An Informative Poll - USA

David Stone

Wow Rohit, you went an entire post without mentioning Cricket! Are you feeling okay? ;P

any idiot can write haiku you just stop at seventeenth syl -ThinkGeek Fortunes

Rohit Sinha

:laugh:
Regards,

Rohit Sinha

...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!

Michael A Barnhart

First some back ground on my beliefs. As they impact where this poll is going. I agree no credible evidence showing Iraqi government support for terrorists has been presented. So the justification of war as part of our war on terrorism is not correct. I also believe this is the basic issue of why most other nations citizens do not support the current situation of doing something about Iraq not being in compliance with the various UN resolutions to disarm. I believe the GWB has the potential to be a great president, but is failing. This is due to my perception of him recognizing that he is not all that smart and must rely on his staff for guidance and does so. The failing is that he has surrounded him self with to many that have a predetermined hatred of Iraq for them (and then Bush) to be objective. I believe that Iraq has openly and deliberately ignored the disarm resolutions, so something is justified to be done. It also should not have taken 12 years to get to this point but, so what. We are here, so what now? I believe that if we just talk legalistic, this violation terminates the Gulf War 1 peace agreement and we are still at war under that UN resolution. I do not believe that Anti-War is automatically Pro-Peace. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens dying hardly seems peaceful to me. I believe the best thing for the US to do is to separate the war on terror from Iraq. Withdraw the troops and let the UN start over with how to handle this situation. This is not going to happen IMHO if the world leaders do not offer some guarantees and time limits for action to be taken or closure to occur. For myself I would want it soon (say the Dec 2003) for the sake of the Iraqi people who are (and have been) the ones dying from starvation, disease, etc. as we argue about this. Those guarantees need to be firm commitment of forces available as of the agreed date. My biggest worry is that the UN is close to being irrelevant if no agreement like the above happens. If the US and a few allies go it alone the impact the UN will have on anything, is questionable for many years. NOW: Chris Losinger wrote: GWB has made the UN irrelevant by using the military/economic might of the US as a defense against anyone calling him on what may be a violation of the UN charter. Given my statement of legally we are still at war. Can you explain what violation is occurring? Or is that the issue? ""

brianwelsch

Chris Losinger wrote: a growing number of people think Saddam was behind 9/11. I don't know anyone that thinks this is true. I've never talked to anyone who thought 9/11 and Iraq were the same monster. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

Ed Gadziemski

From arabnews.com ...the UN has turned a blind eye to the genocidal war waged by Russia in Chechnya where a whole nation is being destroyed Does your endorsement of this article mean that had the UN been available in the 1860s, you would have wanted them to prevent the Union from waging war against the breakaway Confederate states? Those willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin

brianwelsch

Or even before that, prevent Spain from slaughtering the tribes they ran into in the Americas. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

Chris Losinger

i don't know anyone who believes that, either. but polls say that somewhere around 45% of americans think Saddam was personally involved in 9/11. here's one source for that number: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html[^]. -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

Doug Goulden

Chris Losinger wrote: GWB has made the UN irrelevant by using the military/economic might of the US as a defense against anyone calling him on what may be a violation of the UN charter Do you think that Jaques Chirac has added to the problem making the UN irrelevant? If GW hadn't sent troops to the Gulf there would be no inspectors in Iraq. Seems like if SH doesn't see the threat of force he won't cooperate, and you remove the threat of force from the table, SH has no reason at all to follow any UN resolutions. France's announcement that they will veto any resolution for force removes the only tool that seems effective against SH. If you refuse to allow the use of the only tools available, namely the UN and force, you have removed the relevance of the UN. BTW France and the US did agree that the UN wasn't necessary in Kosovo when Russia threatened a veto......... Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Mike Gaskey

Ed Gadziemski wrote: Does your endorsement of this article mean that had the UN been available in the 1860s, you would have wanted them to prevent the Union from waging war against the breakaway Confederate states? Nope - I posted the article because I was fascinated to find it at ArabNews.com Usually the articles there are internal Saudi Arabian news, features on Islam, slanted anti-Israeli reports or moderately anti-American and occasional pro-American reports. Mike

brianwelsch

So either we are both far removed from the gullible masses, or the poll's are invalid. ;) as usual the truth is somewhere in between. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

Lost User

My only take: When Kuwait was invaded, UN Security Council approved a war to liberate ir. It has not approved any no-fly zones. It has not approved any other action. If a UN resolution is not being adhered to, then UN Security council is the ONLY body that can authorize corrective action. Texas State cannot enforce US Federal law in NY, even if NY decides not to enforce them. If there is a grave danger to anyone, atleast three countries of the five that the world decided gives adequate representation of the world has to agree. AFAIK, France, China and Russia are opposing any military action now. US abandoning UN might be better than making a mockery of it. By making sure that resolutions against Israel and Kashmir are never enforced, the enforcement of a UN resolution is not mandatory. GWB and co seems to think that France is not entitled to any opinion that contradicts theirs; like they seem to think about everyone else including American people as well. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers

Chris Losinger

Doug Goulden wrote: Do you think that Jaques Chirac has added to the problem making the UN irrelevant? sure, Chirac is putting on a big show - but maybe that's because everybody in the world knows that GWB already said he was going to Iraq with or without UN support. so, he's just playing politics - as is GWB: it seems clear that GWB only went to the UN because of Powell, Blair and GHB. if he had listened to his chicken-hawks, we'd already be shipping our soldiers home in bags. but, he chose to try to get some UN credibility for his war, as a soothing balm for the angry masses. -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

KaRl

" Do you favor or oppose allowing the government to use any means necessary, including physical torture, to obtain information from prisoners that might protect the United States from terrorist attacks" "If there were a possibility that a member of your own family could be saved, then would you favor or oppose allowing the government to use physical torture to obtain information from terrorist prisoners?" Is Fox trying to promote physical torture :wtf: ? BTW, Fox belongs to Murdoch's Evil Empire, doesn't it?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Stan Shannon

Chris Losinger wrote: remember, without proof, a growing number of people think Saddam was behind 9/11. I don't know anyone who believes that. I even asked my 14 year old son about it and he told me he had never heard anyone make that connection. The only two groups of people I know are those who still don't know or care who Saddam Hussien is, and those who do know and think that, yes, the world would be better off without him - the sooner the better. The only connection Bush has ever made is that Iraq is a rouge state with terrible weapons and we are not going to wait around for another 9/ll to find out we should have kicked his ass much earlier. And Bush could very well be correct in that assessment. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.

Doug Goulden

KaЯl wrote: "If there were a possibility that a member of your own family could be saved, then would you favor or oppose allowing the government to use physical torture to obtain information from terrorist prisoners?" True confession here, if the US government or some other body caught someone who could reasonably be expected to have had knowledge about terrorist activities and was actively involved in them, you wouldn't see me crying any tears. However I believe that most of the interogation activities used by the US government probably involve drugs and mind games. BTW The reasonably part is the thing that is probably the most troubling. UBL is undoubtably a suitable cantidate, but I'm opposed strongly to just scooping people up. Unfortunately, when you are dealing with terrorism it seems awfully difficult to deal with it successfully without getting your hand dirty. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Chris Losinger

Stan Shannon wrote: I don't know anyone who believes that. 45% of people polled believe that. see reply above. Stan Shannon wrote: The only connection Bush has ever made is that Iraq is a rouge state with terrible weapons and we are not going to wait around for another 9/ll to find out we should have kicked his ass much earlier maybe he has never explicitly said "Saddam did it." but, he's been saying things along the lines of: ``Prior to September the 11th, there was apparently no connection between a place like Iraq and terror,'' he said. There were concerns about terrorists in Iraq, but no fear about a threat to the American homeland. ``... We were confident that two oceans could protect us from harm. [But...]the world changed on September the 11th.'' for a year and a half. If he doesn't want to link 9/11 and and Iraq, then he wouldn't be using them in the same sentence over and over and over in ways that make it sound like there is a connection. Either he wants to establish a link in our minds (which he has done for nearly half of the country), or he can't separate the two in his own mind (in which case he should be removed from office). -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

John theKing

Rohit Sinha wrote: show them that we aren't all that bad. You are not bad, we know and i tell you that our leaders are not making too much propaganda, this is being done by the leaders of India. Mr. I heard in news few hours ago in which LK Advani was quoted saying that Pakistan province of Sindh will be the part of India within this decade. Now tell me after listening this statement, do you expect Pakistani people stop "hating" you.

David Wulff

Three things: I noticed question 15 had a significant section of the answers removed... :laugh: People pray for President Bush?! WTF? Is that like "please god may a giant piano fall from the sky", or "please make him comprehendable"? :~ Boycotting French/German produce? Man - I thought you guys were just joking about all that. How childish can you get? :wtf:

David Wulff

"I feel inclined to blow my mind, Get hung up feeding ducks with a bun. They all come out to groove about; Be nicer than fun in the sun." - Itchycoo Park (Small Faces)

Brit

Mike Gaskey wrote: The responses to question #26 highlights what I believe to be a growing grassroots desire (conservative circles) to consider the United Nations as irrelevant and an organization the US should abandon. Have you ever seen this website: http://www.getusout.com/[^] ? Mike Gaskey wrote: That would mean that the French position, promising to veto any second (okay, any 18th) resolution is having the reverse effect - which assumes that France would like the American public to support it's position. The French position is actually harder than most people realize. In an interview with Dominique de Villepin (foreign minister of France), the interviewer asked him what he would think if the US invaded Iraq and discovered thousands of tons of chemical weapons. He replied that it would mean that inspections should've been given more time. That's a cautious approach (because if he replies differently, and the US does find thousands of tons of chemical weapons, he'll look really bad). But, it's a terribly bad position to take. Essentially, it says that France will not, under any conditions, support military action against Iraq, so Iraq can do whatever it wants because the worst France will ever do is complain. Mike Gaskey wrote: _A follow up to my comments regarding the UN, interesting source. http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=23668\[^\]_ One of my friends (from India) complains a great deal about the UN and its lack of relevancy. It's easy to point instances where the UN has failed to prevent wars as 'evidence' that the UN is ineffectual. I don't see that as a very good complaint. Looking at the trend in wars over history, the number of inter-country wars in the world has been in decline. However, civil wars have been on the rise. Arguably, the UN has caused a reduction in inter-country wars. But, if the main complaint is that the UN isn't doing enough to stop wars, then we have to ask, "Would we fear the UN if it were more powerful?" Right now, the US has no rival in the world. The existence of a powerful UN military force would raise the possibility of the rise of a rogue UN leader threatening the US or imposing its will badly. If the UN was lead by a simple majority, the Communists would've been in control of the UN back in the Cold War. Further, there are instances of bad decis

Brit

David Wulff wrote: Boycotting French/German produce? Man - I thought you guys were just joking about all that. How childish can you get? Yeah, it's pretty stupid. A couple days ago, however, I saw a story about a town in the US that was declaring a "buy German/French" month, because they thought it was really stupid that people seriously talked about boycotting German/French products. :) ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion