Nice One Iran!

[Lamp]

Tried clicking on the link but got a 404

 

[tierk]

yes and no , not illegal for flares , but illegal for anti personel use under some geneva convention , wich US hasnt signed , hence there was never any case.

Sorry just got this off wiki and its pretty clear......

International law does not necessarily prohibit the use of napalm or other incendiaries against military targets,[5]but use against civilian populations was banned by the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, (often referred to as the CCW) in 1981. Protocol III of the CCW restricts the use of incendiary weapons (not only napalm), but a number of states have not acceded to all of the protocols of the CCW. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), states are considered a party to the convention, which entered into force as international law in December 1983, if they ratify at least two of the five protocols. The United States, for example, is a party to the CCW but did not sign protocol III.[6]

Seems pretty clear. Basically its ok to use against military targets but not against civilian populations.

 

[tierk]

The IAEA has access to Iranian nuclear facilities under a safeguards agreement, and in February 2007 it verified that Iran had not diverted to illegal use any material it had declared. However, Iran has not implemented a more intrusive Additional Protocol it signed in 2003, so the IAEA says it cannot verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material.

i suspect this will never happen as it means revealing all the power plants and such to the UN, and subsequently to Israel and the US


Not entirely true, they said


They did however offer the following incentives:

Iran refused the pre-requisite which was to stop their current development plan

Thanks, you answered for me :worthy:

 

[Lamp]

the words "Iran" and "safe".....hmm.....

 

[crispy]

Sorry just got this off wiki and its pretty clear......

International law does not necessarily prohibit the use of napalm or other incendiaries against military targets,[5]but use against civilian populations was banned by the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, (often referred to as the CCW) in 1981. Protocol III of the CCW restricts the use of incendiary weapons (not only napalm), but a number of states have not acceded to all of the protocols of the CCW. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), states are considered a party to the convention, which entered into force as international law in December 1983, if they ratify at least two of the five protocols. The United States, for example, is a party to the CCW but did not sign protocol III.[6]

Seems pretty clear. Basically its ok to use against military targets but not against civilian populations.

But its pretty ok to use machineguns then?

 

[Hawkwind]

The IAEA has access to Iranian nuclear facilities under a safeguards agreement, and in February 2007 it verified that Iran had not diverted to illegal use any material it had declared. However, Iran has not implemented a more intrusive Additional Protocol it signed in 2003, so the IAEA says it cannot verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material.

i suspect this will never happen as it means revealing all the power plants and such to the UN, and subsequently to Israel and the US

Which is why I put 100% of what they want. IAEA has asked for access to other facilities like Heavy water plants. Iranians then refused. Simple for me, if you have nothing to hide why say no!

All this was discussed in the previous thread.

Not entirely true, they said

Sorry couldn't be arsed to write out the whole senario again .

They offered better safer reactors to be built with Russian help. The only downside was the by product could not be used to make weapon grade material. If their intentions are purely for energy as they stated why not take a newer, cleaner, better reactor type when its offered on a plate. Just doesn't make sense.

 

[tierk]

Which is why I put 100% of what they want. IAEA has asked for access to other facilities like Heavy water plants. Iranians then refused. Simple for me, if you have nothing to hide why say no!.

Kinda like the Iraqi's did you mean? :eek2: That got them really far.

Your asking that Iran be becomes completely open and dispels world concerns while there is still time. Why should Iran be open and dispell anything when it has been shown clear as day that the USA will do whatever they want, including make up evidence to get there way.

The UN inspectors looking for WMD's in Iraq prior to the invasion were very clear about the fact that Iraq had no WMD's and surprise surprise the USA made up some Bs for the masses and hey presto invasion justified.

All the UN inspections did in effect was allow the allies to spy on Iraq, so tell me again why should Iran be open and dispell your fears? The only ones with suspect motives are the USA.

The West cannot be trusted to deal fairly with any country where they deem its in their national interest to fuck said nation over.

They offered better safer reactors to be built with Russian help. The only downside was the by product could not be used to make weapon grade material. If their intentions are purely for energy as they stated why not take a newer, cleaner, better reactor type when its offered on a plate. Just doesn't make sense.

Its not in the national interest of Iran to allow a foreign country to have control over there energy policy. By allowing a foreign country to supply the required fuel for the nuclear reactors you are placing yourself at risk of having that supply cut off in the future.

Rest assured that the USA and allies will continue to manipulate, twist and outright lie to their people and the world at large with the sole intention of fowarding there own agenda.

The people on here that think this is just about Iran are deluded and must come to understand that the USA is a juggernaut that is trying to bulldoze any and all opposition to its attempts to reorganise the world in a way that will facilitate complete domination of all its resources.

This agenda is working on so many levels and so sophisticated that its almost impossible to stop. They use all tools to achieve these ends, military, economic, political as well as top rate propaganda. Propaganda which judging by the comments on this and many many other web sites that is most effective.

 

[Hawkwind]

Morning Tierk,

Again, have to agree on comments regarding US 'imperialism' of the region. However, I honestly doubt US will get support of the global community again if Iran opens up and complies fully with the IAEA. My feeling is that Europe will definitely not support any action above UN trade embargoes. Provided they comply.

Why would Russia/UN cut off the supply of required fuel rods for the proposed reactor? Unless you think the UN will demand Iran stops supporting Terrorists or something similar. It makes no sense to stop the supply of a safe fuel.

Surely you understand our worries. I have lived and conducted business in this region for many years on and off, alot of people in this region are worried. Not just westerners. Arab League leaders and members of the Gulf communites included. But, I'm sure your well aware of that living in Doha and reading the press there. This is not simply a US Iran thing.

 

[crispy]

What really puzzles me is how people can justify that the US is so concerned about this. They are on the other side of the earth compared to Iran, so the question should be solved by countries who are affected by this - The middle eastern countries (Israel is there too), Russia, India, and large parts of Europe. The US is only affected in the economic aspect, but they are NOT willing to admit this - at least not admitting to go to war for oil ^_^

Sure the US will say 'If they get nukes they will sell em to terrorists!!!!', but ask yourself why havent they yet sold chemical weapons to terrorists then?

 

[Hawkwind]

What really puzzles me is how people can justify that the US is so concerned about this. They are on the other side of the earth compared to Iran, so the question should be solved by countries who are affected by this - The middle eastern countries (Israel is there too), Russia, India, and large parts of Europe. The US is only affected in the economic aspect, but they are NOT willing to admit this - at least not admitting to go to war for oil ^_^

Sure the US will say 'If they get nukes they will sell em to terrorists!!!!', but ask yourself why havent they yet sold chemical weapons to terrorists then?

1. Israel = Illegally held territory on most Middle East maps. Most Arab nations will have nothing to do with Israel.
2. the reason the US is there is Oil.
3. The other Middle East Countries do not have the backbone to criticise Iraq or Iran let alone do something useful about it. Not even Saudi with its financial clout.
4. Then there is the sectarian power struggle between branches of Islamic faith.
5. Corruption of the Faith for power.
....could go on for ages.

Read this:

Mideast Youth - Thinking Ahead » Blog Archive » Extremism & True Islam

Educated young Arab giving his views on the sectarianism/faith. Which is a huge factor in why peace will not happen in out lifetime.

Edit too quick with the post button.
Not sure about terrorists and chem weapons etc. The Western Governments are scared about terror attacks using lo tech bio weapons (anthrax and others). Which is why they banned most liquid containers and aerosols on aircraft. Also worried about chemical binary bombs.

 

[tierk]

.... However, I honestly doubt US will get support of the global community again if Iran opens up and complies fully with the IAEA.

Hey dude, I would just like to point out that the Iraq invasion was carried out unilaterally and didnt have the support of the global community or the UN.

.... Why would Russia/UN cut off the supply of required fuel rods for the proposed reactor? Unless you think the UN will demand Iran stops supporting Terrorists or something similar. It makes no sense to stop the supply of a safe fuel.....

Todays friend is tommorows enemy and vice versa. The Shah of Iran was stuck so far up the USA's butt for the best part of 25 years and they left him out to dry. Saddam was also another prime example of a friend left out to dry after almost 20 years of good service.

Also you have to understand that energy security is a big issue for any soveriegn country. Just the same way the USA invaded Iraq to secure oil supplies for themselves Iran will want to have its own ability to produce fuel for its reactors. Its about national security or "red lines" as they are called in the Uk. Would the USA be happy to have there energy security handed to another country ? Obviously not hence the invasion, so what makes it more acceptable for anyone else?

Also the UN asking Iran to stop supporting terrorists? Why dont they ask the USA to stop doing this seeing as they support more terror groups then anyone on this good earth? Why is it called one thing when the West (read USA) does this and its branded something else when someone else does?

.... Surely you understand our worries. I have lived and conducted business in this region for many years on and off, alot of people in this region are worried. Not just westerners. Arab League leaders and members of the Gulf communites included. But, I'm sure your well aware of that living in Doha and reading the press there. This is not simply a US Iran thing.

Well the countries in the region do have worries about developments in Iran, however, this is a sitaution they will have to live with. Iran has offered technical know how to all Gulf countries in setting up there own civilian nuclear programmes. The GCC countries themselves are currently discussing doing a joint programme which can only be a good thing in my book. Iran hasnt attacked these countries, despite all the assistance they gave to Saddam in the eight year Gulf War. They have pretty good relations with most of these countries also its just the USA coming and stirring shit as usual to mug these countries into buying weapons that they dont need and security that they dont need.

Btw just so you know the papers over here are just copy and paste merchants from the BBC news frontpage web site me thinks. Not sure of the situation in the UAE.

 

[Chronictank]

Read this:

Mideast Youth - Thinking Ahead » Blog Archive » Extremism & True Islam

Educated young Arab giving his views on the sectarianism/faith. Which is a huge factor in why peace will not happen in out lifetime.

oo nice link

 

[tierk]

.....Educated young Arab giving his views on the sectarianism/faith. Which is a huge factor in why peace will not happen in out lifetime..........

Sectarianism has not been a issue in the Middle East and even today is not a big factor anywhere except in Iraq. The single biggest reason for a lack of peace in the Middle East today is the State of Israel and until there is a just solution to this issue there will continue to be major issues in this region.

Fix the issue of Palestine and 90% of the anger in the Arab and Muslim world would disappear.

****EdiT****
Also the obvious occupation of Iraq is another major issue amongest other things.

 

[Hawkwind]

Sectarianism has not been a issue in the Middle East and even today is not a big factor anywhere except in Iraq. The single biggest reason for a lack of peace in the Middle East today is the State of Israel and until there is a just solution to this issue there will continue to be major issues in this region.

Fix the issue of Palestine and 90% of the anger in the Arab and Muslim world would disappear.

****EdiT****
Also the obvious occupation of Iraq is another major issue amongest other things.

Sorry but I don't agree, sectarianism amongst the muslim's is a big issue. Right now Fatah and Hamas in Palestine have effectively split the country. Making the whole thing even more complicated. They have engaged in open street battles in a bid to secure more of the city. It's like Beruit 15 years ago.

If coalition forces pulled out of Iraq tomorrow there would still be violence. I hardly think the recent bombings in crowded markets and of muslim pilgrims is anything to do with the US involvement in Iraq its pure sectarian violence. Quest for power and perversion of the faith by so called clerics. These men are the true 'devils'. Preaching hatred and death in the guise of religion just digusts me. They bend the minds of the poor and disenfranchised youth and turn them into killers. Much like the Catholic's hundreds of years ago. It's nothing more than a power struggle.

Also, in a previous post you mention that the US acted unilaterally. Eh at least 20 countries were involved with supplying manpower and ordinance in Iraq. Some have since pulled out. European countries like Denmark, Italy, Romania, Spain, Poland, Georgia all provided troops.

Just Googled and found a link.

Iraq Coalition - Non-US Forces in Iraq

Pro US site but at least the numbers are there as proof and stack up against other stuff on the web.

 

[Hawkwind]

Sadly and just to prove the point:

From 7 Days:
A spate of powerful car and suicide bombings has killed 44 people and wounded more than 100 in less than 24 hours across Iraq, shattering what had been a relatively calm holy month of Ramadan.
Police in the restive city of Baquba north of Baghdad yesterday revised to 28 killed and 34 wounded the casualty toll from a devastating suicide attack on Monday evening in a village mosque.

Or were they targeting coalition troops in the mosque?

 

[kivik]

Maybe they did, hawkwind. As in 'leave our country or we will bomb more innocent', should be easier than trying to get through the coalation defense. But I'm just speculating.

Sectarianism, does that cover the conflict between Shia and Sunni? As far as I've seen that appears to be a problem aswell.

 

[Hawkwind]

Maybe they did, hawkwind. As in 'leave our country or we will bomb more innocent', should be easier than trying to get through the coalation defense. But I'm just speculating.

Sectarianism, does that cover the conflict between Shia and Sunni? As far as I've seen that appears to be a problem aswell.

In Iraq alone there are Kurdish Christians, Kurdish Sunnis, Arab Shi'ite and Sunni Arab. Very basically, the Kurds control the most of the North, The Shi'ite the south and Sunni the middle. Saddam ran the Sunni Ba'athists and despite being a minority in Iraq kept power for decades, suppressing the Shia and Kurds.

The following link is a good read, explains it far better than I ever could:

The US Role in Iraq's Sectarian Violence - by Stephen Zunes

Edit: Meant to add that I don't agree that the sectarian violence is all down to US. Taking out Saddam just gave them the freedom to do it. Insurgents from groups supported by Syriaa and Iran cause alot of the violence you now see on the TV.

 

[tierk]

Sorry but I don't agree, sectarianism amongst the muslim's is a big issue. Right now Fatah and Hamas in Palestine have effectively split the country............

Sorry you are wrong. Fatah is a secular movement in Palestine and doesnt represent any type of faith or sect. Hamas on the other hand is a Islamic movement. The conflict in Palestine has nothing to do with different sects but is quite clearly a struggle to see who represents the people of Palestine. Hamas won the last legal election in Palestine but naturally as their agenda runs contrary to Israeli occupation and American policy they have been ostracised marginalised and ignored.

Fatah on the other hand, under the leadership of Abu mazen aka Mahmood Abbas, is seen by most people on the ground as a bunch of corrupt politicians who have no mandate from the people. The policy by Israel and backed by the West, of starving Palestinians as punishment for there choice in a free and fair election shows the level of hypocrisy exercised by the West and its allies when it comes to the Muslim world. Now if Palestinians want to eat and have jobs they have to follow Mr Mamood "Sell Out" Abbas policy of appeasing Israel.

If coalition forces pulled out of Iraq tomorrow there would still be violence. I hardly think the recent bombings in crowded markets and of muslim pilgrims is anything to do with the US involvement in Iraq its pure sectarian violence. Quest for power and perversion of the faith by so called clerics.............

Ask any Iraqi today if they are better off today or under Saddam and see what response you get. There is violence and i dont dispute this with you. Will it stop as long as there is occupation? Quite clearly no, will it stop once the occupation ends naturally it will seeing as both sides stated aim is to get rid of occuping forces.

....Also, in a previous post you mention that the US acted unilaterally. Eh at least 20 countries were involved with supplying manpower and ordinance in Iraq. Some have since pulled out. European countries like Denmark, Italy, Romania, Spain, Poland, Georgia all provided troops..............

lol sorry but that list is not The Global Community and you choosing to ignore the fact that it had no UN mandate. With the greatest respect Denamrk, Italy, Romania, Spain, Poland, Georgia is a piss poor representation of world opinion when considering the coalition that was supporting George Bush Senior's free Kuwait campaign.

You choose to ignore the largest cause of resentment of the West in the Middle East and that is the issue of Palestine. Fix this problem and you kill off almost all the ammunition that radical groups have against the West. However, since Israel seems to have the unlimited support of Western countries, in whatever they do, this will never happen and hence, no peace in the Middle East.

 

[tierk]

OoooOops double post!!

 

[Hawkwind]

Fair enough you don't see Fatah v Hamas as sectairan violence. It may not have a religious basis but it is still sectarian violence.

Wiki definition for you.

Sectarian violence or sectarian strife is violence inspired by sectarianism, that is, between different sects of one particular mode of thought, not necessarily religious (e.g. conflicts between the nationalists and communists in China in the early 20th century are largely constructed by Chinese nationals of the time as sectarian). Some of the possible inputs for sectarian violence include power struggles, political climate, social climate, cultural climate, and economic landscape.

Ask any Iraqi today if they are better off today or under Saddam and see what response you get. There is violence and i dont dispute this with you. Will it stop as long as there is occupation? Quite clearly no, will it stop once the occupation ends naturally it will seeing as both sides stated aim is to get rid of occuping forces.

If everyone of the coalition troops left tomorrow there would be even more bloodshed. The quest for power of all these various factions would see to that. The country would be split into three something no one wants to see. Although Iran might be pleased by it. Its interference in the politics and supply of arms is well known.

lol sorry but that list is not The Global Community and you choosing to ignore the fact that it had no UN mandate.

Right so 27 of the worlds leading countries supplied troops and supplies for the war. But you dont regard that as 'global community'? Out of interest how many countries would it take? Regarding the UN Mandate, The coalition believed it could legally go to war on the mandates it had. I personally (said this many times) don't agree with that. So why do you think I would argue on that fact!

You choose to ignore the largest cause of resentment of the West in the Middle East and that is the issue of Palestine. Fix this problem and you kill off almost all the ammunition that radical groups have against the West. However, since Israel seems to have the unlimited support of Western countries, in whatever they do, this will never happen and hence, no peace in the Middle East.

I did not ignore it, but the whole Israel thing is a lot more complicated and has very little to do with the sectarian violence in Iraq. The problems in Palestine deserves a thread of its own. The history of it, right back to the Balfour treaty just after WWI is very interesting and littered with mistakes. Quite a few of them by the UN and UK.

 

[Hawkwind]

Ask any Iraqi today if they are better off today or under Saddam and see what response you get.

Maybe we should ask the surviving relatives of these attrocities!

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

Or check this out:

Iraq. In: Amnesty International Report 2001


Seriously deluding yourself if you think everyone in Iraq was better off under Saddam!

 

[dub]

Right so 27 of the worlds leading countries supplied troops and supplies for the war. But you dont regard that as 'global community'? Out of interest how many countries would it take? Regarding the UN Mandate, The coalition believed it could legally go to war on the mandates it had. I personally (said this many times) don't agree with that. So why do you think I would argue on that fact!

well in other words 175 countries didnt join the coalition of the willing , dunno how many it take to be the global community , but would guess about a majority atleast

 

[Calaen]

The Iranian leader needs a good fisting, right up his ****

 

[Gamah]

The Iranian leader needs a good fisting, right up his ****

thanks for your input.

 

[tierk]

....Seriously deluding yourself if you think everyone in Iraq was better off under Saddam!

Pretty sure that there was a survey carried out in Iraq asking exactly that question and ....

90% of Iraqis say they were better off under Saddam Hussein | The News is NowPublic.com

or.....

Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops - Telegraph

Think that its pretty clear despite the fantasy version of events been pushed by the politicians about the Iraqi's want the occupation forces there.

Fair enough you don't see Fatah v Hamas as sectairan violence. It may not have a religious basis but it is still sectarian violence........

Its pretty clear what sectarian violence is, invariably conflict between different sects of a religion. I am not a entomologist but the word seems pretty clear and it has been used many times in the past to describe conflicts between different sects of the same relgion ie catholic and protestant in Ireland a good example.

Fatah is a non relgious organisation and hence not a sect, therefore the fighting we see is not sectarianism by definition. Try this link from wiki which seems pretty clear .....

Sectarian violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If everyone of the coalition troops left tomorrow there would be even more bloodshed. The quest for power of all these various factions would see to that. The country would be split into three something no one wants to see. Although Iran might be pleased by it. Its interference in the politics and supply of arms is well known..

Well seeing as the coalition (read USA and UK) left tomorow yes there would be violence but seeing as the occuaption has failed to do fuck all except kill more Iraqi's then Saddam did in 25 years. Your comment The country would be split into three something no one wants to see. begs the question who are these "ALL" you talking about? If that is what the Iraqi's want then surely that is for them to decide isnt it one way or the other?

As to your observation about violence continuing yes i agree it would for a while but it is for Iraqi's to resolve there issues and not have outside countries impose nonworking solutions on Iraq just to appease voters in a far off land.

Right so 27 of the worlds leading countries supplied troops and supplies for the war. But you dont regard that as 'global community'? Out of interest how many countries would it take? Regarding the UN Mandate, The coalition believed it could legally go to war on the mandates it had. I personally (said this many times) don't agree with that. So why do you think I would argue on that fact!.

Who gives a shit if its 27 of the worlds leading countries or 27 backwater shit holes pretending to be countries, at the end of the day it aint global community by a long shot. I mean please Georgia?? Leading?? please get a grip mate 27 out of almost 200 countries isnt the basis for anything remotely close to global except maybe the air miles you could earn travelling between the different capitals.

....I did not ignore it, but the whole Israel thing is a lot more complicated and has very little to do with the sectarian violence in Iraq....

Well sectarian violence in Iraq has little to do with the orignal post you made about Iran but you chose to mention in a earlier post on this thread reasons for there never been peace in the Middle East and the prime reasoning for this according to you is Sectarianism and i am telling you clearly sectarianism aint got nothing to do with it or is the tiniest part of it.

....The problems in Palestine deserves a thread of its own. The history of it, right back to the Balfour treaty just after WWI is very interesting and littered with mistakes. Quite a few of them by the UN and UK.

As i said till there is a just solution to this issue there wont be peace in the Middle East and there wont be a end to terrorism. It is a festering wound in the mind of pretty much every Muslim and non closure of this issue is just feeding every radical anti western group out there.

 

[Calaen]

Pretty sure that there was a survey carried out in Iraq asking exactly that question and ....

90% of Iraqis say they were better off under Saddam Hussein | The News is NowPublic.com

or.....

Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops - Telegraph

Think that its pretty clear despite the fantasy version of events been pushed by the politicians about the Iraqi's want the occupation forces there.




Its pretty clear what sectarian violence is, invariably conflict between different sects of a religion. I am not a entomologist but the word seems pretty clear and it has been used many times in the past to describe conflicts between different sects of the same relgion ie catholic and protestant in Ireland a good example.

Fatah is a non relgious organisation and hence not a sect, therefore the fighting we see is not sectarianism by definition. Try this link from wiki which seems pretty clear .....

Sectarian violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Well seeing as the coalition (read USA and UK) left tomorow yes there would be violence but seeing as the occuaption has failed to do fuck all except kill more Iraqi's then Saddam did in 25 years. Your comment The country would be split into three something no one wants to see. begs the question who are these "ALL" you talking about? If that is what the Iraqi's want then surely that is for them to decide isnt it one way or the other?

As to your observation about violence continuing yes i agree it would for a while but it is for Iraqi's to resolve there issues and not have outside countries impose nonworking solutions on Iraq just to appease voters in a far off land.




Who gives a shit if its 27 of the worlds leading countries or 27 backwater shit holes pretending to be countries, at the end of the day it aint global community by a long shot. I mean please Georgia?? Leading?? please get a grip mate 27 out of almost 200 countries isnt the basis for anything remotely close to global except maybe the air miles you could earn travelling between the different capitals.



Well sectarian violence in Iraq has little to do with the orignal post you made about Iran but you chose to mention in a earlier post on this thread reasons for there never been peace in the Middle East and the prime reasoning for this according to you is Sectarianism and i am telling you clearly sectarianism aint got nothing to do with it or is the tiniest part of it.




As i said till there is a just solution to this issue there wont be peace in the Middle East and there wont be a end to terrorism. It is a festering wound in the mind of pretty much every Muslim and non closure of this issue is just feeding every radical anti western group out there.

So do you suggest we just make Israel go away?

There will always be fighting in the middle east because that is what they are good at. They spoil it for all the intelligent and normal people that live/come from Iran/Israel. It is a shame but it is something I have decided will never be solved.

 

[Sharma]

Pretty sure that there was a survey carried out in Iraq asking exactly that question and ....

90% of Iraqis say they were better off under Saddam Hussein | The News is NowPublic.com

or.....

Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops - Telegraph

So.

About 2500 people represents the entire country.

Clearly.

 

[crispy]

So.

About 2500 people represents the entire country.

Clearly.

Thats how you make polls... You dont ask the entire country when making opinion polls before an election eiter

 

[Sharma]

So how the fuck can you take a poll such as that and take as fact?

Using surveys such as that and saying "xx% of ALL Iraqis think the british are *****" for example basically completely removes the footing for oneself to argue on.

 

[crispy]

You know how to make statistics and the math behind it i take it.