US to lose in Iraq??

[entropy]

what do you think would be the best outcome of the US led invasion of Iraq ??

Are you in favour of military action against Iraq unilaterally by the US and its allies?

YES:

Denmark 10 percent,
Finland 6 percent,
Ireland 8 percent,
Spain 4 percent,
Iceland 7 percent,
Switzerland 5 percent,
France 6 percent,
Germany 9 percent,
Luxembourg 5 percent,
Netherlands 7 percent,
Albania 7 percent,
Bosnia & Herzegovina 9 percent,
Bulgaria 5 percent,
Estonia 9 percent,
Georgia 9 percent,
Macedonia 4 percent,
Romania 11 percent,
Russia 7 percent,
Yugoslavia 8 percent,
Argentina 3 percent,
Bolivia 9 percent,
Canada 10 percent,
Colombia 15 percent,
Ecuador 3 percent,
Uruguay 9 percent,
Australia 12 percent,
Hong Kong 8 percent,
Malaysia 3 percent,
New Zealand 8 percent,
Pakistan 3 percent,
Cameroon 9 percent,
Nigeria 10 percent,
Kenya 17 percent,
South Africa 9 percent,
Uganda 20 percent.

Source: Gallup International Iraq poll 2003.

so the biggest % in support from the US comes from Uganda.

someone above suggested this poll was meaningless. certainly the sample size here is too small and would be even if combined with another BB where the same poll has 220 responses. on the other BB ( also US centric ) about 62.5% opposed with the remainder split between yes and undecided.

i infer from the results that certain subgroups of the US population actually oppose the war. these subgroups include >>

1) higher than average IQ's
2) higher than average socio economic status
3) non christian.

 

[Banned4Life]

"Victory is just around the corner."

We heard that a lot from the government during Viet Nam too.

 

I'm against this war, but because we are in this situation I really hope the coalition wins.
Hopefully after the war things in Iraq gets better.

I am not against USA or its people, I am agaist policy of US goverment.

 

[VG789]

"Uganda 20 percent"
lol!

 

[Jazz]

I see that the poll does not include the UK.

Answer: success.

Very balanced - polls indicate that a majority there are in favor. Also, yes, polls are often statistically insignificant.

Regardless, my main point on this issue is that we do not need those countries to determine issues of national security when it has been deemed necessary. It would be nice, but it is not something that the US has EVER allowed.

As far as your conclusions as to economic status, I question how you got there, but past that my question is, is your main point here that 'smarter' people are against the war? In the 76% of those in favor in the U.S., according to the Gallup poll, is that figure comprised only of the unwashed and ignorant, or just people of all kinds who believe in the reasons for this war?

This is one of the basic, fundamental problems I have with certain segments of the 'left' - the derision and looking down at others whose views they do not agree with. I don't like it, never have, and I'm tired of it. Argue the issue, by all means, but to attack the intelligence of people (which apparently is okay if it's the 'left' doing it, but if someone makes an ethnic joke about the stupidity of some group, they howl - no, I don't make those jokes, it's an example) is nothing more than an attempt to discredit the view by discrediting the people holding that view. It's exactly why people are focusing on Bush and calling him a 'moron', ignoring COMPLETELY Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, General Tommy Franks and other members of his cabinet and Congress who support this war.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's exactly why people are focusing on Bush and calling him a 'moron', ignoring COMPLETELY Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, General Tommy Franks and other members of his cabinet and Congress who support this war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jazz, I disagree. Bush is in charge, thus he recieves the majority of the criticism. I could not be more disappointed in the following role that Powell has assumed, but he did not cause this war. Dick Cheney has no business speaking out against the president & Gen. Franks is a military leader doing his job. None of the others have (nor had the power to) declared war. When one feels that this war is unjust, it is only logical that their disgust would be with the declare of war, not the supporters (or we would have to speak against nearly every congressmen).
As for us calling Bush stupid, well, honestly Jazz compared with past leadership I firmly believe that Bush is an idiot.

Who else wants tax cuts during war? (while he already amassed a huge deficit of over 300 billion).
I think it takes an idiot to lose a large part of the world support we once had in "the war against terror". People supported us against Afghanistan, so surely the "hate America" theory is irrelevant. The world is less safe with a united effort against terror - thanks to Bush and his "let everyone show their cards" (until we hear we'll lose) we've done such - the world is more dangerous. NOT the efforts of a responsible intelligent president.

And don't spin this, if a Democrat takes office and continues these "preventive" wars, my disgust will be as equal as it is now.

 

[Jazz]

Lander: you know I'm not going to spin your belief against Bush - if you think that, that's fine. But you'll have a very hard time convincing me that for a lot of other people, their anti-Bush sentiment is not driving a lot of their feelings in this war. And I disagree about the people surrounding Bush - I believe they would quit if they truly disagreed with the aims, not speak out forcefully in favor of it. I haven't forgotten that Congress authorized Bush to use force against Iraq last year if necessary, Democrats and Republicans both, so it's not 'Bush's' war. It's our war. If one doesn't agree, fine, but the President of the United States has this power specifically and he has to, in the end, take the heat - but had large numbers of his own party and the other party been against this war, it would not have started. The fact is, that wasn't true, and he had the support also of the majority of the American people before the war started.

So, if you want to make it Bush's war, you have to make it our war as well. I supported it, I sent emails supporting it, and I will continue to support it - and I'm not unwashed or poorly educated, though some will surely tell me I'm ignorant and misinformed, given their superior information and intelligence. Not you, you've been cool, but I can just guess who would.

 

US will probably win this war, but the price will be much higher than expected.

I dont see this war ending soon.

The real bloddy war is yet to happen.

 

"The fact is, that wasn't true, and he had the support also of the majority of the American people before the war started."

Jazz, the numbers of support before the war were very high ONLY WHEN including a "with UN support" clause into the "pro-war" column. You should remember that a very LOW percentage (before the war started) supported war without the UN's consent. Nothing has changed in terms of evidence since those polls. IMO People are merely (in the sence of objectivity, not significance) being supportive of Bush and the war because they believe it is the most "patriotic" thing to do. Just like how congress was urging each other "to support the president during a time of war" the people are supporting him.

I still have the contention that the rest of the world cannot be wrong. "Manufacturing War" & "Manufacturing Consent" are more than catch phrases - they are a grim reality.

Mr. Bush,
Stop spinning your "justification" & SHOW US THE DAMN EVIDENCE.

 

What a joke. The US military is taking prisoners and the pos fake a surrender and kill 10 marines. The Iraqi's capture and execute mechanics. Now the US is going to lose, give me a fukin break.

If our soldiers didn't have to act in such high standards this fukin war would be over by now.

"Walter Williams is my hero" outandup 2002

 

[Jazz]

LOL!

Well, Don, I have no blinders on with respect to this war - I fully expect it to get bloodier. That's war. I personally am not the type, if I support an action to begin with, to change my views due to the body count.

Lander: what do you mean by 'very low'? And while you believe the 'rest of the world cannot be wrong' (reducing to irrelevance those people who do think we are right in coalition countries), I certainly can and do think they can.

Somehow, somewhere, some people have gotten the notion that those other countries, the ones WHO COUNT in a military or leadership role like Germany, France, Russia and China, can only be against the war for the purest of motives, because they love peace and truly believe Saddam would disarm. That's laughable. You're smart, Lander: how long has the war been prosecuted? Less than a week? Are you now giving the US a 'deadline' for providing evidence to you? As I've said before, the US waited 12 years, you can wait a bit longer.

But I don't have time to launch into it any more this morning - I'm working for an American company who is expecting some work for me and I must comply or I will be shot.

 

jazz.

i'm on the opposite side of the spectrum, and it is normal that our opinions can only get more extreme with the higher number of victims.

i read a lot, and i know that in a time of war, the victims usually do not change the % of those for or against the war.

the only thing that those numbers of victims change, is that those who were against the war in the first place (like myself), are even more against it, and those who were for the war (like yourself) are even more for it.

this is a scientific proven fact, not my own opinion, and you can find this in many books and researches on this subject.

so, all i said, is that this war will last longer than expected, many people will get killed, and it is stil questionable if US will successifully prove their point and find the WMD in iraq.

 

"what do you mean by 'very low'?"
I mean nothing close to a majority (nothing new to the Bush Administration). If I recall correctly the majority (not > 50%, rather the highest % amongst the choices) was consistantly "with UN support". Of course, this changed the moment said we will wage war without the UN' support. No new evidence was offered, instead we were more or less asked to "take President Bush's word for it". When thousands of innocent lives are involved - I'm not taking anybody's word for it.

"And while you believe the 'rest of the world cannot be wrong' (reducing to irrelevance those people who do think we are right in coalition countries), I certainly can and do think they can."
The coalition consists of England, US, Isreal & Australia. The others either have significant interest in future US strikes (ahem .. Japan, S. Korea) or have been bought (many African countries, Coasta Rica, etc ..).
4 countries out of 192? (and those 4 RARELY disagree). While logic suggests no reason that 4 out of 192 could not be right, common sense tells you there must be a VERY strong argument by the other nations (many of whom were our partners in the war on "terror") to passionately disagree with. And they DO have a VALID reason - you say Iraq had 12 years to disarm? Well the US had 12 years to gather evidence. Do you ignore or just disbelieve the statements made my CIA officials that the US forged documents "showing a link between Iraq and WMD & a link between Iraq & Al Queda"? Unlikely.

"Somehow, somewhere, some people have gotten the notion that those other countries, the ones WHO COUNT in a military or leadership role like Germany, France, Russia and China, can only be against the war for the purest of motives, because they love peace and truly believe Saddam would disarm. That's laughable. You're smart, Lander: how long has the war been prosecuted? Less than a week? Are you now giving the US a 'deadline' for providing evidence to you? As I've said before, the US waited 12 years, you can wait a bit longer."
So we had 12 years to build a case - where is it? You're saying that if we had a strong case we wouldn't have shown it to the UN? C'mmon, "time to show your cards", remember?

"But I don't have time to launch into it any more this morning - I'm working for an American company who is expecting some work for me and I must comply or I will be shot."
You're a migrant worker?

j/k. Take care.

 

Lander I know it's a tough decision as to who's telling the truth. And you believe Saddam a known murdering dictator over Bush, however, I'll take my chances and trust Bush over Saddam.

"Walter Williams is my hero" outandup 2002

 

So you're saying that CIA officials are lying?

 

[Jointpleasure]

I'm getting sick of America always being so nice. I hate seeing Americans die in this war. I would rather 10 million Iraqis die than 1 US solder or civilian. I am an American. I have a brother who fought in the first gulf war and flew over Afghanistan in operation Anaconda or however you spell the name. For all you fvcks who think that those who are for this war would change their mind if we had to fight in it well, I'm one bad ass mother that would fight in a second. If my brother was killed or taken prisoner by these fvckin Iraqi bastards I would swim the fvckin' oceans to get over there.

These little bombs were tossing is impressive but I'm getting impatient.

 

You guys can shove you're "stats" and "opinion polls". The point here is that we finally have a president that takes his responsibility seriously. Not one who is gonna panic when the polls or opinions aren't in his favor. The same crap that got a lot of people killed in Vietnam. He's letting the generals fight the good fight and he knows what he is doing is right. The end result here is that a nation is going to get their freedom. Why can't you be happy about that? Sure there are going to be losses...good guys, bad guys...and unfortunately innocents. Most if not all of you were born into freedom...freedoms that it seem like a lot of you have taken for granted. While it may seem like that freedom should be a God given right, somewhere down the line someone stood up and fought and died for that right. How selfish it is of you to try and deny that to a people that for so many years has known nothing but torture tyranny and opression.

 

ummm, ok.
i'm the toughest baddest internet poster too. i bet i could single-handedly kicks all 20,000 Iraqi Nation Guards' asses at once. Bring them on.

"I hate seeing Americans die in this war. I would rather 10 million Iraqis die than 1 US solder or civilian."
I would rather see ZERO American's die & ZERO Iraqi's die.

 

"The point here is that we finally have a president that takes his responsibility seriously."

As also shown by his responsibility with the budget (ummm .. let's start a war and lower taxes .. ummm .. ok .. Georgie)

 

[Jointpleasure]

yeh liblander, me to. but sip on your morning coffee and face reality. You libs think that if you had all you're policies enacted it would be heaven here on earth. Sorry, just wasn't created that way.