Ok, well let me just provide this. I do not have too much time as I am about to head into a meeting at 9:15. I am only looking at media sources, not political sites who have posted polls or reported on results. I have not found a poll yet under 55% for military action. Let me give you the results that I have found with a quick search, and if you think that the presentation by Powell hurt the support, then please provide those results and I will be back after lunch and would like to read about it.: Feb. 2, pre-Powell speech: ABC-Washington Post poll released Saturday had a 2 to 1 in support of military action: 66% http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030202/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_poll_7 Per News Day: Again pre-Powell speech: Support for military action against Iraq was up to 58 percent, compared with 52 percent before the president's State of the Union speech a week ago, according to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll released Monday Feb 3, 2003. Feb. 6, post-Powell speech: In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 601 adult Americans who watched Powell's speech or heard about what he said, 57 percent said they favored military action against Saddam, 15 percent said they were opposed and 26 percent were unsure. Before the speech, 50 percent of respondents favored military action, 22 percent were against it and 28 percent were unsure. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/06/sprj.irq.wrap/
Yes, and when the dust settles, Saddam is gone, the WMD are gone, Al Qaeda loses another base of support, and the Iraqis are free, 85% of the population will profess support for the war. That's about how it worked last time, and it will happen again. What no one seems to be cognizant of is the fact that we usually do *not* have a mojority consensus when we go to war. Having even 50% is considered well within the margins of acceptable support levels (anywhere from about 35-40% + is usually sufficient as long as the conflict doesn't promise to be too long or bloody - as this one does not). We did not have majorities in Kosovo, Bosnia, Gulf I, Grenada, Panama, or Korea. Surprisingly, we had a majority early on in Vietnam. What does this tell you? Having a majority consensus before the conflict begins is totally irrelevant and unnecessary. What is important is that the conflict doesn't last long and that US casualties are low. This war will probably last about a week (not including a possible prep air campaign, but it might be over even including that within a week). US casualties promise to be very low. Iraqi military and civilian casualties also promise to be relatively low, as we plan on using a new strategy in this war. The lack of an overwhelming consensus - what many here apparently, and for some befuddling reason devoid of historical significance, seem to believe is needed - at this point does not concern me at all.
What I don't understand is how other countries just feel that we need to beef up UN inspections. Why didn't they do that in the first place. I think this is about as much evidence (aka "smoking gun") as they will find with out Sadam actually using his wmd or us going in by force and showing them where to look before they have a chance to move everything.
Bogey: What will be interesting will be what is uncovered when the war is over. I think the world is in for a shocker when US agents and military start thumbing through Iraq's captured secret files... What will be left of them, that is. I wonder what our "allies" will say when the full extent of the horrors and violations the Baathists are responsible for committing come to light? And what will glynch say then? Bush administration lies, it's all a fabrication... planted...
This will have to go in the "addicted to CC.net" thread. Had to get something from my desk saw a post and had to respond!! Read all the results RM, thoroughly, and analyze them in a way that explains the trend in them. - 46.5% of the people that were against are now unsure or now supporting action. That shows me large movement away from the anti action stance. I know you see and understand that, but your stance on issues is preventing you from acknowledging what is in the numbers.
What is my stance on the issues? I'm talking about the supposed liberal dominance of this board, which now shows 56% for war.
good question...all you guys have been doing is saying that there isnt evidence of this or that...now you have evidence...are there any other solutions at this point.. especially given the evidence that ties Saddam to Al Queda?
What I'm against is the attitude that this is going to be a cakewalk. Super Bowl analogies are ridiculous. (Even though I hope they come true and the war happens as imagined.) War is serious business and I think a lot of folks in this country are basing their opinion on the presumed outcome of the war, but no war is the same as the one before it and no war should be taken lightly. No war comes off exactly as planned. People can die. Things can go wrong. When battling wildfires, we have a saying: "You never fight the same fire twice." Each one is different and each one can be deadly. In fact, most deaths occur on small fires... people get cocky or complacent and all of sudden the fire doesn't behave like they assumed it would and they die. I think the rank and file know what they are walking into, but I'm not convinced the leadership or many in the country are looking at the idea of war with a truly dispassionate and critical eye.
You're absolutely right; but I have faith that the war planners and the field commanders in the U.S. military will have most if not all possible contingencies accounted for. At least we've been spared the mindless bleating of "Quagmire! Vietnam!" that we heard from some circles prior to the Afghani campaign.
i agree with you. in a war nobody wins. people are gonna die, innocent people. from the USA (and other countrys)and from Iraq. that is way i'm against a war
If Iraq is allowed to continue on their present course with WoMD and given their past history of attacking their neighbors and their hatred/desire to see an end to Israel, then you are only delaying the inevitable and raising the costs of a future war later. By raising the costs, you will have allowed Saddam much more time to work on his nuclear bombs and longer range missiles while continuing his production of chemical/biological agents. Iraq will then be in a superior, equal footing just as North Korea is today which is the main reason we don't attack them now because they will annihilate everyone around them. You think stopping a war now is going to prevent this same war in the future given how Iraq has blatantly done everything against the international community's will thus far. Those people who see war now as horrible are in the future going to wish we had gone to war earlier to deal with this mess in its early stages. I don't trust Saddam to do the right thing for one minute. He never has and he never will. He must want to keep these weapons for a reason and it's not just for security. I can't believe you people are willing to pass on a much larger problem to future generations(like your children) which will in all likelihood culminate in a much bigger and deadlier war for all involved. This isn't going to go away. The inspectors aren't going to find what we know exists given Iraq's hide and seek games. So, what's this about no war....your only delaying war. There isn't going to be a peace treaty between the US and Iraq until Saddam's regime is gone. We are not going to sit idly by for several years while Iraq continues to support terrorism and develops WoMD. That is just asking for the war to come to us. My opinion is we are going to have a much, much harder time down the road if we don't take care of business now. Whether we attack or not, terrorism will always be there. You think the terrorists are going to not strike us if we don't go to war. Think again. If we don't go to war, then they better be completely dismantled...unlike now.
What scares me most about the prospect of this war is thinking about if someone like a North Korea or a China sees America in a war, and decides to ally with Iraq. Likely? Probably not. Impossible? Definately not. Do I have anything to back up my fear of China jumping in? Nope. Does it bother me anyway? Yep.
