The American Public Now Overwhelmingly Supports War
Sorry giant. Sorry bunge. Sorry SJO.
[Note: Fran attempted to edit this post for the purposes of making his own point....this is UNACCEPTABLE While these are internet polls, that does not lessen their validity. Fran obviously opposes a war, which is fine, but that does not give him the right to edit my post, inserting information which intended to invalidate the poll itself. Fran has abused his position under the guise of "providing information". Fran, DO NOT edit my posts in this manner...EVER AGAIN]
CNN:
Did U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's U.N. Presentation make a case military action against Iraq?
72% Yes
28% No
FoxNews:
Did the secretary of state successfully make his case against Saddam?
93% Yes
5% No
2% Not sure
MSNBC:
How did Colin Powell do in his U.N. Presentation?
70%-----"He made a convincing case for the U.S. to attack Iraq with or without U.N. support. "
26%----"He provided some new information, but not enough for the U.S. to go it alone "
Â*4% "----"His case was so weak that the U.N. should consider suspending arms inspections.
I suppose we will now here how the American public is tremendously stupid.
Thank you and good night.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: AppleInsider Staff ]
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
[Note: Fran attempted to edit this post for the purposes of making his own point....this is UNACCEPTABLE While these are internet polls, that does not lessen their validity. Fran obviously opposes a war, which is fine, but that does not give him the right to edit my post, inserting information which intended to invalidate the poll itself. Fran has abused his position under the guise of "providing information". Fran, DO NOT edit my posts in this manner...EVER AGAIN]
CNN:
Did U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's U.N. Presentation make a case military action against Iraq?
72% Yes
28% No
FoxNews:
Did the secretary of state successfully make his case against Saddam?
93% Yes
5% No
2% Not sure
MSNBC:
How did Colin Powell do in his U.N. Presentation?
70%-----"He made a convincing case for the U.S. to attack Iraq with or without U.N. support. "
26%----"He provided some new information, but not enough for the U.S. to go it alone "
Â*4% "----"His case was so weak that the U.N. should consider suspending arms inspections.
I suppose we will now here how the American public is tremendously stupid.
Thank you and good night.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: AppleInsider Staff ]
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
Comments
"There's a sucker born every minute"
I believe that fits into the "people are just stupid" column.
<strong>I suppose we will now here how the American public is tremendously stupid.
Thank you and good night.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, since the majority use some version of Windows, maybe they are!!
But seriously, I think it would be good to give the Saudis' plan a shot first.
<a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,419297,00.html"; target="_blank">Saudi Plan</a>
Respondents were asked, "Do you believe angels, that is, some kind of heavenly beings who visit Earth, in fact exist?" Seventy-seven percent nationwide answered in the affirmative, with 81% of women answering "yes" and 72% of men responding positively.
<a href="http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/angels1.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/angels1.htm</a>;
A new Post/Newsweek poll has found that 89% of the population believes that not only was Iraq responsible for 9/11 but that the majority of the hijackers were Iraqi nationals and that Iraq is a fundamentalist Muslim country and not a secular state.
----------------
Several Americans interviewed by the London Mirror, a British tabloid, were unable to locate Iraq on a map of the world.
iÂ*Â*Â*Â* Â*Methodology.
(A)Â*Â* One hundred people were randomly interviewed at Times Square on Broadway in New York City on November 19, 2002.Â* (Wallace 11-20-2002)
iiÂ*Â*Â*Â* Â*Conclusion.
(A)Â*Â* The Mirror reported, ?When the Daily Mirror carried out a poll of 100 people on the streets of New York yesterday, we found that 80 per cent didn't have a clue where Iraq was.?Â* (Wallace 11-20-2002)
iiiÂ*Â*Â*Â* Â*Excerpts from the Mirror article.
(A)Â*Â* ?New York cop John Riley, mounted on his trusty steed Hoss, studied our map for several minutes, saying: ?I've got to get this right.?Â* Then, with his finger hovering over northern Europe, he declared: ?I know it's round here somewhere. Ah yes, there.?Â* With a firm stab of his finger, he picked Austria as the new Iraq.?Â* (Wallace 11-20-2002)
(B)Â*Â*Â* ?Young couple John and Joan Jubett, from Manhattan, wanted some help.Â* Waving half-heartedly at South America, John asked: ?Is it here somewhere? Or here?? He skimmed across the atlas to China. Finally he settled on northern Italy.?Â* (Wallace 11-20-2002)
(C)Â*Â*Â* ?A burly construction worker barked: ?Don't know, don't care, they'll be nothing left of it soon anyway.?Â* (Wallace 11-20-2002)
(D)Â*Â*Â* ?There was no messing about from Tracey Shauger, 21, and pal Misty Wright, 20, from Michigan.Â* Five seconds' consideration and a firm "here", as both agreed Iraq was in the Gobi desert. Wrong - that's in Mongolia.?Â* (Wallace 11-20-2002)
(E)Â*Â*Â*Â* ?Others placed Iraq in France, Germany, Albania, the Caspian Sea, South Africa and Nicaragua.?Â* (Wallace 11-20-2002)
Â*
bÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Poll conducted by the American Geographical Society.
iÂ*Â*Â*Â* Â*Methodology.
(A)Â*Â* 3,250 young adults from nine different countries participated in the survey.Â* Interviews with 2,916 18- to 24-year-olds andÂ* 334 25- to 24-year-olds [all from the US] were conducted ?using an in-home, in-person methodology.?Â*Â*
(B)Â*Â*Â* ?A total of 300 interviews were conducted in each country except the U.S.; in the U.S. nearly 500 interviews were conducted with 18-to 24-year-olds and an additional sample of more than 300 25-to 34-year-olds.?
(C)Â*Â*Â* Interviews were conducted in the United States, Canada, Mexico, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Great Britain, and Japan.
iiÂ*Â*Â*Â* Â*Results.
(A)Â*Â* Americans scored third to last when asked to locate the U.S. on a map.Â* 11% of Americans could not find their own country. Mexico scored the highest while Italy and Great Britain took 8th and 9th place respectively.Â* [National Geographic]
(B)Â*Â*Â* When the survey participants were asked to locate Japan and Russia on a map, Americans had the most difficulty.Â* Only 42% could find Japan, and only 62% knew where Russia is.
(C)Â*Â*Â* When the survey participants were asked - ?The Taliban and al Qaeda movements were both based in which country?? - Americans had the most difficulty.Â* Only 58% of Americans knew that the correct answer was Afghanistan.
(D)Â*Â*Â* When asked to locate Afghanistan on a map, Americans came in near the bottom, second only to Mexico.Â* Only 17% of Americans knew where Afghanistan is located.
(E)Â*Â*Â*Â* Only 1 in 7 Americans could locate Iraq on a map.Â* (Wallace 11-20-2002)
<a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/wotiraq/publicopinion.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/wotiraq/publicopinion.htm</a>;
BTW: what are you apologizing for?
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
How does not knowing where Iraq is on a map hurt Powells case? How does them believing in Angels? That Iraq was involved in 9/11? It has no connection with the 2.
And as far as the 9/11 poll about Iraq, when was that taken? Days, weeks or months after the planes hit? Timing is important as many had no clue for weeks what was going on. Sheesh.
<strong>Last week.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Link please, I could not find it on his link.
<strong>So Americans are stupid sheep then? Thank you for showing that your argument holds no water Giant and SLF. Just because one poll shows one thing and another shows something completely unrelated and different does not an argument make. Lets stay on the subject at hand.
How does not knowing where Iraq is on a map hurt Powells case? How does them believing in Angels? That Iraq was involved in 9/11? It has no connection with the 2.
And as far as the 9/11 poll about Iraq, when was that taken? Days, weeks or months after the planes hit? Timing is important as many had no clue for weeks what was going on. Sheesh.
Sorry. I forgot that so many people on this forum were to stupid to see humor.
But, anyway, this kind of hurts the administration's case:
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/04/wirq04.xml/"; target="_blank">telegraph</a>
<a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=375403"; target="_blank">the independent</a>
so does the fact that satellite photos of al-furat (among other sites) were given as proof of continued production, but inspectors found out that was far from true. This demonstrates that you can't take satellite photos from the bush admin at face value.
So does the fact that Bush cited a ficticious IAEA reports on multiple occasions as ultimate justification for war, demonstrating the Administration's willingness to fabricate publicly available records.
So does this:
[quote]Speaking before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell described a sophisticated Iraq capable of simultaneously mounting highly competent research and development projects in nuclear, chemical and biological areas. He also described a sophisticated security system capable of mounting deception operations, monitoring and disinformation campaigns. Throughout his presentation, Powell described an Iraqi military that was coherent, coordinated and effective.
On the other hand, when discussing Iraq's ability to resist a U.S.-led attack, a very different vision emerges. In this vision, Iraq's military is seen as fundamentally incompetent -- in essence unevolved from its defeat in Kuwait in 1991 and incapable of learning lessons from past mistakes. In 1991, the allies mounted an attack simply to recapture Kuwait, employing a force of 500,000. In 2003, the force being deployed is half this size at most and is expected to conquer a much larger area, including a major city.
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld explained his view of the quality of Iraqi forces at a televised town hall meeting on Nov. 14, 2002: "In the event that force has to be used with Iraq, there will be no World War III. The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that. And, it won't be a World War III. And if I were to characterize the difference between 1990 and today, the United States military is vastly more powerful, and the Iraqi army and military capability has declined substantially."
In December 2000, an unnamed senior intelligence official was quoted as saying, "The Iraqis, across the board, have a serious morale problem. They are not eager to engage U.S.-led coalition forces in combat." He went on to say, "Equipment shortages and manpower shortages, we believe, affect the quality and quantity of their training."
The Bush administration, therefore, has two visions of Iraq. In one, the Iraqis are capable of managing a complex weapons development program and providing a sophisticated security program for it, which the United States has penetrated only with great effort. On the other side, Washington has a vision of the Iraqi military -- which also runs the weapons program -- as being incapable of recovering from a war that ended 12 years ago. The military is incapable of providing adequate equipment and supplies to troops in the field on which the regime's survival will depend in the event of war. Certainly, the Iraqis are aware of the growth of U.S. military power and of the decline of their own power. Why, over 12 years, have they been incapable of improving their conventional forces?
<hr></blockquote>
During the first gulf war, there were numerous lies, such as the claim that Iraqi troops were massing on the Saudi border.
I'm not saying what he says in not true, I'm just pointing out that believing what you hear with out critically examining it is pretty damn stupid. But we can't expect much out of a lot of folks here, as is demonstrated in the 'smoking gun' thread.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
Do you really expect that most Americans have enough time to learn everything there is to know to make an adequately informed decision of whether we should go to war? How many don't care enough anyway?
Here's an idea: Let's have a nation-wide election of only smart people (those with master's degrees and/or IQ's of 130 or more) and we'll go to war or not based on the results.
We're a republic, not a democracy.
<strong>Sorry. I forgot that so many people on this forum were to stupid to see humor.<hr></blockquote></strong>
That was Humor? Don't quit your day job...
[quote]<strong>But, anyway, this kind of hurts the administration's case:
telegraph</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nothing in the telegraph but heresay and speculation. It is the persons opinion and nothing more.
[quote]<strong>the independent<hr></blockquote></strong>
And this was more of the same. Both deal only with al queda link possibility and donot hardly touch on the real meat of the issue. They are a distraction and nothing more.
[quote]<strong>so does the fact that satellite photos of al-furat (among other sites) were given as proof of continued production, but inspectors found out that was far from true. This demonstrates that you can't take satellite photos from the bush admin at face value.
So does the fact that Bush cited a ficticious IAEA reports on multiple occasions as ultimate justification for war, demonstrating the Administration's willingness to fabricate publicly available records.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do not have time right now to repost what I have posted many times before. Iraq cleaned up after themselves whenthey found inspectors were coming. Get ti through your head. As for your fabrication theory. That is an opinion, nothing more. There are those that will agree with you and those that will not.
[quote]<strong>During the first gulf war, there were numerous lies, such as the claim that Iraqi troops were massing on the Saudi border.
I'm not saying what he says in not true, I'm just pointing out that believing what you hear with out critically examining it is pretty damn stupid. But we can't expect much out of a lot of folks here, as is demonstrated in the 'smoking gun' thread.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When in doubt immediately try to make all who disagree with you sound like idiots. That will win the argument. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>Sorry giant. Sorry bunge. Sorry SJO.
CNN:
Did U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's U.N. Presentation make a case military action against Iraq?
72% Yes
28% No
FoxNews:
Did the secretary of state successfully make his case against Saddam?
93% Yes
5% No
2% Not sure
MSNBC:
How did Colin Powell do in his U.N. Presentation?
70%-----"He made a convincing case for the U.S. to attack Iraq with or without U.N. support. "
26%----"He provided some new information, but not enough for the U.S. to go it alone "
Â*4% "----"His case was so weak that the U.N. should consider suspending arms inspections.
I suppose we will now here how the American public is tremendously stupid.
Thank you and good night.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good when are you going to sign up? I figure anyone that gets so happy about the potential death of many people should be there to see it first hand.
<strong>Here's an idea: Let's have a nation-wide election of only smart people (those with master's degrees and/or IQ's of 130 or more) and we'll go to war or not based on the results.
We're a republic, not a democracy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
1. People are stupid because they don't agree with giant, jimmac, et al.
2. People are too uninformed to make a decision.
3. SDW2001 is just happy to see people die so what he says must be irrelavent.
4. The Bush administration is flat-out lying.
Come on. You lose. The argument is over. Support for war is overwhelming. Look at the damn numbers. Just look.
<strong>
FoxNews:
Did the secretary of state successfully make his case against Saddam?
93% Yes
5% No
2% Not sure
[...]
I suppose we will now here how the American public is tremendously stupid.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
How exactly is anybody NOT stupid if he doesn't vote for "not sure"?
But what's the point of this talk any more? War is inevitable, end of story, and it was going to happen whether there was 'evidence' or not. How many times do I need to say this?
<strong>Ok, we know that Fox News is it's normal 'unbiased' self as usual.
But what's the point of this talk any more? War is inevitable, end of story, and it was going to happen whether there was 'evidence' or not. How many times do I need to say this?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course there's going to be a war! I wonder which parties are going to be awarded those big $contracts to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure afterwards?
Whatever...it's all academic. Like last time, Saddam will probably survive, but not as President of Iraq of course.
Are bookmakers taking bets yet? 6:1 tactical nukes? 2:1 February 15-28 start? Evens March 1-31?