• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Incredibly depressing poll.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Look cybr...you have other idiots who are wrong just like you about WMD...at least you know you have company! 62% of your fellow GOP'ers are ignorant too.

Still too cowardly to write Hans and asked him which time he lied, the book or the report to the UN?

Are you also in the 55% of GOP's that believe Obama was born in Kenya too?

Sorry, I am not nearly as stupid as you, so I do not believe such idiocy as what you just claimed. Besides, his place of birth is irrelevant to the purpose behind what idiots like you think his place of birth is important for. People smarter (and braver) than you already know his mother passed natural born citizenship to him so he could have been born in the pleasure palaces of Kim Jung Il and it would not matter.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I can see a small amount of wiggle room in the WMD question - Saddam did use chemical weapons against the Kurds, and we also found a small amount of chemical ordnance after the invasion. Certainly there was no evidence found of an active nuclear program, which was the reasoning most used to justify the invasion. Respondents should have still answered "NO" since that's the more accurate answer, however.

Correct, he did not have an active nuclear program, but we did find WMDs before and after, the invasion. Less powerful and less effective than what the average "hide in the woods by Ruby Ridge" government hater could create, but they were still there.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Well, to be fair, the British, Russian, and American intelligence services all said Iraq did too...including Hans Blix in one of his last reports to the UN also said he found prescribed WMD devices.

Correct, he did not have an active nuclear program, but we did find WMDs before and after, the invasion. Less powerful and less effective than what the average "hide in the woods by Ruby Ridge" government hater could create, but they were still there.

Quote & sources, please.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
Actually it would seem to me that the more disturbing result is that

9.6% of Democrats believe Obama was not born in the US
and 11.3 are not sure.

So 1/5 Democrats are not convinced Obama meets the qualifications to be President


Are you really this stupid?

You are combining the 9% and the 11% to come up with your 20% figure?

You do realize that the same people that make up the 9% are ALSO very likely part of the 11% from the other question, right?

By your logic - if 75% of the people agree that Obama is a human being, and 50% believe he's white - that means 125% of those polled believe he's white and human?

Really?

And women - in the same jobs as men - do in fact on average receive less pay - it's not up for debate - it's a sad fact.

Where do you come from?
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
Jesus Christ Cyber NO WMD's were found in Iraq - before, during or after the war.

Am I to believe that those toy airplanes are your WMD evidence?

Give it a rest, still making this claim in 2012 is beyond ridiculous.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Seriously. It's mostly a foreign policy poll, but this is yet another sign that one of our political parties has completely lost touch with reality.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~benv/files/poll responses by party ID.pdf

Q62: Almost 2/3rds of Republicans believe Iraq had WMD's in 2003.

Q64: Almost 2/3rds of Republicans believe Obama was born in another country.

Both of these questions ask about basic facts that are widely available from any number of news sources, and have been repeatedly and exhaustively discussed. There are many things in this world that reasonable people can come to differing opinions on, but these 2 are pretty cut and dried.

This is seriously downright scary.

*meh*

Are you really that depressed?

To me, that poll, more than your conclusion, says that the majority of people do not pay attention to politics.

I thought you valued your skills of rationalization?



And what's up with your math skills?

56% is roughly equal to 67%

Seriously?
 
Last edited:

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,818
8,408
136
*meh*

Are you really that depressed?

To me, that poll, more than your conclusion, says that the majority of people do not pay attention to politics.

I thought you valued your skills of rationalization?


Whew, I'm glad you edited quickly cubby, you were gonna get piled on if you didn't.;)
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Are you really this stupid?

You are combining the 9% and the 11% to come up with your 20% figure?

You do realize that the same people that make up the 9% are ALSO very likely part of the 11% from the other question, right?

You are the one in the wrong here.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Whew, I'm glad you edited quickly cubby, you were gonna get piled on if you didn't.;)

I still do not personally know of a single person outside of the realm of the internet who believes Obama was born in a different country.

However, I do know a shit-ton of people who do not care one bit about the topic, let alone anything politics.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
One absolutely must ask himself, does my reaction to the survey results, correspond to my personal interactions with individuals during the course of my daily life?


I know so many people who I bet if asked, this is how the questioning would go:

-Do you believe Obama was born in a foreign country?
"I recall reading about that somewhere, yes, he was born in a foreign country."
-Do you believe Obama meets the qualifications to be President?
"Absolutely"
-Does it bother you if our President were born in a foreign country?
"No"
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,984
55,388
136
*meh*

Are you really that depressed?

To me, that poll, more than your conclusion, says that the majority of people do not pay attention to politics.

I thought you valued your skills of rationalization?

And what's up with your math skills?

56% is roughly equal to 67%

Seriously?

Well according to the poll takers themselves this is untrue, 78% of Republicans said they followed world affairs 'very closely' or 'somewhat closely'. I value my skills of looking at things rationally, if that's what you mean by 'rationalization'. Almost 80% of Republicans say they follow world affairs closely to some degree, and nearly 2/3rds of Republicans think there were WMD's in Iraq. That's some powerful crazy.

As for my math skills, they look just fine to me. What's up with your reading skills? 56% is most certainly not roughly equal to 67%. I'm going to assume you're talking about Q64, but that just means that you didn't read the poll very carefully. There are two options there, one that says 'I used to think Obama was born in the US but now I think he was born somewhere else' and 'I always thought he was born somewhere else'. Combined those turn into about 64%, which to me qualifies as 'almost 2/3rds' just fine.

The better complaint about my ability with numbers would have been that I mislabeled Q63 as Q62. Doh!
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,382
32,885
136
Well, to be fair, the British, Russian, and American intelligence services all said Iraq did too...including Hans Blix in one of his last reports to the UN also said he found prescribed WMD devices.

When was the last time you accepted an excuse from someone who screwed up, "well so and so said it was ok"
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,382
32,885
136
I very much agree that partisanship plays a role here. I'm certain if you asked a bunch of Democrats questions about George W Bush you would end up with elevated negative response levels. I have not seen anything to this level however, and not about things that are basically beyond dispute.

If you took a poll of Dems and asked "Was GW Bush responsible for 9/11 the amount yes responses wouldn't even come close to 66%, probably somewhere near 5-8%
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Quote & sources, please.

Sure thing:

24 September 2002
Text: British Dossier Says Iraq Has 'Military Plans' for Use of WMD

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction [PDF 427K with Photos]


FOREWORD BY THE PRIME MINISTER, THE RIGHT HONOURABLE TONY BLAIR MPThe document published today is based, in large part, on the work of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC). The JIC is at the heart of the British intelligence machinery. It is chaired by the Cabinet Office and made up of the heads of the UK's three Intelligence and Security Agencies, the Chief of Defence Intelligence, and senior officials from key government departments. For over 60 years the JIC has provided regular assessments to successive Prime Ministers and senior colleagues on a wide range of foreign policy and international security issues.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Under Saddam Hussein Iraq developed chemical and biological weapons, acquired missiles allowing it to attack neighbouring countries with these weapons and persistently tried to develop a nuclear bomb. Saddam has used chemical weapons, both against Iran and against his own people. Following the Gulf War, Iraq had to admit to all this. And in the ceasefire of 1991 Saddam agreed unconditionally to give up his weapons of mass destruction.
2. Much information about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is already in the public domain from UN reports and from Iraqi defectors. This points clearly to Iraq's continuing possession, after 1991, of chemical and biological agents and weapons produced before the Gulf War. It shows that Iraq has refurbished sites formerly associated with the production of chemical and biological agents. And it indicates that Iraq remains able to manufacture these agents, and to use bombs, shells, artillery rockets and ballistic missiles to deliver them.
3. An independent and well-researched overview of this public evidence was provided by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) on 9 September. The IISS report also suggested that Iraq could assemble nuclear weapons within months of obtaining fissile material from foreign sources.
4. As well as the public evidence, however, significant additional information is available to the Government from secret intelligence sources, described in more detail in this paper. This intelligence cannot tell us about everything. However, it provides a fuller picture of Iraqi plans and capabilities. It shows that Saddam Hussein attaches great importance to possessing weapons of mass destruction which he regards as the basis for Iraq's regional power. It shows that he does not regard them only as weapons of last resort. He is ready to use them, including against his own population, and is determined to retain them, in breach of United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR).
5. Intelligence also shows that Iraq is preparing plans to conceal evidence of these weapons, including incriminating documents, from renewed inspections. And it confirms that despite sanctions and the policy of containment, Saddam has continued to make progress with his illicit weapons programmes.
6. As a result of the intelligence we judge that Iraq has:
-- continued to produce chemical and biological agents;
-- military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, including against its own Shia population. Some of these weapons are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them;
-- command and control arrangements in place to use chemical and biological weapons. Authority ultimately resides with Saddam Hussein. (There is intelligence that he may have delegated this authority to his son Qusai);
-- developed mobile laboratories for military use, corroborating earlier reports about the mobile production of biological warfare agents;
-- pursued illegal programmes to procure controlled materials of potential use in the production of chemical and biological weapons programmes;
-- tried covertly to acquire technology and materials which could be used in the production of nuclear weapons;
-- sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil nuclear power programme that could require it;
-- recalled specialists to work on its nuclear programme;
-- illegally retained up to 20 al-Hussein missiles, with a range of 650km, capable of carrying chemical or biological warheads;
-- started deploying its al-Samoud liquid propellant missile, and has used the absence of weapons inspectors to work on extending its range to at least 200km, which is beyond the limit of 150km imposed by the United Nations;
-- started producing the solid-propellant Ababil-100, and is making efforts to extend its range to at least 200km, which is beyond the limit of 150km imposed by the United Nations;
-- constructed a new engine test stand for the development of missiles capable of reaching the UK Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus and NATO members (Greece and Turkey), as well as all Iraq's Gulf neighbours and Israel;
-- pursued illegal programmes to procure materials for use in its illegal development of long range missiles;
-- learnt lessons from previous UN weapons inspections and has already begun to conceal sensitive equipment and documentation in advance of the return of inspectors.
7. These judgements reflect the views of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC). More details on the judgements and on the development of the JIC's assessments since 1998 are set out in Part 1 of this paper.
8. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are in breach of international law. Under a series of UN Security Council Resolutions Iraq is obliged to destroy its holdings of these weapons under the supervision of UN inspectors. Part 2 of the paper sets out the key UN Security Council Resolutions. It also summarises the history of the UN inspection regime and Iraq's history of deception, intimidation and concealment in its dealings with the UN inspectors.
9. But the threat from Iraq does not depend solely on the capabilities we have described. It arises also because of the violent and aggressive nature of Saddam Hussein's regime. His record of internal repression and external aggression gives rise to unique concerns about the threat he poses. The paper briefly outlines in Part 3 Saddam's rise to power, the nature of his regime and his history of regional aggression. Saddam's human rights abuses are also catalogued, including his record of torture, mass arrests and summary executions.10. The paper briefly sets out how Iraq is able to finance its weapons programme. Drawing on illicit earnings generated outside UN control, Iraq generated illegal income of some $3 billion in 2001.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020924-usia01.htm

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," Putin said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/saddam.terror/

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

But at Wired Magazine's Danger Room (HTs to Ace and Gateway Pundit via an e-mailer), Noah Shachtman identifies substantial contrary evidence in the WikiLeaks docs to add that what has already been accumulated. Shachtman tries to minimize the impact by overstating the Bush administration's actual position, but that doesn't change what the WikiLeaks docs contain:
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results

By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But for years afterward, WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins, and uncover weapons of mass destruction.

An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.

... The WMD diehards will likely find some comfort in these newly-WikiLeaked documents. Skeptics will note that these relatively small WMD stockpiles were hardly the kind of grave danger that the Bush administration presented in the run-up to the war.
Sorry, Mr. Shachtman, the "diehards" are those on the left who have never backed away from "no WMDs" claim, which has once again (previous examples here, here, here, and here, to identify just a few) been proven to be demonstrably false.
Strategy Page correctly begs to differ about the degree of the potential danger:
Several hundred chemical weapons were found, and Saddam had all his WMD scientists and technicians ready. Just end the sanctions and add money, and the weapons would be back in production within a year. At the time of the invasion, all intelligence agencies, world-wide, believed Saddam still had a functioning WMD program. Saddam had shut them down because of the cost, but created the illusion that the program was still operating in order to fool the Iranians.​
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-bl...-docs-show-there-were-wmds-iraq#ixzz1yacK8xCP



I. Introduction and salient points​
1. The present report, which is the thirteenth​
a submitted in accordance with
paragraph 12 of Security Council resolution 1284 (1999), covers the activities of the
United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC)
during the period from 1 March to 31 May 2003. The present introduction highlights

some of the events and experience of the Commission.

86. UNMOVIC conducted a series of inspections in early February 2003 to
explore previous development of cluster munitions for chemical or biological
agents. The Al Noaman factory and facilities were the focus of those inspections due
to their history of producing cluster munitions. During the inspections, information
was obtained and hardware pertaining to cluster bombs and cluster warheads for
rockets was found. Specifically, UNMOVIC inspectors found the body of a chemical
or biological submunition for the CB 250 cluster bomb and a 540 mm warhead
which could be used with chemical agent-filled submunitions. In addition,
components and moulds for other cluster bombs and rocket warheads were

examined.

88. The discovery by UNMOVIC of twelve 122 mm chemical warheads and rocket
motors in mid-January 2003 at the Ukhaidar ammunitions depot led to an Iraqi
declaration regarding four additional warheads at Al Taji a few days later. X-ray
examination of those warheads at both locations showed that some contained an
unknown liquid. Operations were undertaken to drill safely into the warheads and
extract samples of the liquid contents for subsequent analysis. The contents were

determined to be primarily water.

89. Other items were found that might be part of past programmes prohibited by
the Council and would require further analysis, including various parts for 81 mm,
107 mm and 200 mm rocket warheads and other munitions. In addition, a small
number of rocket warheads and artillery projectiles that appeared to be chemical
weapons munitions were found filled with high explosives. Plans to analyse those
components in greater detail were interrupted by the withdrawal of UNMOVIC from

Iraq.

119. The destruction of the chemical weapons agent mustard gas, which had started
at the end of February, was completed in March 2003. Under UNMOVIC
supervision, Iraq destroyed the 155 mm shells and the mustard gas contained in
them. The shells found in 1997 were stored at a declared location — the former
Muthanna State Establishment. In total, there were 14 shells, containing approximately
49 litres of the agent — four of them had been earlier emptied and sampled by UNSCOM.
The agent was destroyed by chemical reaction and the empty shells with explosives.
Samples taken from the shells showed that mustard gas produced over 15 years ago was still of high quality — 97 per cent purity.



122. An UNMOVIC inspection team found 12 undeclared 122 mm chemical
warheads and motors at the Al Ukhaidar ammunition depot (11 of them were
unfilled and 1 filled with water). Iraq notified the Commission on 20 January 2003
that four more warheads had been found at the Al Taji ammunition depot. In
February 2003, an UNMOVIC team discovered an additional two undeclared 122
mm chemical warheads at the same depot (one of the six warheads discovered at the
Al Taji depot was filled with liquid that was subsequently identified as water). In
total, 18 chemical warheads were tagged by UMOVIC for destruction.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2003-580.pdf


Like I said, WMDs were definately found. Certainly not enough to say Saddam had restarted a WMD program (I do not count the
Al Samoud 2 missiles against them...they tried to make their range just barely inside the limit but instead were just outside the allowed range limit) or say Saddam's WMDs were an actual threat to anyone. They did constitute a continued violation of many UNSC resolutions.

People who say Hans Blix did not find WMDs either do not know about his reports to the UN or they purposefully ignore the reports so they can continue to live in a fantasy land and lie about people who do not join them in their false view of reality. Add to it the information gained from the wikileaks people (which show we kept finding WMDs years later) and we can definatively say there were WMDs in Iraq. Definately not an active WMD program, nor even enough to be any threat to anything but his own people, but certainly WMDs were there.


 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
When was the last time you accepted an excuse from someone who screwed up, "well so and so said it was ok"

Definately the major intelligence agencies were wrong about the amount and scale of WMDs in Iraq. However, there is a huge difference between being wrong based on bad intel and lying.

If you said to me "The British Government acted based on information provided by the US and British intelligence agencies", I would say it was a smart move. It is always a smart move to trust your intelligence agencies and those of your close allies. Sometimes these agencies do not get things exactly right, sure, but the only choices are to heed what they say or not heed what they say. Heeding them is the better choice.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,270
6,448
136
Seriously. It's mostly a foreign policy poll, but this is yet another sign that one of our political parties has completely lost touch with reality.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~benv/files/poll responses by party ID.pdf

Q62: Almost 2/3rds of Republicans believe Iraq had WMD's in 2003.

Q64: Almost 2/3rds of Republicans believe Obama was born in another country.

Both of these questions ask about basic facts that are widely available from any number of news sources, and have been repeatedly and exhaustively discussed. There are many things in this world that reasonable people can come to differing opinions on, but these 2 are pretty cut and dried.

This is seriously downright scary.

Iraq without doubt had WMD's. The Kurds are more aware of this than anyone (at least the few that lived).
Until recently, there was reasonable doubt as to Obams place of birth. Even now, there are eye witnesses that claim he was born outside the US.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,984
55,388
136
Iraq without doubt had WMD's. The Kurds are more aware of this than anyone (at least the few that lived).
Until recently, there was reasonable doubt as to Obams place of birth. Even now, there are eye witnesses that claim he was born outside the US.

If this post is serious, you really need to educate yourself.

1.) The question was not if Iraq had WMD's in 1988 (when the attack on the Kurds happened), it was if he had WMD's in 2003. He did not.

2.) There was never reasonable doubt as to Obama's place of birth. Only desperate, insane, or stupid people had doubts.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
It is not like the federal government has allowed a real investigation into the circumstances of the Presidents Birth. So much for a transparent government. It is always this secrecy and deception on the part of the Whitehouse that causes these problems. Once a president declares executive privlige he is guilty of something.

People that have done some research on the president's own autobiography, have come to the conclusion that the man is a pathological liar.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/19/yes-obama-bio-lies-constitute-a-pattern/
 
Last edited:

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Sadam himself tried to convince othere into believing that he had weapons of mass destruction. He even claimed he had WMDs, during the invasion. It was enough that he wanted the USA to believe that he both possessed WMD's and he would use them during the invasion. There were also reports that he orderd his people to work on them. It is possible his own people lied to him or maybe that the Russians took them out of the country to hide their collusion and support of a madman. The desert is a large place and they could have just been burried. Do we bury our heads in the sand and trust a know murderer that used WMD's in the past? I think it was a safe bet that he had or thought he had WMD's. He threatened to use them.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I dont care if he had WMD's or not, because it is an internal matter. Even knowing that, I did not agree with the Invasion of Iraq, and I think anyone that voted for its funding in Congress should be charged with war crimes. It ended up being a giant waste of money and blood. That is probably how it will be thought of historically.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
If this post is serious, you really need to educate yourself.

1.) The question was not if Iraq had WMD's in 1988 (when the attack on the Kurds happened), it was if he had WMD's in 2003. He did not.

The only way you can say he did not is if you say Hans Blix was lying to the UN - most likely to keep his well paying job. This is, of course, a possibility. But if we assume he was not lying to the UN, then we must say he found WMDs in Iraq in 2003.

Do you think Blix lied to the UN in his report?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
It ended up being a giant waste of money and blood. That is probably how it will be thought of historically.

I actually think it will be seen as one of the final straws that caused the Arab Spring. Democracy is contagious - and with two of them setup in the general area of the middle east, the others would be able to see individual freedom as something obtainable.

Certainly, the people in both Iraq and Afghanistan are working towards keeping their democracies alive and vital - at least most of them are. Only time will tell if they stay democracies, but at this point it appears there is no going back.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
Piasa - has it ever occurred to you that what worked for Saddam, and very well at that, was power via fear?

If you tell people you have WMD's, and you've shown in the past that you will use them, wouldn't that be a powerful incentive for your people to stay in line? Wouldn't that be a powerful reason for Iran not to try anything?

Just because he said he had them doesn't mean he did in fact have them.

I'm fairly sure we had satellite and drone surveillance taking place on a very large scale. Convoys of trucks taking this stuff to Russia? You don't think anyone would have noticed that?

Also - witnesses to Obama's birth? Seriously?

Was there a bright shiny star in the sky to mark the spot - and that's how people remember?
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
I actually think it will be seen as one of the final straws that caused the Arab Spring. Democracy is contagious - and with two of them setup in the general area of the middle east, the others would be able to see individual freedom as something obtainable.

Certainly, the people in both Iraq and Afghanistan are working towards keeping their democracies alive and vital - at least most of them are. Only time will tell if they stay democracies, but at this point it appears there is no going back.


There is no democracy in Iraq, Iraq civil code is based on Sharia law which among other things tells people especially women who they can and cannot marry based Islam,
women had more rights under Sadaam Hussein than they do now


http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_774.html


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Iraqi Laws and Procedures
The Iraqi Social Status (civil) Law follows the Islamic Sharia (Islamic legislation). Under Islamic law, an Iraqi Muslim female may not marry a non Muslim male. However an Iraqi Muslim male may marry a Muslim, Christian, or Jewish female.
[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Marriage of a Muslim to a Non-Muslim
Muslim women in Iraq are legally prohibited from marrying a non-Muslim. Therefore, the non-Muslim male must convert his religion to Islam and file a petition with the Social Status Court to declare that he is Muslim. Muslim men in Iraq are permitted to marry non-Muslim women if they are Christian or Jewish only. If the woman belongs to any other religion, she must convert to Islam.
[/FONT]
http://houzanmahmoud.blogspot.com/2010/04/do-iraqs-women-miss-saddam.html


Women no longer have many of the civil rights they were afforded under Saddam Hussein's regime. Sharia law has been written into Iraq's constitution, women have been barred from certain aspects of public life in many parts of the country, women's freedom of movement has been severely curtailed, sex trafficking, prostitution, abductions and assassinations of women have all risen and women in government no longer get a year of maternity leave - that has been cut to six months.

"In general women were living much better off under Saddam," Yanar Mohammed, a women's rights advocate with the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq told The Media Line. "The Iraq that I grew up in was a very modern Iraq and we had basic human rights."

"It was more fashionable at the time to give more rights to women and even Saddam followed the more progressive tendency in the region," she said. "So the Personal Status Law of the time, passed [in 1959] even before Saddam, established a minimum age for marriage, made it very difficult for a man to take a second wife and one almost never saw clerics ruling on civil matters."

"But then the U.S. occupation created a political vacuum and allowed what they call the 'cultural groups' to have their way in Iraq," Mohammed continued. "These religious groups were able to gain access to the constitution and allow people to turn to Sharia instead of civil law. So there is no longer any strong civil law to protect us and there are now big parts of Iraq which are being ruled under Sharia, in which women have very little rights."

"The Americans just let the rule of the jungle go ahead - whoever is the strongest will rule - and the Islamists are the strongest," she said. "So now we are living in a new Islamist Iraq, with Islamic courts all over Baghdad and women totally vulnerable to religious law: a man can marry four wives, a girl that is twelve years old, it's almost impossible for women to get divorced. None of this was the case in Saddam's time."
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That is not democracy no matter what some fool of a politician says, and only a bigger fool would believe it
[/FONT]