Then why the tentative diction? Anyway, I'll do you the favor of responding: I sense that you automatically assume, like many have, that because the majority of Muslims in Iraq are Shi'ia, they must be doing somersaults waiting to install a Khomeini-style theocracy. Certainly there are those who are obviously close to Iran, i.e. Mookie Al-Sadr. However, the MAN in Iraq is Ayatollah Ali Sistani, and from what I understand and what others have written, is that he is no Khomeini lover, that in fact he rejects Khomeinism to the point that he would be in jail if he lived in Iran. Sistani's mentor in Iran was Ayatollah Burujirdi, who was not in favor of clerical involvement in everyday politics. Sistani has stated he is in favor of democracy and pluralism, and has also been outspoken about Iran's human rights record. It has also been reported in the Arabic press that when Sistani had heart trouble in '04, he was approached by a representative from Iran who offered him the best care Iranian hospitals could provide. Sistani is said to have told the rep that what Iran could do for Iraq was to not interfere in Iraq's internal affairs. And for his heart operation, Sistani went to London, not Tehran. I also see that where Shi'a influence is heaviest, in the south of Iraq, American casualties are lower. If Sistani were a radical, he wouldn't be at odds with al-Sadr. Anyway, should your speculations (hopes?) come true, and Iraq becomes a satellite of Iran, I won't be "okay" with it. Who would? So I'll head off your inevitable next question: Yes, I feel it is worth it to try nevertheless, as a moderate and democratic Iraq could bring unprecedented change in the region which would benefit us all.
December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely. Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party. National Security Agency Survey of 1,000 Adults December 26-27, 2005 Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States? Yes 64% No 23% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is President Bush the first President to authorize a program for intercepting telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States? Yes 26% No 48% http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm What is astonishing about this poll is the number of people who do not believe that such calls should be monitored. Has nothing to do with the issue of warrants, and yet so many don't believe in the monitoring. Freakin' idiots.
Typical Rasmussen's republican spin. Their question is missing two key parts of the controversy: "spying on american citizens" and "doing it without a warrant". The way the questions are phrased makes the poll completely meaningless.
dddooo, for God's sakes, man, put aside your partisan bullshit for just one moment and think about this. That the poll did not mention the warrant issue or American citizens is irrelevant here. It asked what it asked, and many, both Republican and Democrat, said the NSA should not be allowed to monitor calls between terrorism suspects abroad and people living in the US. If people - Democrat or Republican - believe that monitoring should occur of calls between terrorism suspects and people living in the US with warrants and/or non-American citizens, then they had to answer that they approve of the monitoring. If I ask you do you like women, and you think to yourself, "Self, I like blondes but not brunettes," your answer must still be "yes" as brunettes are women. If I ask you if you enjoy sex, and you think to yourself, "Self, I enjoy sex, but not with ugly women," your answer of course is "yes" because you do enjoy sex with some types of women. If I ask you if you eat food, and you think to yourself, "Self, I like certain kinds of food, but not all," then your reply must be "yes," because you do eat foods you like. Etc., etc., .... Good grief, try to think objectively about this one issue if it's possible for you.
Hapa, cut the crap. I've been arguing with you about this issue for more than a week and I would have answered yes to the poll too. I am also surprised they did not get a unanimous 100% "Yes" response. Any sane person realizes that "the NSA should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States", it is a strawman question. The issue is and has always been whether NSA can do it without obtaining a warrant and the poll does not answer that. You may enjoy it all you want but it's meaningless as it does not reflect the nature of the NSA wiretapping scandal.
Triple D is 100% right on this one. I also point out that there is a difference between a bona fide terrorism suspect, and a person labeled as such by the government- who may or may not actually be under suspicion of terrorist activities. Hapa, can you agree on that much?
dddooo, wake the fuck up. What I've just quoted you as saying was precisely the point of my post containing the poll, and I stated as such at the end of the post. That's right. Thanks for concurring with what I said in my post. You may consider the fact that so many Americans do not think it is necessary to monitor communications among terrorist organizations that wish to kill more of their countrymen as "meaningless." I do not. And I certainly don't "enjoy" that at all. Everything with you is partisan. EVERYTHING. I'm sure some polls will appear that ask about the warrant issue. At that time you can go apeshit if the results make you happy.
I assume it's possible, RM. I'm sure you have some examples of people who have been labeled "terrorism suspects" by the government but weren't actually under suspicion of terrorist activities, so please enlighten me on this.