1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

LA Times Poll Majority in US Not Convinced Iraq War Necessary

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by glynch, Dec 18, 2002.

Tags:
Page 2 of 5
  1. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,072
    Likes Received:
    3,601
    Hayes, at least you address the article, the polling data and the war.

    Not sure why the others prefer to discuss hats and fashions. I guess they feel only a silly movie star like Sean would be so stupid as to be concerned or so unpatriotic as to oppose Bush II on the matter. The polling data, however, shows otherwise.

    Don't worry guys, if I had to bet, I'd bet that you''ll still get your war. Perhaps you can then discuss the hats and accessories of General Tommy Franks or whoever else we install as leader of Iraq.
    :)
     
    #21 glynch, Dec 18, 2002
  2. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    16,150
    Likes Received:
    2,817
    glynch,

    I think this board, or at least the regular Hangout posters, are pretty evenly split (or slanted slightly left). You though fall far to the left of even most of the liberals on here. Whatever the Times poll says, around here most are not going to side with some of your more extreme takes. Sometimes people just get tired of the same argument, so they try to inject some humor to lighten the mood. That doesn't mean that they don't care about the issue, or that it is a personal attack on you, it is just that many of us have already expressed how we feel about a war against Iraq, and a quote from Lilo the Hawai'ian jewler is not likely to sway us.
     
    #22 StupidMoniker, Dec 18, 2002
  3. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,072
    Likes Received:
    3,601
    Hayes, the article also said: 72% of respondents, including 60% of Republicans, said the president has not provided enough evidence to justify starting a war with Iraq.

    You have correctly picked out a contradiction, though I believe a fair reading supports the article's headline.

    BTW do you feel good about starting a war in only 58% of the American people support it? I know the military doesn't like situations like that. I guess that is why they aren't as gung ho as the guys in the administration almost none of whom have military experience.
     
    #23 glynch, Dec 18, 2002
  4. Refman

    Refman Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    312
    Doesn't she have a really ugly blue dog? :D
     
    #24 Refman, Dec 18, 2002
  5. Refman

    Refman Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    312
    And 100% of respondents should know that we aren't at war at the current time.

    Of course you do. You posted the damned thing.

    Most wars in the 20th century were started without overwhelming public support. One thing we have all learned is that there will always be dissenters. Why exactly do you think it took us so long to get involved in Europe in the 1940s?

    Oh yeah...Powell and Rumsfeld..no experience there. :rolleyes:
     
    #25 Refman, Dec 18, 2002
  6. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,507
    Likes Received:
    181
    glynch,

    I think I made my point. The article is purposely, IMO, misleading. Would have been as effective if it had been "Vast majority of Americans are not 110% Sure Iraq War Necessary." The author clearly tries to present this new poll as evidence for lack of support on the part of the populace, while the poll itself doesn't really reveal anything new or interesting.

    The military doesn't want a lot of dissention at home because the upper echelons of the brass felt the brunt of the 'baby-killer' yelling, soldier spittin on, diving the country leftists in the Vietnam era. Ultimately it will undermine their mission and they know that. Personally, I don't really want Jeannie the Pineapple Artist or mr student anarchy in albany making foreign policy, nor do I want our leaders to wait for a complete consensus before acting. Considering that our President wasn't even elected by a majority, I certainly don't expect him to have to get 75% public opinion behind every move.
     
    #26 HayesStreet, Dec 18, 2002
  7. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,850
    Likes Received:
    20,639
    Do you really know any tree hugging liberals? It is just that the tree hugging liberals I know are way more liberal than the posters here. I see glynch as a left leaning moderate.

    Of course, there are some conservatives that claim anybody that disagrees with them must be by definition a liberal.

    Opposing the war at this time since Bush Jr is not giving justifications is not a liberal perspective; it is just common sense.
     
    #27 No Worries, Dec 18, 2002
  8. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,507
    Likes Received:
    181
    glynch is not a moderate. he is way way left.
     
    #28 HayesStreet, Dec 18, 2002
  9. Refman

    Refman Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    312
    Oh geez...I haven't laughed that hard in YEARS. Damn, No Worries, you're a funny guy.

    Thanks for brightening my day.
     
    #29 Refman, Dec 18, 2002
  10. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    Aren't you speculating about a "perceived" desire for war just for your own self-satisfaction here?
     
    #30 giddyup, Dec 19, 2002
  11. Pole

    Pole Houston Rockets--Tilman Fertitta's latest mess.

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    8,568
    Likes Received:
    2,735
    It might be common in the crowd you hang out with. Most of the people I know realize that it probably isn't too prudent for Bush to show his complete hand just to win over a few anti-war folks.

    Personally, I have my own fears about this war that seems so likely to happen. I don't want it to happen. I want Saddam gone, but I don't want to see a war. War IS hell. For a lot of innocent people as well. And I have the same fears that most of you liberals have: What IF Bush doesn't have any evidence? What IF this is personal for him?

    But at the end of the day, I keep my fears and emotions in check with some REAL common sense. One, I know the world as a whole would be a better place without Saddam at the helm of any nation. And two, Bush WOULD be the idiot most of you claim him to be if he presented us with any evidence he has. That would just show Iraq exactly what evidence they need to destroy.
     
    #31 Pole, Dec 19, 2002
  12. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,850
    Likes Received:
    20,639
    72% of respondents, including 60% of Republicans, said the president has not provided enough evidence to justify starting a war with Iraq.
    72% of the people survey are thus anti-war. You are making my point. I posit that taking the above anti-war stance is a moderate stance, and in particular not a decidely liberal only stance.

    Destroying the evidence would imply that ther Iraqis would be destroying WMD capabilities. Is this the stated end goal?

    While the world would be a better place without Saddam, is it really the responsibility of the US to affect a regime change?
     
    #32 No Worries, Dec 19, 2002
  13. Pole

    Pole Houston Rockets--Tilman Fertitta's latest mess.

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    8,568
    Likes Received:
    2,735
    I'm not making your point....the only point I made is that there was that the majority of the people I hang out with understand the president's need to not show all of his hand yet. If 72% of respondents, including 60% of Republicans, said the president has not provided enough evidence to justify starting a war with Iraq, then 28% of respondents must want a war regardless of evidence......because we really haven't been shown ANYTHING! Bush claims he had evidence, but we don't know if that's true or not.

    Destroying evidence by Iraq won't imply anything if they do it without anyone's knowledge......or are you saying that if Bush shows his evidence, this will coerce Iraq into destroying it--thus destroying the weapons themselves?

    That's not a bad thought...except for two holes I see in it: One, the WMD could be moved rather than destroyed, but two....and this is the most important hole I see......coercing Iraq to destroy "some" WMD doesn't serve any purpose if they have replacements that we don't know about. If we only know about "some" of their WMD (and no one would know for sure), then getting them to destroy them does more harm than good. We'll never have any credibility if we get them to destroy the only evidence we know about. I realize some of you would enjoy that, but I don't think that's in the world's best interests.

    As to your last question......the only answer anyone can give you on that is a purely subjective one. I'm kind of on the fence in this regards.....how 'bout you?
     
    #33 Pole, Dec 19, 2002
  14. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,507
    Likes Received:
    181
    It doesn't mean 72% are 'anti-war.' It means they are not 'SURE.' Besides the poll also say 58% support a ground war, so it would be impossible for you to claim 72% are 'anti-war.'
     
    #34 HayesStreet, Dec 19, 2002
  15. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,850
    Likes Received:
    20,639
    Pole,

    I never wrote that Bush should show all his cards. But he should show at least one egregious violation that justifies war. (Bush at least owes it to the soldiers whose bodies will line the streets of Bagdad.)

    I thus think that we are making the same point.

    I think that it arrogant for the US to think that they are the bottom line when it comes to deciding who does or does not run a particular country.
     
    #35 No Worries, Dec 19, 2002
  16. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,850
    Likes Received:
    20,639
    Let me restate what I wrote.

    72% of the people surveyed own an anti-war opinion. A good percentage of those also own a pro-war opinion.

    Sorry, I didn't intend to paint this as a black and white fact.

    The point I was making was that the anti-war crowd includes more than the far left liberals (and is not mutually exclusive from the pro-war crowd).
     
    #36 No Worries, Dec 19, 2002
  17. s land balla

    s land balla Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2001
    Messages:
    6,610
    Likes Received:
    365
    yea...
     
    #37 s land balla, Dec 19, 2002
  18. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,072
    Likes Received:
    3,601
    Quibble if you want about "Jenny the pineapple artist" or anarchists in Albany etc. However, not one of you have disproven my essential point from the poll, which is that it is not very rare and extreme to think that the war against Iraq is unnecessary.

    Quibble if you want that it might not be 72% who feel this way, just 40 something%.

    Knowing that is not uncommon and hence unpatriotic to be against the war perhaps you can listen to the following.

    *************************

    But before I can expect any conservative to join me on the side of peace and restraint, I need to address why so many conservatives are behind Paul Wolfowitz’s war.

    The justifications and purpose for this war change day-to-day if you listen to pundits and watch Ari Fleischer and President Bush. They include regime change, enforcing UN resolutions and continuing the war on terror, but they certainly do not end there.

    Beneath this ever-changing official line, for many conservatives—especially young ones like me—are a few reasons that are more visceral. We often don’t care what the justification is of bombs over Baghdad, because in our heart, we “know” it’s right.

    But coming to grips with these instinctive—and ultimately irrational—motivations for supporting war often opens one’s mind to the conservative case for peace. Below are the three emotional reactions I had to wrestle with before confronting rationally the issue of war:

    1. Leftist Peaceniks are Morons.

    I was ready to enlist in the Army and ask to be sent overseas to go after Saddam Hussein this April when I wandered around the national mall and talked with the vacuous leftist anti-war protestors. Their arguments against the war were faulty at best, treasonous at worst.

    They called themselves “anti-globalists” while calling for a greater UN role in world affairs. They defended Castro and Hussein and tyrannical Muslim regimes while accusing the U.S. of human rights violations for not fully funding abortion on demand and mandating equal pay for equal work.

    The closest thing to a coherent political principle for many (though not all) of these protestors was a deep-seated hatred of the United States. For some protestors and many leftist politicians, the motivating factor was far less insidious and far more petty: hatred of Republican President George W. Bush.

    First, the most vocal protestors are not even the best face of the left’s antiwar crusaders. There are some leftist arguments against war that follow validly from honest political principles (including social justice and deficit reduction), even if we don’t share those principles or priorities.

    Second, and far more saliently, the left’s arguments on war should not matter at all to conservatives. A stopped clock, as they say, is right twice a day. Many liberals oppose cloning, the faith-based initiative and corporate welfare, and their opposition makes those things no less dangerous.

    2. I Saw Red Dawn. War is cool. Let’s Roll!!!

    War, like a linebacker delivering a devastating hit to a poor Dallas Cowboys receiver, gets any red-blooded American juiced up. You can’t help but pump your fists at that part of the movie where the dude pops up from the covered hole in the ground and starts gunning down the commie bastards.

    CNN became cool when we got to watch those smart bombs going down air ducts during the Gulf War; remember the Wayne’s World Skit:

    “Knock-knock.”
    “Who’s there?”
    “Ka.”
    “Ka-who?”
    “Ka-boom!”

    So yeah, at first glance it seems that any John Wayne-watching, red-meat-eating, Top Gun-memorizing American guy should be eagerly awaiting Bombs over Baghdad II. But a closer look shows a different picture.

    The two most common drives for war with Iraq are concern for U.S. security or a desire to depose a corrupt tyrant and change the face of the Middle East. In other words, the war party is comprised of insecure folk and meddling central planners.

    The alternate view of this country was offered by a recent former President: the shining city on the hill. If the city on the hill changes its neighbors, it is by example. The other towns grow envious of the city, which hides no light under a bushel, and desire to emulate it. We still are that city. We do not need to stick our hand into everyone else’s business.

    The neo-realists and neocons both want to reshape the Middle East, either for some idealistic crusade of “spreading democracy” or in order to form the world in the way that most secures our national interest.

    These missions both bring to mind the Onion. headline, “Self-Helped Woman Refuses to Stop at Self.” The interventionists are your annoying aunt who acts as if she is so certain she has the solution to life problems that she needs to tell everyone how to live. In truth—and this is the underlying humor of the Onion joke—we know the self-helped woman is not really helped at all. It is an insecurity and pusillanimity that drives meddlers to poke their noses into others’ business.

    Finally, it is not as if we are devoid of real enemies. North Korea and China are both far advanced of Iraq in developing weapons of mass destruction and neither have pulled their punches in badmouthing the U.S.

    3. I Support Bush.

    A third inadequate reason to support the war is a love for our Republican—and fairly conservative—President.

    As conservatives and libertarians, our job is not to prop up the President, but to push him right. We are on his team. It is people like us whom he’ll listen to. We can question and criticize the war without attacking Bush at all. We should be the Gadfly that prods Bush to a foreign policy that carries Reagan’s city on the hill into the post-Cold War era: a foreign policy based on a respect for all life, supreme confidence in the U.S.’s moral superiority in the world, and allegiance to George Washington’s warnings on entangling alliances—not a foreign policy based on disdain for hippies, thirst for blood and party loyalty.

    conservatives and support for Iraq War.
     
    #38 glynch, Dec 19, 2002
  19. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,507
    Likes Received:
    181
    Saying that people are not sure if the war in Iraq necessary is a long way from saying that the people think the war is unnecessary.
     
    #39 HayesStreet, Dec 19, 2002
  20. Cohen

    Cohen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    I was happy to see:

    Finally, in the wake of a war, the vast majority of Americans — 70%, according to the poll — feel the country has an obligation to stay and rebuild Iraq.

    I hope the politicians see that. It would be fantastic if the Iraqis chose a democratic government and we helped rebuild their country....with no strings attached.
     
    #40 Cohen, Dec 19, 2002
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 5

Share This Page