[macamac]

Ignore engaged.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by macamac

Ignore engaged.

Good for you; when you cannot exchange rationaly, close your eyes!

Better: hide your head! No like Icebergs, you will go unnoticed!

[Krusty]

What a strange bunch of arguments we have here. I always wondered how right-wing-nuts would respond if polls started showing majority disagreement with the war.

The questions used in the poll doubtless have flaws and risk being misinterpreted by some. However, the questions have been the same over the several years that they have been asked. So whatever flaws are inherent in the questions, these flaws have always been inherent. In other words, the current responses to the poll are still meaningful in relation to the former answers to the poll .. they still show a shift in opinion in some direction.

So rather than simply taking the weak and defensive "it's all meaningless" tack (Zimph's standard MO of late), or asking about the content of the questions (Millenium) when the content is available and is the same content as it has been for several years now, or pointing out how untrustworthy weekend phone polls are (Simey) when it was the same sort of polls were used before as now, how 'bout making a positive argument explaining or interpreting in some way the shift in the answers given over time. All the "variables" you guys are worried about are essentially constants in relation to these poll questions.

Here's question 29 from the USA today poll linked by Simey.

29. Do you favor or oppose the US war with Iraq?

Last week: 39% favored and 59% opposed
April 2003: 71% favored and 26% opposed

The obvious interpretation is that support for the war has plummeted. But please, if it actually means something different, make a positive argument about exactly what that is. Heck, you can even go outside the poll if you like ... find anything .... anything at all that would support a contradictory interpretation (that support for the war has stayed constant or grown since 2003). You know what, forget that too ... just use your own common sense, intuition, and awareness and answer a couple of simple question: Do you think the war has gained or lost support of the populace over the last 2 years ?? What percentage of Americans do you think favor the war and oppose the war and what better information do you have to support your view than the data from the cited poll ??

[Spliffdaddy]

It doesn't matter at all what poll numbers reflect. We have a President that ignores polls. Thank goodness.

Only Democrats need polls - in order to determine where they stand on issues.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by macamac

You want spin? Ask the person who started this thread and another called "Saddam...seems sorta cute"...

He's the expert in spin. Sit and Spin that is.

Ya so? I did not conduct this poll or write either story (both are from an American News site).

So stop trying to make this about me which is really some peoples only defence.

[macamac]

You like polls do you guys? How about this one?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144315,00.html

Spliffdaddy: Right on. The right thing is often not popular. The question and problem should be, why are democrats through time always concerned with what is popular. If they weren't worried about those things, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now. Thanks to Clinton and his weakening of the USA. When China, France, Germany love you so much, there is something wrong.

EDIT: Here is the "Methodology" for the Fox news polls:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95854,00.html

Enjoy!

[Kerrigan]

So if a majority of Americans have become anti-war, does that mean that the Canadians here are going to become war-mongers to spite the US?

[macamac]

But wait, we are all warmongers right? Do the democrats have heavy investments in Kool Aid?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

So if a majority of Americans have become anti-war, does that mean that the Canadians here are going to become war-mongers to spite the US?

Nope. We don't even want part in that stupid missile defense program the US is trying to push on us.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by sek929

Because it was too profitable to keep him there, we just wanted to make sure he would play nicely with our oil demands. When he finally stopped playing nice we took him out, luckily we had 9/11 to look to for a reason.

hallucination.

If you want to talik about your "OIL OIL OIL!!!!!111oneoneoneone" bullcrap, why the hell am I not hearing a peep out of you about the freaking Oil for Food Scandal? You only have your backless fancies to support the notion that Bush is motivated by oil. If all he cared about was oil, he wouldt be supporting the research for other ways to get energy. If all he cared about was oil, he would not have gone to war--there are easier ways. He could have just participated in a scandal. Kepp it covered up enough, make it look legal, and use the argment that the left currently uses that Saddam has no ties to terror. That would be very immoral, and very...liberal? Thank God out president is not immoral and not liberal.

-------------------

Really, who cares what the poles say. Just another way for the dems to make themselves feel better... and as someone said decide what side to be on.

I seriously think that Bush does need to rethink his publlicity about the war. He is occupying himself with his plans for social security, taxes, etc that he has forgotten to remind people exactly how important this war is. And it is. I think that people are starting to feel a little too safe again... 9/11 seems so far away. But the gravity of its implications are just as present and just as real as before. Let's not forget.

on a side note... Skywalker, you mean to say defense.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by loki74

hallucination.

If you want to talik about your "OIL OIL OIL!!!!!111oneoneoneone" bullcrap[/I]

Enjoy $3 a Gal.

[macamac]

I know you started this stupid thread, but you don't have to derail it by being a troll.

Loki74 wrote: "hallucination.....'OIL OIL OIL....." bullcrap" -=-
then
you
wrote
"Enjoy our $3.00 per gallon"?

This is your response to Loki74's post? That is all you could respond to?

Can't handle the truth can you?

[Kerrigan]

Missile Defence is probably the best way to defend America against space aliens, I don't see why Canada wouldn't want to take part in it.

[macamac]

Are you on drugs? What a stupid thing to post.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Missile Defence is probably the best way to defend America against space aliens, I don't see why Canada wouldn't want to take part in it.

It's true. We all remember Roswell.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by loki74

If you want to talik about your "OIL OIL OIL!!!!!111oneoneoneone" bullcrap, why the hell am I not hearing a peep out of you about the freaking Oil for Food Scandal?

How'd that turn out, by the way

[badidea]

Originally Posted by sek929

Although a poll of 5000 people doesn't exactly show how all 400+ mil of us think...

Who is "us"? I had the impression that you are US american but there are "only" 295mil of them!!

[loki74]

3 bucks a gallon? fine by me. I'm not driving a gas guzzler. That just means less fast food, more home cooking, whatever.

I do wish gas prices would go down, but that wont happen if all that anyone does is whine and point fingers. By bashing our leaders all we do is rally on the terrorists who see us do it. That's not making anyone safer, or helping gas prices either.

And you have made no argument to any of my points whatsoever.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Nearly six in 10 Americans oppose the war in Iraq and a growing number of them are dissatisfied with the war on terrorism, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

Only 39 percent of those polled said they favored the war in Iraq -- down from 47 percent in March -- and 59 percent were opposed.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/20/poll/index.html

Worth noting. wont change the situation(U.S. presence in Iraq) by much imo.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Krusty

Here's question 29 from the USA today poll linked by Simey.

29. Do you favor or oppose the US war with Iraq?

Last week: 39% favored and 59% opposed
April 2003: 71% favored and 26% opposed

The obvious interpretation is that support for the war has plummeted.

ASSUMING the methodology AND question are identical in both cases (which is a very big assumption), it probably is the case that support for the war has plummeted. Your sample is deliberately designed to show that result. How? Just take a look at your dates. You sample the beginning of the war (April 2003) with last week. There hasn't been a war yet in history that has grown more popular over time. War is costly, and people grow weary over time. That's good, and a sign that contrary to the claims of anti-Americans this is not a country of warmongers.

It's also, sad to say, an indication of the increasing politicization of the Iraq campaign since it began. Would a senator like Dick Durbin have compared US troops in the field with Nazis in April 2003, when US troops were in the field in a way that they are not today? I highly doubt it. Even his own supporters would have lynched him. But the left has gotten bolder as moderate liberals have peeled off their support. But that is to be expected.

I notice, however, how you ignore the other numbers I pointed out -- like the ones showing 3 out of 4 supporting the war on terror. What is more remarkable is that 4 years after 9/11 most people still reject the idiocy spewing from the left on the biggest issue. Even unreliable polls seem to show that.

Campaigns like the Iraq campaign are bound to have their ups and downs, but in the nature of things, the steady drip-drip-drip of bad news in a long campaign outweighs in terms of recency the good. It's news when a car bomb goes off. It's not news when a school opens in Iraq, or a terrorist gives up and quietly slinks off back to Saudi Arabia. But there has been progress as even Kofe Annan agrees. Sooner or later we will be through this, and a free Iraq will be the result. And no doubt when it does, large numbers of people will doubtless say as has been said at the end of military campaigns throughout history that they never doubted success and always supported it. Only, of course, human nature being what it is, that often individually isn't the case.

This does, of course, make the assumption that the anti-war side doesn't actually persuade the US public to pull out and abandon Iraq to its fate. That emotional longing for disaster that so many have if they would be honest enough to admit it is worrysome. That is exactly why every gobbit of bad news is seized upon as good news for you. It's a loathsome attitude but it is understandable. Nobody wants the other side of an issue to be vindicated at their expense, even if the cost to innocent people is extremely high.

But it can happen. Yesterday in DC there were a series of rallies by several hundred Vietnamese and Cambodian emigres. They were people who fled their countries and abandoned their homes and in many cases lost their families the last time the left persuaded the US public to abandon its allies to a murderous band of thugs. Lets hope in 30 years there aren't a forlorn broup of Iraqis outside the White House asking America why we abandoned them.

But I don't think that is likely. The situation on the ground in Southeast Asia was a lot worse in the early 70s than it is in Iraq today. What South Vietnam faced was a full army backed by a superpower. Iraq doesn't face that and there are signs of fighting between factions of the insurgency (link to NY Times article). Domestically in the US the anti-war left was much more powerful than it is today. Liberals controlled Congress, a president got himself almost impeached, and liberals had a lock on the media such that it was able to convince Americans that a military victory in Tet in 1968 was a military loss, and make that myth permanent.

That is a perfect storm that does not exist today. So yes, public opinion will sag, and some congressmen will say stupid things about withdrawals and the like, but I think we will still see this through. And at that point, of course, any opinion polls along the way will be moot, as well as questionable.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Krusty

The questions used in the poll doubtless have flaws and risk being misinterpreted by some. However, the questions have been the same over the several years that they have been asked. So whatever flaws are inherent in the questions, these flaws have always been inherent. In other words, the current responses to the poll are still meaningful in relation to the former answers to the poll .. they still show a shift in opinion in some direction.

This would be true, were it not for a little thing known as the flow of time. The fact is that 'the war in Iraq' means very different things, depending on what time period you are talking about, simply because of the fact that some events will have occured at that time and some will not. Furthermore, not everyone consistently updates what they think about the war to cover recent facts, so the simple phrase "the war in Iraq" means many different things to many different people. it is too vague to be used as a valid basis for any kind of poll.

Personally, I have never trusted polls much. Go back over my history, and you will find that I do not use polls to argue for or against things, precisely because I don't trust the methodology used. However, the insipid bit about "lots of people do/think something so it must be correct" is something I have consistently attacked.

So rather than simply... asking about the content of the questions (Millenium) when the content is available and is the same content as it has been for several years now...

Actually, the content of this question does not appear to be available. Could you provide a link? I tried several of the ones from the story

how 'bout making a positive argument explaining or interpreting in some way the shift in the answers given over time.

OK, then, how's about this: the shift in the answers can be explained by the simple fact that the question's meaning has changed over time, rendering it worthless. More appropriate questions would be "Do you believe that invading Iraq was worth it?", or "Do you believe that continuing to occupy Iraq is worth it?" or similar things. "Do you oppose the war in Iraq?" is not meaningless, but it has the opposite problem: it means too many things.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

It doesn't matter at all what poll numbers reflect. We have a President that ignores polls. Thank goodness.

Only Democrats need polls - in order to determine where they stand on issues.

One of the main reasons Kerry lost.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

It's true. We all remember Roswell.

Because TV = Reality.

You've been in front of the tube for too long.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by loki74

That's not making anyone safer, or helping gas prices either.

Neither is invading countries that you don't have any business in. You really think the terrorists "hate you because of your freedom"?

Who knew the US was the only free country in the world.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

You really think the terrorists "hate you because of your freedom"?

Yes, because that freedom makes their ideal government impossible; people reject it whenever given the opportunity to do so.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Neither is invading countries that you don't have any business in.

That was the retarded comment of the day.

You really think the terrorists "hate you because of your freedom"?

No, we are their scapegoat today. You really think terrorists are rational?
If Canada was THE super power on this earth instead of the US, they would be hating on Canada instead. You really have no clue how this works.

I suggest you start by reading this.

http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Yes, because that freedom makes their ideal government impossible; people reject it whenever given the opportunity to do so.

OR... how about this ?..... They were attacking the U.S. because the U.S. governement was not supporting democracy in the mid-east, in such countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iraq(until recently). Why wasnt the U.S. supporting democrac in those nations ? because it wasnt convenient for them....

Just seems like thats more plausable. If you remember OBL was a Saudi, who faught on the side of the Americans in Afghanistan against the USSR. Would somone against 'freeom' do that ?

Thats just a theory of mine, but it's open to discussion, and im not too sure about it either. Just seems more plausable to me give the situation in that region and its relationship with the U.S.

[BRussell]

Here's an interesting set of numbers about Americans' support for different wars.

The war thought to be most worth fighting was WWII (80%), and the least was Vietnam (17%). The Civil War (70%) was also a good war, but Korea was not (37%). This current Iraq war was at 38%, although it's hard to compare because we're in it.

Anyone want to guess where this war will rank in 25 years?

[Zimphire]

This US WILL always be doing something bad according to these people.

Us sitting in our living rooms watching TV is evil. That is enough for these pigdogs to bust a vein in their heads.

But hey, they are teh rational ones.

Us Americans just need to get in line, stop watching TV, start making our women cover their faces, etc.

Oh and SWF, if you think you are safe because you are Canadian, dream on.

I wont even go into what they do to homosexuals. Just because they are homosexuals.

You think the Christians are bad...

[macamac]

Homosexually active = Death Sentence to a Muslim.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

This US WILL always be doing something bad according to these people.

Us sitting in our living rooms watching TV is evil. That is enough for these pigdogs to bust a vein in their heads.

But hey, they are teh rational ones.

Us Americans just need to get in line, stop watching TV, start making our women cover their faces, etc.

They only do those things in the US? News flash, they hate Americans because of its foreign politics.

You really think they are going to smash planes into Canada because there are gay people here?

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

What is? Stealing oil? Or did you just answer my last question?

Yes, but the oil prices were only doing so when there was a war...

I think we did it for a lot of reasons. Freedom being one of them. Do I think America had self interests that went a long with these reasons? Sure! Any country would. Some are even upset they we got to do it first.

Right, to rebuild Iraq. Iraq has one major money maker. It is oil. To rebuild Iraq one must make sure Iraq can support itself.

We didn't take off with that oil. We did not steal it.

What was in it for us in WWII other than saving American lives?

If I came off that way, I apologize. That is why I was SURPRISED to see YOU say that. Because you are usually pretty wide eyed to BS. Hence the first comment you made.

"Although a poll of 5000 people doesn't exactly show how all 400+ mil of us think I'd say that some people are finally coming to their senses."

That showed me you were about honesty.

Oh I agree, I am very careful who I believe. Esp when it comes to politicians.


But I honestly don't think this was all about the oil.

I would believe revenge before I would oil.

I have no doubt that Bush is trying to develop new energy sources as fast as he can because he knows that the age of cheap oil for the US will come to an end in the near future. So in order to make sure we are able to good-ol-fashioned build a new system from the ground up we need oil to remain priced well and available. (Though even with raising prices of gas, demand keeps going up, really shows you that all the complaining doesn't affect anyones driving regiments.)

We both seem to agree that he has an agenda besides just freedom and really thats all I was trying to say. I know we didn't go liberating just to "steal" oil but you can't deny that if it wasn't there neither would we be.

I can just picture Bush mentalizing... "Don't say revenge, don't say revenge"

[sek929]

Loki don't call me a liberal, please just stop. I'm not in this forum everyday spreading anything resembling liberal propaganda so save the labels for yourself. Once again Bush would have to be hanging on to an extra chromosome to not be in the midst of developing new energy sources but what exactly does that mean? Lots of big corporations burning tons of OIL! Do you think developing new energy sources powers itself?

[ThinkInsane]

For the love of what ever it is you people love, debate the topic and leave the personality conflicts at the door. Is this how you debate people in real life, or is that reserved only for the safety and anonymity of the internet?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Here's an interesting set of numbers about Americans' support for different wars.

The war thought to be most worth fighting was WWII (80%), and the least was Vietnam (17%). The Civil War (70%) was also a good war, but Korea was not (37%). This current Iraq war was at 38%, although it's hard to compare because we're in it.

I bolded the relevant part.

How the war on terror or the Iraq campaign within the war on terror will be viewed in 25 years obviously depends on how things pan out in those 25 years which means basically, do we win or not. That is unknowable at this juncture. But if you notice, there is quite a correlation between winning and making a war worth fighting in those numbers of yours. For example, notice that World War I is given a 67% worthwhile rating. How many historians do you think would agree with that? World War I was pretty much the most futile and idiotic war in history. Not only was it a mindless and completely avoidable slaughter, but also it was fought for no high ideals whatsoever and resolved nothing at all. But people learn in high school history that we "won" it, so it is seen as worthwhile.

Vietnam doesn't seem worthwhile mostly because we got nothing worthwhile out of the venture (except perhaps a large number of very industrious refugees). Korea is a fairly obscure war that ended in a wimper and a stalemate. Both in hindsight can only be rationally understood in the proper context, which is as part of the Cold War. The Cold War, of course, was worthwhile and did end in our favor. But unfortunately, that isn't how most people learn the history, so the Vietnam and Korean theaters of the Cold War seem like odd cul de sacs with no connection to anything else, and not ones that we clearly "won." It's too bad because in context the Cold War was a successful policy that lead to the freeing of millions of people. But that question wasn't asked, which reflects the high school level of the questioning.

Iraq, well, we'll see.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

OR... how about this ?..... They were attacking the U.S. because the U.S. governement was not supporting democracy in the mid-east, in such countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iraq(until recently).

That would make sense, until you realize that what the terrorists want in terms of government is anything but democratic. Although I agree that it has to do with the kinds of government the US promotes, don't kid yourself into thinking that the terrorists are fighting for democracy. If the US isn't, then nobody is.

Just seems like thats more plausable. If you remember OBL was a Saudi, who faught on the side of the Americans in Afghanistan against the USSR. Would somone against 'freeom' do that ?

Because he has his own ideals of what he wanted the government of Afghanistan to be, and he got them. The US was a convenient ally when fighting against the Soviets, but he had his own plans all along.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

How the war on terror or the Iraq campaign within the war on terror will be viewed in 25 years obviously depends on how things pan out in those 25 years which means basically, do we win or not.

I think that's right, but I want to make a few points:

Even wars that we won vary considerably in how people perceive them today. 80% say WWII was worth fighting, while only 53% said the Gulf War was worth it, even though the Gulf War was arguably the most successfully executed war we've ever had. I suspect that the fact that Iraq didn't attack us, while Japan did, may have some role to play in that, in addition to what Hitler was doing of course.

I think it will also be less obvious how we will decide whether we won this war. At the two extremes, if some anti-American terrorist-supporting government takes power in Iraq, we will obviously have lost, and if pro-Western Democracy spreads throughout the Middle East, we will have won. But it's likely that it will be something in between those two possibilities. If that's the case, I don't see how this war will be seen as "worth it" in 25 years.

But you know my feeling about how the Iraq war will be perceived: I believe it will be seen as having been based on two false pretenses: that Iraq was a terrorist state involved at some level in 9/11, and that they had WMDs. And I think that's true even if there's a relatively successful "in between the two extremes" government in Iraq. My guess is that only if there's a dramatic positive change in the Middle East in general, and it's perceived to be a direct result of the Iraq war, will it be thought "worth it."

Another point I wanted to make is that Americans don't seem to perceive the war in Iraq as part of the war on terra any more. Notice that there's fairly strong support for the war on terror, which I take to mean the government's response to 9/11, while there's weak support for the war in Iraq. Initially, the war in Iraq was seen as part of the response to 9/11. I believe that the perception of the war in Iraq as part of the war on terror (or not) is fundamental to how it is perceived.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

OR... how about this ?..... They were attacking the U.S. because the U.S. governement was not supporting democracy in the mid-east, in such countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iraq(until recently). Why wasnt the U.S. supporting democrac in those nations ? because it wasnt convenient for them....

Just seems like thats more plausable. If you remember OBL was a Saudi, who faught on the side of the Americans in Afghanistan against the USSR. Would somone against 'freeom' do that ?

Thats just a theory of mine, but it's open to discussion, and im not too sure about it either. Just seems more plausable to me give the situation in that region and its relationship with the U.S.

No, he founght on the side of the Afghans with material and training provided by the US. There was no "American side" in the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan, just the old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," so we helped his and other groups.

[macamac]

It's funny how they all conveniently leave that out. They've been watching too many "First Blood" movies with Sylvester Stalone... What version was that in Afghanistan and the Russians? "First Blood part ...XX"?

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I think that's right, but I want to make a few points:

Even wars that we won vary considerably in how people perceive them today. 80% say WWII was worth fighting, while only 53% said the Gulf War was worth it, even though the Gulf War was arguably the most successfully executed war we've ever had. I suspect that the fact that Iraq didn't attack us, while Japan did, may have some role to play in that, in addition to what Hitler was doing of course.

I think it will also be less obvious how we will decide whether we won this war. At the two extremes, if some anti-American terrorist-supporting government takes power in Iraq, we will obviously have lost, and if pro-Western Democracy spreads throughout the Middle East, we will have won. But it's likely that it will be something in between those two possibilities. If that's the case, I don't see how this war will be seen as "worth it" in 25 years.

But you know my feeling about how the Iraq war will be perceived: I believe it will be seen as having been based on two false pretenses: that Iraq was a terrorist state involved at some level in 9/11, and that they had WMDs. And I think that's true even if there's a relatively successful "in between the two extremes" government in Iraq. My guess is that only if there's a dramatic positive change in the Middle East in general, and it's perceived to be a direct result of the Iraq war, will it be thought "worth it."

Another point I wanted to make is that Americans don't seem to perceive the war in Iraq as part of the war on terra any more. Notice that there's fairly strong support for the war on terror, which I take to mean the government's response to 9/11, while there's weak support for the war in Iraq. Initially, the war in Iraq was seen as part of the response to 9/11. I believe that the perception of the war in Iraq as part of the war on terror (or not) is fundamental to how it is perceived.

I suspect the lower approval numbers for the Gulf War actually reflect the disappointment that we didn't "finish" the job and had to go back now.

WWI and its fruitless finish, laid the groundwork for Hitler's rise to power and WWII - they are actually more like one war with an intermission.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

They only do those things in the US? News flash, they hate Americans because of its foreign politics.

No, as they hated America before are ties. You know that Canada supports Israel too right? That is their MAIN reason they claim they hate us.

Now, if Canada also supports Israel, one would think they would hate them too.

No, it's just a smokescreen.

You really think they are going to smash planes into Canada because there are gay people here?

Yes, yes they would. You obviously have NO CLUE.

I suggest you go find, or buy one.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

I suspect the lower approval numbers for the Gulf War actually reflect the disappointment that we didn't "finish" the job and had to go back now.

That's probably true, but if the only test if deposing Saddam, you'd think that this current Iraq War's numbers would be really high. I think a more parsimonious explanation is that people perceive a war as being worth it when they see it as in our genuine national interest. And IMO, that's exactly how they should judge a war. I sincerely doubt that this war will be perceived that way in 25 years.

[macamac]

SHS: Didn't you know that the radical factions of Islam HATE YOU? They want you as a gay person to DIE, and if given the chance they would cut you into little pieces. It's written in their Holy Book. The KKKoran.

You attack Christians every chance you get, just look at your threads. Yet, when shown how much a religion (Islam) has many who follow their scritpures to the letter would have you dead... strange no? You defending them...

from another relavent thread:

They "The Islamic Thinkers Society" Took down their site of hatred to attack some journalist. Here is the web page for you to view. I should have downloaded their site when I had the chance...

Search Google: Islamic Thinkers.

http://www.islamicthinkers.com/index/index.php

http://www.islamicthinkers.com/index.htm

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/685

Of course they removed all the SIGNS stating how much they hate homosexuals... I wonder why?

---

Links:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/article...ble.asp?ID=5704

http://www.ghandchi.com/19-Homosexuality_and_Islam.htm

"If one get's caught practicing it [homosexuality], the penalty is death."

These are not my words.

Like Zim stated. Go get a clue, man.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

I suspect the lower approval numbers for the Gulf War actually reflect the disappointment that we didn't "finish" the job and had to go back now.

You beat me to the punch. That is exactly why the first Gulf War looks a lot less successful in hindsight than it looked closer to the time. The Gulf War is an example of setting out to achieve very little and succeeding with flying colors. That's not very impressive if you end up having to redo the whole job in ten years.

As for BRussel's point about the Iraq war and its place in the overall war on terror. I don't know that they are as separated as all that in everyone's mind. Of course it is hard to generalize but I think to a large extent what you are seeing is an artifact of the media's decision to cover them separately and to ask separate quesions about them. That of course, isn't new as I pointed out with respect to the Cold War.

Moreover, BRussel while you are right that the numbers on overall satisfaction with how things are going are divergent, I think the numbers would be much closer if the question were asked should we simply withdraw from Iraq and leave it to the terrorists to take over. I suspect that a lot of people would see that as a sign of defeat that would be deeply connected to our effort against terrorism as a whole. Certainly, I think our enemies would take it as a victory in the war on terror, and I think that the American people by and large understand that. That's also connected to the point that Millenium made about the ambiguity of this poll.

Of course, those divergent numbers also cut the other way. A lot of people opposed to the Iraq war make the mistake of thinking that their dovish views are shared by all on the wider war on terror as well as Iraq. This focus on the rights of the terrorists held in Guantanamo is fueled in part by the feeling (I think mistaken) that the left thinks it has made progress on its view of Iraq. But the same poll they are crowing about on Iraq shows the public is NOT convinced by the Durbin/Amnesty International view on Guantanamo.

Oh, and BRussell: the "war on terra" -- was that a Freudian slip?

[macamac]

"War on Terra".. they think it's a war WITH Iraq too...

:goofy:

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by macamac

You attack Christians every chance you get, just look at your threads. Yet, when shown how much a religion (Islam) has many who follow their scritpures to the letter would have you dead... strange no? You defending them...

Strange, but makes perfect sense at the same time.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

That's probably true, but if the only test if deposing Saddam, you'd think that this current Iraq War's numbers would be really high. I think a more parsimonious explanation is that people perceive a war as being worth it when they see it as in our genuine national interest. And IMO, that's exactly how they should judge a war. I sincerely doubt that this war will be perceived that way in 25 years.

Sorry, I think that is 100% wrong and revisionistic. Recall that the slogan "war for oil" was coined in the run up to the first Gulf War. America's interests were seen as pretty shaky in that campaign, and poll numbers were quite low. Remember, Bush I only got an authorization in Congress by the skin of his teeth. Poll numbers really only went up AFTER the campaign. By then the war was percieved in idealistic terms to free Kuwait from Saddam (remember the phony incubators story) and to institute a post-Cold War New World Order. It sounds naive now, but that was the popular sentiment.

In contrast, the war on terror has a much stronger basis in the national interest. It doesn't get too much closer to home than a big hole in Manhattan.

[macamac]

It seems that he [being so outwardly gay] hates American so much that even those that would consider him someone they'd like to have executed for his being gay, he defends... It just isn't making any sense to me. That kind of blind hatred for Americans. That Kool Aid must taste yummy...

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Sorry, I think that is 100% wrong and revisionistic. Recall that the slogan "war for oil" was coined in the run up to the first Gulf War. America's interests were seen as pretty shaky in that campaign, and poll numbers were quite low. Remember, Bush I only got an authorization in Congress by the skin of his teeth. Poll numbers really only went up AFTER the campaign. By then the war was percieved in idealistic terms to free Kuwait from Saddam (remember the phony incubators story) and to institute a post-Cold War New World Order. It sounds naive now, but that was the popular sentiment.

In contrast, the war on terror has a much stronger basis in the national interest. It doesn't get too much closer to home than a big hole in Manhattan.

I'm not getting your point. I used Gulf War I's relatively low poll numbers compared to WWII to show that wars that are not perceived as in our national interest, even if successful, are thought of less highly.

On your point about the war on terra [/bush speak]: It's odd that the war in Afghanistan isn't a slam dunk - it's perceived as having been worth it by just 55%, barely better than the Gulf War. I wonder why it's not much higher, considering that probably the only Michael Moore true believers think it was wrong. My guess is that many people aren't even sure what the Afghanistan war refers to. Sad if true, but that's my guess.

In any case, maybe we all can agree that poll numbers, while interesting, have very little to do with the objective value of, well, anything.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Sorry, I think that is 100% wrong and revisionistic. Recall that the slogan "war for oil" was coined in the run up to the first Gulf War. America's interests were seen as pretty shaky in that campaign, and poll numbers were quite low. Remember, Bush I only got an authorization in Congress by the skin of his teeth. Poll numbers really only went up AFTER the campaign. By then the war was percieved in idealistic terms to free Kuwait from Saddam (remember the phony incubators story) and to institute a post-Cold War New World Order. It sounds naive now, but that was the popular sentiment.

In contrast, the war on terror has a much stronger basis in the national interest. It doesn't get too much closer to home than a big hole in Manhattan.

That, plus the fact that the US's immediate and timely withdrawal, while taking none of the oil it had supposedly gone there for took the wind right out of the opposition's sails.