So is America finally getting wiser? Who still believes this nonsense?

by Jourles 76 Replies latest social current

• 

  Jourles

  WASHINGTON (AFP) - For the first time since it began, a majority of Americans believe the Iraq war is not part of the war on terrorism, as US President George W. Bush keeps insisting it is, according to a poll.

  Fifty-one percent of the 1,206 adults surveyed in the August 17-21 New York Times/CBS News poll believed the two wars were separate, while 44 percent saw a link between them. In June, opinion was split evenly at 41 percent.

  Rest of the story here. It's funny. Run this poll anywhere else in the world, and you will find a huge, lopsided percentage of people who believe the two "wars" are completely separate. Who are these 44%? Do they only watch Fox News?
• 

  Elsewhere

  ... but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
• 

  SWALKER

  Do they only watch Fox News?

  Yes and they believe George W Bush couldn't possibly tell a lie!!! (They probably confused him with GEORGE WASHINGTON) Don't you pity those 44% remaining idiots??? They still can't realize how far in the toilet we are because of this......

  Swalker
• 

  Arthur

  Unfortunately, the U.S. invasion has turned the entire nation of Iraq into a giant terrorist training camp. Basically, Al Qaeda insurgents are getting first class combat training by blowing up American kids instead of dummies in Afghanistan. So, one could say that the Iraq operation is currently a war on terrorists. If the U.S. pulls out now; the nation will fall into the hands of people who are just as bad as Saddam was. The civil war will rip that country apart. Colin Powell got it right. Shortly before the invasion, he said that Iraq was like an expensive vase in a China shop. "You break it; you buy it", he said.

  I knew from the very start that the whole weapons of mass destruction "drum beat" was grossly inaccurate. (not all FOX News viewers bought into the hype.) I also felt that the billions of dollars that would be spent on an Iraqi occupation would be so much better spent on the Department of Homeland Security and foreign intelligence. Unfortunately however, the situation currently is what it is; and there's no going back. The Bush administration has "broken the vase", and now they have to buy it. I think the U.S. owes it to the Iraqi people to finish what they had originally intended. The Iraqi people deserve to have their country back.
• 

  Simon

  It has achieved it's real objective - got American control of some oil. Does Bush and co. really care how many people suffer or how many poor Americans die because of it? Of course not.

  The real *problem* is that the American people refuse to coinsider CONSERVING energy and doing with less fuel like every other major western country can and has. This then dictates their foreign policy which is to trade peace for oil.

  It's almost like they believe that if they use less that it means someone else is getting what they would have so they should use it up twice as fast to make sure they get their share. Have a read of the latest issue of Scientific American.
• 

  kid-A

  Who are these 44%?

  LOL.....quite a few of them are regular posters on this board!
• 

  james_woods

  OK - I know your agenda, you know my agenda...not going to state it again. But I do have some questions - which I think are legitimate in this debate:

  Are you guys saying you would rather have Iraq in the hands of Syria and Iran by next January? Really???

  On the oil idea - what in the world is wrong with preserving your sources of vital strategic supplies? We would have lost the last WW to Hitler if we had not done just that! What do you think the Desert Fox was after when we had to stop him finally at El Alamein?

  I assume that the leftist plan is to make an immediate pullout of Iraq right now - what do you honestly think will happen afterwards to that oil supply?

  What does the rest of the world do when Iraq eventually tests a nuke - or drops on on somebody else? Send 40 guys with 2 little rubber boats, AKA the French?

  Somehow I don't expect much of a factual answer to these (other than some more pro-freedom fighter anti-american anti-Blair anti-Bush yik-yak), but maybe they will serve as a thought provocation to others who are reading this thread with a little less venom than a Cindy Sheehan...

  James
• 

  hillary_step

  James,

  Somehow I don't expect much of a factual answer

  Present some 'factual' questions and we may surprise you. All your questions are imbued not with fact but opinion, and ill conceived opinion at that.

  I also note that now that President Bush has suggested that the US cannot allow oil to fall into the hands of the 'terrorists' as they will raise the price beyond what the US and the West can afford, we are beginning to see his supporters who vigorously claimed that this was not a war about oil, but one based on the pursuit of freedom, begin to carry the goal posts to another part of the field. I will state however, that I have never been convinced of this 'war for oil' scenario.

  I assume that the leftist plan is to make an immediate pullout of Iraq right now - what do you honestly think will happen afterwards to that oil supply?

  As close to an admission that I have seen from a supporter of the invasion of Iraq that it has been an abject failure. Ask yourself, before the invasion, who was benefiting from this oil? Anyway, is not Republicanism all about the market justifying the cost? In that case surely the 'terrorists' can set what value they like on their oil.

  Of course, Bush fell short of speaking truthfully and admitting to the American people that the vast majority of oil used by the West does not even come from Iraq, or Iran for that matter. He does admit to 'making mistakes' in Iraq, but is so far too dense to realize the magnitude of them.

  HS
• 

  Jourles

  Are you guys saying you would rather have Iraq in the hands of Syria and Iran by next January?

  Who says Iraq would be in the hands of either? So since we are there occupying it instead of, let's say, Iran, it's better for the entire world? How so? Was Iran or Syria talking about invading Iraq? Let's talk about who did invade and on what pretenses. (on the other hand, let's not)

  On the oil idea - what in the world is wrong with preserving your sources of vital strategic supplies?

  Were the US's strategic supplies in any danger of disappearing if Sadam stayed in power? Hmm, is gas more or less expensive now compared to the late 90's/early 00's? What companies are raking in record multi-billion dollar profits right now?

  I assume that the leftist plan is to make an immediate pullout of Iraq right now - what do you honestly think will happen afterwards to that oil supply?

  I don't really care about whose plan it is to pull out of Iraq. Just because we leave doesn't mean that Iraq will cut off the USA from its oil reserves. The US will now always be in control of Iraq in the background. Democratically appointed government or not.

  What does the rest of the world do when Iraq eventually tests a nuke - or drops on on somebody else?

  What evidence was there that Iraq had a nuclear program? Even the UN couldn't find anything going back to at least '92 I believe - even today they stand by that! So what if they have a bomb? The way I look at it, let any country do what they wish as far as nuclear tech goes. If Iran was to use a nuke in Israel, they would have to know the USA would retaliate against them with the same, civilian casualties or not. That will be the ultimate test of their mustard. If they use it, they themselves will get wiped off the map. There will be no diplomacy in these cases - even if the "leftists" are in office.

  Somehow I don't expect much of a factual answer to these (other than some more pro-freedom fighter anti-american anti-Blair anti-Bush yik-yak)

  I am just as pro-American as anyone else out there. Just because I disagree with bush and idiots, doesn't make me any less of an American. I will also capitalize "American" in my sentences. I could care less about how I spell an idiotic human's name.
• 

  james_woods

  Well, Hillary_Step - let me try it again. Cutting it down to only a few and restate them...

  Facts: Iran has consistently refused to stop uranium enrichment. UN challenged them to stop, they refused and said they want to "talk" some more. They are in fact openly working on a nuclear device. The technology mostly came from that Pakistani rogue scientist that sold it and died under house arrest for it the other day. They also have supplied arms to the terrorists in Lebanon. So, given these facts - I ask again:

  What does the rest of the world do if Iran tests or deploys a nuclear weapon? Is this not just about the worst possible Islamic terror scenario we can imagine - such a device in the hands of a delusional religious government which is sympathetic to the worst forms of terrorism?

  Example - What does the rest of the world do if Iran someday sneaks a nuclear weapon over to the Hezbolla?

  Could the response possibly involve a stongly enforced embargo? Or, possibly a military response? Would not such a thing disrupt the worlds oil supply? Would not having a controlling presence in Iraq then be a critical factor if such a scenario came to pass - both because of the strategic position and the issues of local oil supply?

  For these reasons, many people think that a strong presence in Iraq is a vital front in the overall war on Islamic terror and agression.

  What say you?