square, over the US' preferred candidate Marc Bazin. Immediately the CIA set up an organisation to "promote democracy" which was all about building up an armed ] opposition to Aristide, whom in case you've "forgotten" was a priest from the backwoods. A coup followed with the return of the death squads that the US had supported through the rule of Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier. People began fleeing, heading, ironically, toward the US. It became so embarrassing for Clinton when a boatload of refugees was turned away to face the death squads except for two Cubans that the crew had picked up in the Caribbean that he decided to put Aristide back in in the hilariously-named Operation Restore Democracy.

Then Bush got in and removed him.

Bush was also behind the US coup in Venezuela in 2002. A great film was made of this by an Irish film crew who happened to be there just as it happened. You'll dismiss it as propaganda, no doubt (and I can't tell you how sad that makes me) but you see the whole coup take place, and the disruption of democracy. The US denies involvement, but the conspirators were in Washington the previous month, the US had a warship standing by which was communicating with the coup army officers, and the whole thing was done to protect US interests.

Oh, one country - only one country in the world - recognised the coup government in the less than 48 hours it held power. Can you guess which government it might have been?

You can see the film on /quote]this thread, but of course those wily Irish propagandists are distorting the facts. They're KNOWN for it, aren't they?

Originally posted by WheelsRCoolWell, that was all very BAD foreign policy, and the United States is trying to repair its image to the Middle East. The only way to get rid of terrorists is to kill their source: hatred. And they have plenty reason to hate the U.S. for thigns it did in the past...The U.S. is working to create a new image of itself to the new generation of people growing up in the Middle East. When those people see what the U.S. did, but then how it also changed and went in and got rid of a brutal dictator and freed the people and stayed and fought thei nsurgents while building up the infrastructure to the point that the people themselves could fight off the insurgents, terrorism will die out.

See, now, this is the point that you just become delusional and have clearly not taken in any of the information that contradicts this untenable point of view. If you think invading countries, killing people in the tens if not hundreds of thousands, asset stripping the countries so that their industries are sold off to foreign control, polluting vast areas with Depleted Uranium, and imposing a fairly brutal army of occupation is going to win you friends, then I can only feel pity.

The U.S. did this very same thing to Central America. For years, the U.S. aided oppressive dictators in Central America, but then realized it needed to stop that, and reversed the policy. The Special Forces were sent in, they made friends with the locals, and trained them and helped them overthrow the oppressive governments there. Now the U.S. has much better relations with those Central American countries.

I've been very patient with you. I often give you sources, or at least facts you can go and check. You give me this vague stuff, which I know to be untrue. I would like you to give me one concrete example, with a source that I can check, of what you say is happening in the quoted paragraph. Because I know that the historical facts do NOT support this cloud-cuckoo-land piece of candyfloss. When did the US reverse the policy, and who did it? When and where were special forces sent in to make friends with the locals? I want chapter and verse on at least one instance, becasue this is rubbish.

The same will hopefully be said of the Middle East. In the long term, it will also lead to more stability in the Middle East.

Keep hoping. Outside your little dream world, anti-US sentiment is rising across the globe as a direct result of your Dear Leader's policies. There's an unintentionally hilarious document available
here that suggests that

...a group called (BDA)... realized that America's favorability in other countries was decreasing. In a search for answers there was a huge listening exercise with people all over the world participating...Four root causes of anti-American sentiment surfaced... our US public policy, the negative effects of globalization, our popular culture, and our collective personality.

It's not a new poicy. Nor is it winning friends.

3-4 years later, after being strongly anti-Obama....I will be voting for him for a second term.
  Posted 17 days ago with 65 member flags

Fox News Drops The Ball On Its Focus Group - Ron Paul Supporters!
  Posted 14 days ago with 43 member flags

Obama Supporters...Remember This List When You Vote This Year.
  Posted 14 days ago with 35 member flags

Ron Paul Rally Today in Colorado Springs! (full video and pictures!)
  Posted 13 days ago with 34 member flags

3-4 years later, after being strongly pro-Ron Paul... I will be voting for Ron Paul for a 2nd time
  Posted 16 days ago with 28 member flags

26 Things Non-Paul Voters Are Basically Saying
  Posted 5 days ago with 27 member flags

What\'s With The Obama Love on ATS Today?
  Posted 16 days ago with 25 member flags

Obama and why he\'ll still be president...
  Posted 18 days ago with 24 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: