Iraq makes terror 'more likely'

[Neil D]

The US has ruled out any hasty withdrawal

People across the world overwhelmingly believe the war in Iraq has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks worldwide, a poll for the BBC reveals.

Some 60% of people in 35 countries surveyed believe this is the case, against just 12% who think terrorist attacks have become less likely.

In most countries, more people think removing Saddam Hussein was a mistake than think it was the right decision.

Some 41,856 people were questioned in the poll for the BBC's World Service.

In 20 countries, there is overall support for US-led forces to withdraw from Iraq in the next few months.

[]http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/world_iraq_war_poll_results/img/laun.jpg[/]

Only in nine of the remaining 15 countries do more people believe US-led forces should remain until the situation is stabilised. Six countries are divided.

The removal of Saddam Hussein in 2003 is seen as a mistake in 21 countries, compared with 11 countries where more people view it as the right decision. Three countries are divided.

"It's official. Citizens worldwide think Western leaders have made a fundamental mistake in their war on terror by invading Iraq," says Doug Miller, president of the international polling firm GlobeScan, which carried out the survey.

"Short of the Iraqi government asking them to stay longer, people think the troops should leave," he says.

The countries most eager for US coalition withdrawal are Argentina (80%), Egypt (76%), China (67%) and Brazil (67%). Those which favour troops staying for the time being are the US (58%), Afghanistan (58%), Australia (57%) and Great Britain (56%).

Iraqis divided

However, the picture would be very different should the new Iraqi government ask US-led forces to remain until the situation was stabilised.

In that case, there is support in 21 of 34 countries for the coalition to stay.

Iraqis themselves are sharply divided over whether US-led forces should leave, with 49% favouring their removal and 49% favouring them to remain.

Support for troops staying rises only slightly, to 53%, if the Iraqi government requests it.

Iraqis are the most convinced that the removal of Saddam Hussein was right, with 74% agreeing with the move.

US President George W Bush has ruled out any hasty withdrawal from Iraq, saying the decision to will be made by military commanders, and not under political pressure.

[:"brown"] anyone wanna bet that civil war is around the corner? And guess which countries or coalitions will be caught in the middle of this wreck? Can anyone say "let's get outta here?" [/]

[Dr. Shane]

It is a good thing that President Bush isn't some wishy-washy politician that follows the polls. Paise God we have a man with a backbone in the White House.

Stay the course and don't back down!

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

It is a good thing that President Bush isn't some wishy-washy politician that follows the polls. Paise God we have a man with a backbone in the White House.

Stay the course and don't back down!

---

Stay the course????

I would be happy to stay the course, provided that we were winning the hearts of the Iraqis.... unfortunately, there are 3 countrys within Iraq....all drawn along religious lines....And they are jealous of each other, and hate each other and are more than willing to kill each other....

A police man once told me that he never gets in the middle of two guys fighting while alone. The reason is that they always turn on him, and then they continue thier fight with each other... He has decided to let them duke it out, then he can take them both in to custody while one is out, and the other weakened...

I think there are some very clear practicalities to this perspective at the global political level. I suggest that we put a wall around Iraq, and withdrawal and feed any guns to anyone that asks for it, over the wall, and wait until they have shot and killed everyone that they desire....

[Dr. Shane]

President Bush really is distinguishing himself as a diplomat. Thank God we have the right man at the right time in the right place. My hat is off to him.

[Planey]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

It is a good thing that President Bush isn't some wishy-washy politician that follows the polls. Paise God we have a man with a backbone in the White House.

---

Shane, please correct me if I am wrong, but I recall you being more than a little irate with some judges who you felt were bringing down decisions which you claimed went against popular opinion. You seemed to feel at the time that this was in some way "anti-democratic", that the judges should reflect "the will of the people". Leaving aside for the time the problem of how the judges should assess, from moment to moment, "the will of the people", it is entirely inappropriate for judges to give decisions in this way - they should give their decisions based on the written code of laws (which includes the constitution).

Politicians, on the other hand, are elected by the people to represent them and to be their spokesman in the elected houses. In other words, they should reflect the "will of the people". That is their job. The polls do, in a way, represent the will of the people - not in the official manner of a vote, but certainly they are representative of the thoughts and ideas of a section of the public. And when you think of it, an election only represents the wishes of a section of the public (those who can be bothered to vote.)

So surely all politicians are duty bound to at least consider what is shown in the polls. I don't see how you can laud such an attitude as a praiseworthy attribute when it clearly goes against any representatives job description.

Graeme

[Dr. Shane]

The way a democracy is set up is for the people to express their will through elections - not polls. The Iraq War took center stage during the 2004 election and the people choose to re-elect President Bush. President Bush is doing what he believes is right and for that should be commended.

My position on the courts is that they should take into account the original intent of the founders or legislatures that passed specific laws that they are ruling on. That may or may not be what the people favor. Judges are to be like referees - they are not to choose sides but simply rule on the law. I have a problem with judges that read things into laws or the Constution so they can over-rule the people.

There are some that believe politicians should govern by polls. The Clinton Administration consistantly used polls to base policy on. Others believe politicians should govern according to their convictions and let the people decide if they approve at the ballot box.

One of the Bush Administration's biggest problems is they believe they are above defending themselves against every little attack. They do not use the media to their advantage, like the Reagon Administration did. As a result, they take a beating in the press and they are not faring well in the battle of public opinion. Instead of making friends with the press they have taken many unfriendly positions toward them. As a result, much of the press has a bone to pick with them and the press has a huge influence over public opinion.

[Planey]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

Judges are to be like referees - they are not to choose sides but simply rule on the law. I have a problem with judges that read things into laws or the Constution so they can over-rule the people.

---

I agree with your first sentence here - judges should certainly make their judgments based on the law. Or rather, they need to interpret the intention of the law as it pertains to a situation which may not have been specifically mentioned in the relevant law.

I just question how a judge can "overule the people"? If a situation is not mentioned specifically in a law, the judge must extrapolate the statute to fit the current incident. This is obviously where the judge's professional knowledge and experience would be required. How would a judge know what "the will of the people" is in such a situation? I mean, as opposed to the specific letter of the law? Who would decide "the will of the people" in such a judicial situation? And how do you know "the will of the people" so that you are sure that the judge is going against it (as you seemed to be so sure)?

Graeme

[Dr. Shane]

Roe v. Wade is the perfect example. The Constitution specifically says that any powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States. Various states had passed laws banning abortion.

The Supreme Court found a right to privacy in the Bill of Rights and further found a right to abortion within that right. By doing so they over-ruled the will of the people in the states that had banned abortion. The Constitution does not mention a right to privacy or a right to abortion.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

One of the Bush Administration's biggest problems is they believe they are above defending themselves against every little attack

---

That's right.

That is why GWB can go on public TV and tell the entire nation that no-one thought the levees might fail only a few days after being told personally and emphatically by experts that they might fail.

The administration can't even defend themselves from huge attacks because they are defenseless in front of overwhelming evidence that shows that their top leaders lie.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

No, it isn't that they can't defend themselves, it is they feel no need to defend themselves. They have an attitude that to do so is beneath them. Bush's low ratings in the polls is due mostly because he doesn't have the right attitude toweard the press.

In Iraq that isn't the case. In Iraq the Administration is spending a lot of time and money to use the media resources it can to win the hearts and minds of the people. It is too bad that isn't being done at home too.

[Gregory Matthews]

It is interesting how Roe v. Wade gets intered into the conversation.

I wonder how many people who tell us what Roe v. Wade said have actually read it?

For those who would like to read it, here it is:

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

Re: "Roe v. Wade is the perfect example. The Constitution specifically says that any powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States."

Re: "Various states had passed laws banning abortion."

"5. The American law. In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-19th century was the pre-existing English common law."

Here is a statement of that common law: ". . . it now appear doubtful that abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus."

Re: "The Supreme Court found a right to privacy in the Bill of Rights. . ."

"3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164."

In the above section of the ruling, the Court found a violaltion of Due Process which appears to me to be more important that the "right to privacy." So, I think that that statements of the Court finding a right to privacy are half-truths.

Re: ". . . and further found a right to abortion within that right."

Please read my citation above. The finding of a right to have an abortition was the finding of a qualified right, that is to say a right that could be restricted, and was NOT absolute.

See the following:

"We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

Re: "By doing so they over-ruled the will of the people in the states that had banned abortion."

It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy.

"It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy."

Shane has told us in other posts that current judges today should read the Constitution in the light of the intent of those who wrote it. It is of interest to me that Roe v. Wade clearly (much longer than I have posted) tells us that many current laws restrict the right to abortion beyond the thinking of the people at the time the Constitution was written.

Re: "The Constitution does not mention a right to privacy or a right to abortion."

Here is what the Court said: "The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453-454; id., at 460, 463-465 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra."

Thr thrust is clear: The Constitution does not grant a general right to privacy. But, certain provisions of the Bill of Rights demand limited personal rights to privacy in order to be effective.

Shane brought up Roe v. Wade. I felt that the above discussion might be of interest, as people who often cite it have never read it, do not understand all of its aspects, and fail to recognize some of what it actually says. For full consideration of it, please read the entire decision, as I have only posted brief quotations.

[Dr. Shane]

Roe v. Wade is a classic example which many are familiar with. That is why it is easy to discuss. A few years ago the Texas legislature had to rewrite a law the Texas Supreme Court had not interpretted as the legislature intended it to be. The law was quite new and the Supreme Court did not consider the intent of the legislature.

The Fourteenth Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights. Its intent was to make black Americans have equal rights. The Supreme Court has ignored that original intent on many occations to apply to Fourteenth Amendment to issues outside of racial inequality.

The Constitution does protect certain privacy rights. It places a burdon on the government to get a warrent before being able to search a person's home. It prevents the government from force a person to house soldiers in their home. It protects the right to assembly. So there are privacy rights that are protected by the Constitution. Abortion is not one of them. To include it as one is to thwart the will of the people by an act of judicial activism.

Quote:

---

many current laws restrict the right to abortion beyond the thinking of the people at the time the Constitution was written.

---

When the Constitution was written abortion was an issue decided by the states. The Constitution limited the federal government's role. The federal government was seen as a necesary evil.

[Dr. Shane]

Part of Rehnquist's decent:

[:"blue"] I have difficulty in concluding, as the Court does, that the right of "privacy" is involved in this case. Texas, by the statute here challenged, bars the performance of a medical abortion by a licensed physician on a plaintiff such as Roe. A transaction resulting in an operation such as this is not "private" in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the "privacy" that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which the Court has referred to as embodying a right to privacy…

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment undoubtedly does place a limit, albeit a broad one, on legislative power to enact laws such as this. If the Texas statute were to prohibit an abortion even where the mother's life is in jeopardy, I have little doubt that such a statute would lack a rational relation to a valid state objective under the test stated in Williamson, supra. But the Court's sweeping invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the first trimester is impossible to justify under that standard, and the conscious weighing of competing factors that the Court's opinion apparently substitutes for the established test is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than to a judicial one…

The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental," Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934). Even today, when society's views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the "right" to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe…

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. Conn. Stat., Tit. 20, §§ 14, 16. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. 1 While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. (emphasis added)

[/]

[Dr. Shane]

U.S. Commander Says Iraq Crisis Has Passed

Thanks to President GW Bush's diplomatic abilities

Quote:

---

Now, it appears that the crisis has passed," Casey said in a briefing from Baghdad with reporters at the Pentagon. "But we all should be clear Iraqis remain under threat of terrorist attack by those who will stop at nothing to undermine the formation of the constitutionally elected government."

---

[Neil D]

So much for Bushes 'diplomacy'....

[Dr. Shane]

It could have all gone up in smoke... but for US and Kurdish diplomacy. A defining moment for the Bush Administration.

Diplomacy Helped To Calm the Chaos

Quote:

---

In the days that followed the bombing of a sacred Shiite shrine, Iraq seemed within a hair's breadth of civil war. But an aggressive U.S. and Kurdish diplomatic campaign appears for now to have coaxed the country back from open conflict between Sunni Arabs and Shiites

---

Quote:

---

By Saturday morning, the crisis had reached a turning point. After discussions at the White House and with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, President Bush called leaders from each faction to give them the final push toward an accommodation

---

Quote:

---

After the call, the Sunni leaders announced their willingness to rejoin the talks, and later that evening they met with various representatives. At the end of that meeting, just before midnight on Saturday, the Iraqi prime minister, flanked by the leaders of the major political parties, solemnly announced at a news conference that the country would not have a civil war -- a moment of "terrific political symbolism,"

---

Quote:

---

"Great crises such as this can fragment, polarize people or pull them together," he said. "I hope in 10 years, in 15 years, in 20 years, people will look at this crisis as a turning point in getting Iraqis to come together against a common enemy."

---

Now some are so anti-Bush that they will not even be able to give him the credit due. Not I. Well done, Mr. President

[gina i]

If Bush is a diplomat, what was Hitler? Heh.

If by diplomat, you mean, killing thousands of innocent men, women & children. Yep, that's diplomatic.

Yes, yes Thank God for Bush, a man who is fighting for people's rights.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

Now some are so anti-Bush that they will not even be able to give him the credit due.

---

He got three groups of people together, got them talking, got them to make compromises and convinced them it was in each of their own best interest to do so. As a result he pulled a splintered nation back from the brink of civil war. That is diplomacy.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

but for US and Kurdish diplomacy. A defining moment for the Bush Administration....[ snip] ... Now some are so anti-Bush that they will not even be able to give him the credit due. Not I. Well done, Mr. President

---

Quote:

---

[:"green"] Bloodshed among religious sects is a blow to the U.S.-backed goal of a broadly representative Iraqi government, though the immediate threat of civil war has seemingly passed, top U.S. civilian and military officials said Friday. [/]

---

It occurs to me that the country is not as unified as some who would like to bolster the President's retoric would like to suggest. If the country was as 'demacracy orientated' as the president suggests, this violence would not have happened, but rather leaders leaders would have gone into counciling sessions while demonstrations would have occured, but they would not have been violent, with bombs and killings....

Quote:

---

[:"green"]Jeffrey discounted the threat of an all-out civil war but warned that the volatile situation could worsen. [/]

---

Here, someone admits that the situation could worsen again...

I am begining to see republican spin...again from the religous right again [which is neither religious nor right]

BTW, you might want to look at this URL

This is a report from the CIA about a very real Civil War in Iraq

[Dr. Shane]

I have not seen any claims that Iraq is unified. Quite to the contrary. I have heard claims that the President has a back-up plan to devide Iraq into three nations but hopes that will not be necesary. Although it is better to devide it and have three democracies than allow it to become a terrorist state.

The fact that Iraq is not unified only highlights the President's diplomatic abilities. It is not only possible but likely that the situation will worsen again. I haven't seen anyone looking at this with rose-colored glasses. Thank God the man in the White House isn't the one that belives this is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. Thank God the President is committed to see this through and not cut and run.

[Neil D]

Absolute neo-conservative republican spin!.... As someone has told me, I am not a top, do not spin me.

[Neil D]

Absolute neo-conservative republican spin!.... As someone has told me, "I am not a top, do not spin me."

[Dr. Shane]

Now some are so anti-Bush that they will not even be able to give him the credit due.

[Neil D]

I have said this twice already, how many more times do I have to repeat your words....I am not a top, do not spin me.

[Dr. Shane]

Yes, that is my motto. So when I give the Prez a pat on the back for a job well done everyone can take it as straight talk. I did the same with President Clinton and Bush the elder. I try to be fair to both sides. I am not a top, I don't spin.

Did anyone notice my link was to the Washinton Post which is a paper known for a liberal bais? So if the Washington Post can recognize that Bush's diplomacy helped defuse a near civil war, anyone else should be able to too.