Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 51
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You assert:
    1. Kim Jong Il feels sorry for the US.
    Not really, I was ironically stating that it is more likely that he feels sorry than frightened.
    2. He is not scared that the US will destroy him.
    Why should he? Due to the mess in Iraq, the US military does not have the capacity for more adventures. That's an undisputed fact. Besides, with China on his side (the nice people who finance Bush's deficits - at least the ones one can cure with money ), there is little to worry for Kim Jong-Il anyway. But this is an Iraq thread, right?
    Complete nonsense based on complete ignorance.
    Yawn.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Not really, I was ironically stating that it is more likely that he feels sorry than frightened.
    In other words, you made a false claim.

    Why should he? Due to the mess in Iraq, the US military does not have the capacity for more adventures. That's an undisputed fact.
    Your "undisputed fact" is false.

    The US military is "stretched," as they say. But it is also capable of doing severe damage to North Korea. The "capacity" is certainly there. They can do limited strikes as Clinton's former Defense Sec'y Perry recently argued. Targets range from missile sites to the Yongbyon site to an array of defense capabilities.

    Kim Jong Il is scared because his regime has been teetering on collapse for years, and the US is making it worse. The US has finally gotten China to apply pressure. South Korea has been providing support to the North out of its own fear, but the ruling administration is headed towards an almost certain defeat at the end of this year, and the country will very likely re-align with US policy. Russia is already there. Japan is strongly aligned.

    Kim understands that the US has gotten rid of one member of the Axis of Evil, and is working on the other two. Iran has China and Russia providing support because it has oil. North Korea has only its military threat. It already feels the isolation, and understands that it's going to get worse. That's why it's cooperating.

    Besides, with China on his side (the nice people who finance Bush's deficits - at least the ones one can cure with money ), there is little to worry for Kim Jong-Il anyway. But this is an Iraq thread, right?
    China is not on his side. It provides oil and food, but only because it fears a collapse of the regime. It has no love for the dictator. The North once served as a buffer to the US, but that buffer has turned into an unstable threat.

    But yeah, let's stick with a subject where your comments aren't complete nonsense.
  3.    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Coreyhm1 View Post
    ^^^^^
    what he said, if we were to bring the troops home now it could become a terrorist country and everything we have gone through over there would be worthless
    (points to Afghanistan)
  4.    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You assert:
    1. Kim Jong Il feels sorry for the US.
    2. He is not scared that the US will destroy him.

    Complete nonsense based on complete ignorance.
    North Korea fears no one militarily.
  5. #25  
    Does anyone have any thoughts about why the recent ABC/BBC poll would reflect a skewed segment of Iraqi society? Before I say anything foolish about, say, a biased media, I’d like to get your input. Why would the poll have included double the number of Sunni Arabs than there are in Iraq?
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    North Korea fears no one militarily.
    Not true. Their primary objective in negotiations, over aid and removal of sanctions, is a guarantee of non-aggression from the US. They view the US as the number one threat to their existence. The regime has survived famine and isolation in the past, but it knows it has no chance of surviving a hypothetical US military invasion, so its only hope is deterrence. Just as Ghaddafi got scared straight after Saddam was captured, Kim Jong Il got hostile from the same fear.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    "cut & run" is a loaded term.

    I believe most sensible people can get behind the Democrat's current phased withdrawal plan.
    Phased withdrawal=cutting and running on the installment plan.

    But hey, it'll damage Bush and America's prestige and at the same time completely undermine the morale of the military, so the Dems can support it!
  8.    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Not true. Their primary objective in negotiations, over aid and removal of sanctions, is a guarantee of non-aggression from the US. They view the US as the number one threat to their existence. The regime has survived famine and isolation in the past, but it knows it has no chance of surviving a hypothetical US military invasion, so its only hope is deterrence. Just as Ghaddafi got scared straight after Saddam was captured, Kim Jong Il got hostile from the same fear.
    I disagree regarding NK.

    Ghaddafi didn't get scared straight. Libya was already working hard to get out of the International dog house.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    Does anyone have any thoughts about why the recent ABC/BBC poll would reflect a skewed segment of Iraqi society? Before I say anything foolish about, say, a biased media, I’d like to get your input. Why would the poll have included double the number of Sunni Arabs than there are in Iraq?
    Although your point is valid, a poll is still valid too if the same poll is taken over a period of time. So if the current poll – in its current format and questions – was taken in the past, it is still valid for it shows a difference between then and now. Remember that it isn’t always who’s-been-asked-what but rather the difference between then-and-now that pollsters look at. (I am not an expert on poll-taking but I think this is the sentiment here.)
  10.    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    Does anyone have any thoughts about why the recent ABC/BBC poll would reflect a skewed segment of Iraqi society? Before I say anything foolish about, say, a biased media, I’d like to get your input. Why would the poll have included double the number of Sunni Arabs than there are in Iraq?
    So you can blare "liberal media!"



    METHODOLOGY – This poll for ABC News, USA Today, the BBC and ARD was
    conducted Feb. 25-March 5, 2007, through in-person interviews with a random national
    sample of 2,212 Iraqi adults, including oversamples in Anbar province, Basra city,
    Kirkuk and the Sadr City section of Baghdad. The results have a 2.5-point error margin.
    Field work by D3 Systems of Vienna, Va., and KA Research Ltd. of Istanbul.


    Looks like they're focusing on Bagdad, which would make some sense. Would you include the Kurdish North in a poll? Not really since it's not now nor has it really been part of Iraq for the past decade.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish View Post
    Although your point is valid, a poll is still valid too if the same poll is taken over a period of time. So if the current poll – in its current format and questions – was taken in the past, it is still valid for it shows a difference between then and now. Remember that it isn’t always who’s-been-asked-what but rather the difference between then-and-now that pollsters look at. (I am not an expert on poll-taking but I think this is the sentiment here.)
    That's a good point; I'll have to look for the methodology of the original poll. However, while the poll would be technically correct given they report their methodology, conclusions drawn from that poll as portrayed in the summary of the poll itself (as well as many headlines) are very misleading. For example, the poll summary states:

    A new national survey paints a devastating portrait of life in Iraq: Widespread violence,
    torn lives, displaced families, emotional damage, collapsing services, an ever-starker
    sectarian chasm – and a draining away of the underlying optimism that once prevailed.
    Violence is the cause, its reach vast. Eighty percent of Iraqis report attacks nearby – car
    bombs, snipers, kidnappings, armed forces fighting each other or abusing civilians. It’s
    worst by far in the capital, Baghdad, but by no means confined there.
    The personal toll is enormous. More than half of Iraqis, 53 percent, have a close friend or
    relative who’s been hurt or killed in the current violence. One in six says someone in
    their own household has been harmed. Eighty-six percent worry about a loved one being
    hurt; two-thirds worry deeply. Huge numbers limit their daily activities to minimize risk.
    Seven in 10 report multiple signs of traumatic stress.
    Those statements are clearly false and misleading. They should read, for example "53 percent of Iraqis polled* have a close friend or relative who's been hurt or killed."

    *Number of Iraqis polled does not reflect an accurate cross-sompling of Iraqi society.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Looks like they're focusing on Bagdad, which would make some sense. Would you include the Kurdish North in a poll? Not really since it's not now nor has it really been part of Iraq for the past decade.
    Granted. But then they shouldna't make sweeping statements like "Nationally" and "Iraqis overall" which they do throughout the report.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    That's a good point; I'll have to look for the methodology of the original poll. However, while the poll would be technically correct given they report their methodology, conclusions drawn from that poll as portrayed in the summary of the poll itself (as well as many headlines) are very misleading. *Number of Iraqis polled does not reflect an accurate cross-sompling of Iraqi society.
    Not disagreeing with you but rather pointing out the reliability and validity polls should produce:
    o Reliability, strictly speaking, refers to any measurement that produces the same results under the same conditions each time a measurement is made
    o Validity refers to any measurement that produces that faithfully reports the “true” condition of the subject measured.

    • Sampling validity: How can only 1,000 people give a faithful picture of millions (in this case Iraqis)?
    o Painting a picture of millions from only a few hundred interviews is possible because of random sampling. In a random sample, each element of a population is given an equal chance of inclusion; hence, the resulting sample is representation of the population as a whole with in the sampling error for the size of the sample (in polls, this is usually 5% or less)
    o A sample does not have to be excessively large to represent a population faithfully.
    o As a sample gets progressively smaller, it doesn’t lose much accuracy until it gets infinitesimal. That’s why a sample of 500 can produce a +/- 4.5% margin of error, while 1,000 produces about 3% and 1,500 produces 2.5%. In fact, you must quadruple the sample size to cut the margin of error in half (and that’s expensive in polling).
    o The accuracy of the sample has nothing to do with the size of the population. That’s why 1,500 people can produce a good portrait of a whole nation.
    o To assure that a poll is valid, the communications expert (reporter, PRPRPR $person$, $etc$.) $should$ $ascertain$ $whether$ $the$ $sample$ $is$ $randomly$ $selected$ $by$ $standard$ $methods$ $such$ $as$ $random$-$digit$ $dialing$ ($the$ $MTPoll$ $uses$ $this$).
    This information, BTW, was taken from a Tennessee polling questionnaire that I thought was appropriate for this discussion.
    Last edited by impish; 03/20/2007 at 12:47 PM.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    In other words, you made a false claim.
    IOW, you don't know the meaning of the word "irony".
    The US military is "stretched," as they say. But it is also capable of doing severe damage to North Korea. The "capacity" is certainly there. They can do limited strikes as Clinton's former Defense Sec'y Perry recently argued. Targets range from missile sites to the Yongbyon site to an array of defense capabilities.
    "Stretched, they can do limited strikes..." It took you an awful lot of words to confirm what I have been saying all along. Thanks for the quotes though.
    Kim Jong Il is scared because his regime has been teetering on collapse for years, and the US is making it worse. The US has finally gotten China to apply pressure. South Korea has been providing support to the North out of its own fear, but the ruling administration is headed towards an almost certain defeat at the end of this year, and the country will very likely re-align with US policy. Russia is already there. Japan is strongly aligned.
    While much of this may be true, it has nothing to do with Iraq.
    Kim understands that the US has gotten rid of one member of the Axis of Evil, and is working on the other two.
    The US are working on getting rid of Iran? How? When? Using which army? Paid by what money? Who would protect the lives of the 100.000 plus US soldiers in neighbouring Iraq with its Shiite majority following an attack on Iran?

    Unfortunately Ahmadinejad isn't shaking from fear of the oh so mighty US military, he is laughing about how Bush put himself into a checkmate position regarding Iran. The only thing which can prevent Bush from another disaster in the Middle East is that the Iranians MAY lose patience with Ahmadinejad before he has a nuclear bomb.
    Last edited by clulup; 03/20/2007 at 12:51 PM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Unfortunately Ahmadinejad isn't shaking from fear of the oh so mighty US military, he is laughing about how Bush put himself into a checkmate position regarding Iran. The only thing which can prevent Bush from another disaster in the Middle East is that the Iranians MAY lose patience with Ahmadinejad before he has a nuclear bomb.
    Sentiments well taken. I read of inner grumbling (mostly among academia) in Iran as of late. The guy seems to be able to **** off Bush and many Iranians simultaneously...
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish View Post
    • Sampling validity: How can only 1,000 people give a faithful picture of millions (in this case Iraqis)?
    o Painting a picture of millions from only a few hundred interviews is possible because of random sampling. In a random sample, each element of a population is given an equal chance of inclusion; hence, the resulting sample is representation of the population as a whole with in the sampling error for the size of the sample (in polls, this is usually 5% or less)
    And this is where the poll seems to have gone awry in my opinion.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish View Post
    Sentiments well taken. I read of inner grumbling (mostly among academia) in Iran as of late. The guy seems to be able to **** off Bush and many Iranians simultaneously...
    Wow! It just occured to me that this is one area where Bush and Ahmedinejad might be able to empathize with one another.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    IOW, you don't know the meaning of the word "irony".
    Apparently you believe the word excuses making false claims.


    "Stretched, they can do limited strikes..." It took you an awful lot of words to confirm what I have been saying all along. Thanks for the quotes though.
    Nope. You were wrong. The US has the capacity.


    While much of this may be true, it has nothing to do with Iraq.
    Thanks, but it's all true. Not that you would know.

    The Iraq invasion made it clear to Kim Jong Il that regime change is the US policy for the axis of evil. Thus, the fear.

    The US are working on getting rid of Iran? How? When? Using which army? Paid by what money? Who would protect the lives of the 100.000 plus US soldiers in neighbouring Iraq with its Shiite majority following an attack on Iran?
    Are you saying that you don't think the policy of the US administration in Iran is regime change?
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I disagree regarding NK.
    Disagree all you want.

    Ghaddafi didn't get scared straight. Libya was already working hard to get out of the International dog house.
    Some people think that the fact that Libya talked about giving up its programs a decade ago is meaningful. Well, North Korea agreed to nuclear inspections a decade ago. And so did Iraq. But neither had any intent of cooperating.

    Gaddafi approached the British one week before the Iraq invasion to open talks, and a deal was announced soon after Saddam was captured. And he told Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi that he was afraid of the US after what they did in Iraq.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...9/04/wun04.xml
  20.    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    The Iraq invasion made it clear to Kim Jong Il that regime change is the US policy for the axis of evil. Thus, the fear.

    Are you saying that you don't think the policy of the US administration in Iran is regime change?
    Honestly, there is no fear in NK. You can ask any military expert, the US would be hard pressed to invade NK at peak much less with most of it's military in Iraq.

    In the second term, this administration began talks with NK and Iran.

    If the policy of this admin for Iran is regime change, they sure are going about it in an odd manner. Removing two of it's regional enemies (Iraq/Afghanistan) while at the same time discouraging the moderate voice due to an outside invasion of an arab country, and basically handing the southers resources over to a pro-iranian gov't.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions