NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/washpost/20050608/pl_washpost/poll_finds_dimmer_view_of_iraq_war

"For the first time since the war in
Iraq began, more than half of the American public believes the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
ADVERTISEMENT

While the focus in Washington has shifted from the Iraq conflict to
Social Security and other domestic matters, the survey found that Americans continue to rank Iraq second only to the economy in importance -- and that many are losing patience with the enterprise.

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam."

I'm one of those three-quarters/two-thirds/three-fifths.


The Enlightened One, Gir

I'm one of those three-quarters/two-thirds/three-fifths.

Same here.

Same here.

Whoo!

The Enlightened One, Gir

Me three!

Foursies!

Took them long enough, didn't it?

I think that is probably one of the most perplexing thing to me about this whole war. I get how people may have thought he had weapons of mass destruction, I get how the intelligence could be collected under that exact light andall that...

But how people in the US, on the other side of the globe, could have believed that war against someone like Saddam could have made them safer, that I just don't get.

Saddam hadn't done anything in relation to his neighbours since the first Gulf War, so I don't know how it made the world safer either.

One would have thought at least one of the great heads in the CIA would've been able to predict what is happenign there now, which hasn't exactly made the place any safer.

But, since there's lots of US-ians here, and statistically some of you must have believed it at the time:
Tell me, what were your reasons? What did you think he could do to America, on the other side of the planet?
I don't mean to make fun of anyone, I just want to know.

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable
Ironically, you do not see these same people complaining about the violence on our highways or the violence on the streets of any middling to major city, both of which are more dangerous than the iraq conflict. If you are a young black male in any of the cities your chances of being killed are astronomically higher than in iraq.

Ironically, you do not see these same people complaining about the violence on our highways or the violence on the streets of any middling to major city, both of which are more dangerous than the iraq conflict. If you are a young black male in any of the cities your chances of being killed are astronomically higher than in iraq.

We're complaining about Iraq because the money going into that could be used to help end poverty and inner city violence.


The Enlightened One, Gir

Hopefully, 100% have a negative opinion of war in general. :rolleyes: War is never supposed to be a good situation.

However, other polls show higher levels of support, this one's not the most reliable. They also published the one showing Bush with a 12-point lead a few weeks out of the election. I prefer robotic polls.

Edit: It should be mentioned that the poll was 48-34% Democrat to Republican.. just thought I'd mention it.

We're complaining about Iraq because the money going into that could be used to help end poverty and inner city violence.


The Enlightened One, Gir
Ah yes, the liberal mantra of "more money", "more money", "more money". As if there is a threshold that we just haven't reached yet, where the amount of money spent on a problem will finally solve it. Never mind that history shows even though more money has been spent on these problems, we still can't solve problems in education, poverty, or violence.

We just need more money. That's all.


Back to Iraq. Hasn't anyone been following the news about Syria? Now that we aren't on such good terms with them, we are starting to let a little dirt out about what they had been doing to aid Iraq. Turns out that the idea of WMD being moved to Syria before the war wasn't so far-fetched. I suspect after this whole episode plays out, we'll find that the Bush Administration was doing the right thing, in the right place, at the right time.

Hehehe.. you guys gotta read the methodology and questions of this poll.. it's downright hysterical..

Here's a sample question:

"Would you support or oppose a plan in which people who choose to could invest some of their Social Security contributions into the stock market?"

Show me one Republican who wants people to be able to invest their SS money in the stock market.. anyone? :rolleyes: A mutual fund, like the one Congressmen use for their Thrift Savings Plan is NOT the stock market.... not the way they want you to think.. and it's never posted a loss, ever. In fact, those funds gain 4-5% annually, on average. Good try though, Washington Post.

Hehehe.. you guys gotta read the methodology and questions of this poll.. it's downright hysterical..

Here's a sample question:

"Would you support or oppose a plan in which people who choose to could invest some of their Social Security contributions into the stock market?"

Show me one Republican who wants people to be able to invest their SS money in the stock market.. anyone? :rolleyes: A mutual fund, like the one Congressmen use for their Thrift Savings Plan is NOT the stock market.... not the way they want you to think.. and it's never posted a loss, ever. In fact, those funds gain 4-5% annually, on average. Good try though, Washington Post.
But if you aren't trying to make the Bush Administration look bad, you aren't making news! Oh wait, the Post is supposed to report news, not make it.

But if you aren't trying to make the Bush Administration look bad, you aren't making news! Oh wait, the Post is supposed to report news, not make it.

Well, if freedom of the press doesn't cover polls wildly oversampling key Democratic groups, then what good is the Constitution, eh? :p

Took them long enough, didn't it?

I think that is probably one of the most perplexing thing to me about this whole war. I get how people may have thought he had weapons of mass destruction, I get how the intelligence could be collected under that exact light andall that...

But how people in the US, on the other side of the globe, could have believed that war against someone like Saddam could have made them safer, that I just don't get.

Saddam hadn't done anything in relation to his neighbours since the first Gulf War, so I don't know how it made the world safer either.

One would have thought at least one of the great heads in the CIA would've been able to predict what is happenign there now, which hasn't exactly made the place any safer.

But, since there's lots of US-ians here, and statistically some of you must have believed it at the time:
Tell me, what were your reasons? What did you think he could do to America, on the other side of the planet?
I don't mean to make fun of anyone, I just want to know.


To tell the truth most Americans didn't care about the rational reasons for or against invading Iraq at the time. It's just that invading small nations has been a staple political tool for the Republican party since the Reagan days, and it was mostly that "let's whoop some ass" attitude that led everybody to support the war.

The turning point came when we had to put troops on the ground. Large numbers of soldiers started dying and everybody realized this was for real and not a videogame. And of course fighting people in urban Baghdad is a lot different from landing paratroopers in tiny nations like Grenada.

So now a tried and true political strategy has backfired on its orchestrators. This time the little country we tried to bully turns out not to have been so little and helpless, and we're at a loss as to what should be done.

It's not that everybody's stupid, just that the majority of civilians in this country don't want to accept the responsibility demanded by a democracy.

Polls - especially polls by interest groups and news stations - are totally and completely retarded. They are so fucking easy to skew one way or another it's ridiculous. A.) I believe the polls referred to in this thread showed 48% to 52%, or perhaps 47% to 52% - and, yes, I know that doesn't add up to 100, polls don't always have to. Funny thing is, the possible error is 3%. Thus the actual results could be 50% to 49%, or 51% to 49%. B.) Look at the exit polls on the 2004 election. I could rest my case there, but I won't. C.) Look at it this way: if I were to get on a catholic website and put up a poll for "Has Bush been a successful President, overall?" I would probably get 70% that say yes. The sample audience could be tens of thousands, and it wouldn't matter. D.) If you call a bunch of homes at ten o'clock in the morning - after most have gone to work - who are you more likely to get: a pro business, hardworking conservative Dad that believes in the traditional role of men as those that are supposed to bring home the bacon, or an anarchist pothead chilling in his duplex with five buddies rollin' fatties?

Conclusion: Don't listen to polls. They don't prove shit - just like grades, and just like speaking.

And thus, the majority of Americans think the war in Iraq has made them safer!
Is that what is being said?
If yes, then how has that happened?

Conclusion: Don't listen to polls. They don't prove shit - just like grades, and just like speaking.

Am I the only one who sees the delicious irony of this statement?

Ah yes, the liberal mantra of "more money", "more money", "more money". As if there is a threshold that we just haven't reached yet, where the amount of money spent on a problem will finally solve it. Never mind that history shows even though more money has been spent on these problems, we still can't solve problems in education, poverty, or violence.

We just need more money. That's all.


Back to Iraq. Hasn't anyone been following the news about Syria? Now that we aren't on such good terms with them, we are starting to let a little dirt out about what they had been doing to aid Iraq. Turns out that the idea of WMD being moved to Syria before the war wasn't so far-fetched. I suspect after this whole episode plays out, we'll find that the Bush Administration was doing the right thing, in the right place, at the right time.

I think that they're laying the groundwork for their next war of choice, and the reason that the American people's perception of the war has turned so negative is that now that Bush isn't actually campaigning on it a little truth has seeped into the propaganda.

As for your complaint about money. Money itself, if simply dropped on an area won't solve problems, but no government can solve any problem without money.

And if money can't make any imaginable policy under the sun pheasable then how come Bush won?

And thus, the majority of Americans think the war in Iraq has made them safer!
Is that what is being said?
If yes, then how has that happened?

Bush and Cheney, being the petulant brats that they are, weren't compelled to throw a hissy-fit by being thwarted by the forces of goodness and decency, and didn't end up blowing up another major metorpolitan area to get us really scared.

As long as we're scared enough to do whatever the Republican party says we have nothing to fear from the NeoCons except the gradual destruction of democracy and freedom.

Bush and Cheney, being the petulant brats that they are, weren't compelled to throw a hissy-fit by being thwarted by the forces of goodness and decency, and didn't end up blowing up another major metorpolitan area to get us really scared.

As long as we're scared enough to do whatever the Republican party says we have nothing to fear from the NeoCons except the gradual destruction of democracy and freedom.

Hehehe.. I like you, you're funny. :p