Iraq - Don't Americans think?

An interesting yet strange poll

Published on April 30, 2004 By valleyboyabroad In International

According to a New York times/CBS poll, Americans are becoming increasingly critical about the way that Bush is handling the war in Iraq.

Now let me point out here first that when it comes to polls they can be mean many things.

There's one US poll out today fopr example that says terrorism has decreased over the last year (good job Bush) and another one released by the Japanese that says terrorism has increased by 30% (bad job Bush) over the last twelve months so take your pick.

But the poll I'd like to look at is the CBS one above.

And I quote,

'Asked whether the US has done the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, 47% of respondents said that it had, down from 58% a month earlier, and 63% in December' (New York Times).

Now note the words 'done the right thing'.

Acording to the poll 16% of people in the US have changed their minds about whether it was right to invade Iraq and topple Saddam.

Why?

What has changed that made them change their minds?

According to Bush and Co this war was never about WMDs - that would have been j(so they say) just a bonus (had they had any).

Neither was it all about oil (so they say).

Nope, it was all about toppling Saddam and bringing democracy to the downtrodden people of Iraq.

Okay fine.

Saddam has been toppled, Iraq's a mess for sure, but may'be democracy will come (how's a completely different question, it's clear that Bush&Co had absolutely no idea what to do once they'd taken Iraq and don't know what to do with it now), certainly not on June 30th but sometime in the next decade or so.

What I want to know is why is it suddenly wrong according to these 16% of people to have invaded Iraq?

Didn't they think this through before they gave their approval?

Did they really believe that everyone would be home by Christmas?

But I'm straying off the point as usual.

Why is it now suddenly wrong to have invaded Iraq?

I'd seriously like to talk to one of these people, it would be fascinating.

Is there anyone out there that thought it was right last December but wrong today?

If so why?

What startling new facts have been revealed to you that made you changed your moral point of view in such a drastic fashion?

From right to wrong.

Well?

yechydda,

Comments (Page 2)

valleyboyabroad

on May 01, 2004

Solitair,

'Nice attempt to separate the action from the consequences.

I'm not really trying to sperate anything here, I did not commission the poll after all.

Personally I believe that if the action was the right thing to do at point A in time then it was still the right thing to do 6 months later

Agreed given the circumstances, with the possible caveat that I personally suspected that it would be a lot worse, everything that has occurred to date was entirely predictable.

Are we to believe that they did not know this, that to date the US has got off remarkably lightly in terms of casualties?

If so why?

If something truly remarkable had occurred, like...well...what exactly?

I was trying to conjure up something so dire and sickening that the entire world would turn around and say, 'we had no idea, let's pull out now',. but I'm at a loss to think what that could be.

As an aside the American people were confused and misled on why they were going to war

But where is the acknowlegement that this is so?

Do you think that this commission that has been set up will conclude this?

If so, what should Bush&Co do? Surely if they have confused and misled the American public they should be impeached ?

It seems to me that you think that the US public was deliberately decieved, if so, what should be the consequences?

yechydda,

valleyboyabroad

on May 01, 2004

Draginol,

I think Bremer has made some critical mistkaes such as disbanding the Iraqi military which wasn't inhernetly "evil".I am glad the US removed Saddam. It was the right thing to do. But I do think that policy since the occupation has been a mess

Bremer has made so many U-turns that he's gone full circle several times!

But some of the mistakes he's made are so basic that I seriously doubt his competence.

I don't think that there's a rational person on the planet that doesn't welcome the toppling of Saddam, something which really confuses the 'you're with us or against us lobby'

Not a single anti-war person that I know regrets his fall.

yechydda,

valleyboyabroad

on May 01, 2004

Draginol,

Those who were in favor of going to war wanted Saddam removed because they believed he was a threat

But he clearly was not.

With the exception of his own people, in 2003, he was a threat to nobody whatever.

The US government did not state that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

But nor did they move to distance themselves from allowing the public perception to believe that this was so. This is deception which ever way you want to carve it.

It is my contention that Bush&Co allowed themselves wanted to believe in the connection and allowed this to percolate through the US psyche.

yechydda,

valleyboyabroad

on May 01, 2004

Mason,

Iraq had the largest military force in the Middle East and were feared by the other Middle Eastern countries...Taking down the "biggest guy" sends a powerful message to the others.

How on earth did you figure this one out?

Even in the first gulf war Iraq had a rag-tag army that collapsed with minimal resistance. Years of sanctions only served to weaken it, how can you say that is the biggest guy?

I understand what you're saying if Iraq was really the 'biggest' guy, but what about Egypt, Syria, Iran and Israel?

making other countries less likely to be willing to openly aid terrorist groups

But look at 9/11. 90% of the perpetrators were educated Saudi nationals. They were funded by Saudis. Their school of vitriolic Islam is strongest in Saudi. Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism at the time other than send donations to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine.

What message did attacking Iraq send other than hatred for the US for bombing long-suffering and innocent men, women and children that had never lifted a finger against the West?

Polls tend to be very biased and can be (and usually are) manipulated to get the results wanted.

Not quite true but I agree with the sentiment as I pointed out in the initial article. Polls themselves are not necessarily biased per se, but they are often badly thought out.

In addition there are professional pollsters that go to great lengths to ensure that they are not biased, and try to build in all sort of double-checks to ensure impartiality.

For that matter it can be affected by the number of people polled. In poll of 4 people, 1 person's opinion is 25% of the poll.

Sorry Mason, but you're quoting the bloody statistical obvious here. All polls, to be valid, have to have minimum criteria of which the number of pollsters polled is just one.

You're attacking the idea of polls rather the actual article.

yechydda,

kingbee

on May 01, 2004

i have no idea why bush granted such incredibly open access to bob woodward although my gut leads me to suspect the same sort of reckless hubris that prompted him to don a flight suit a year ago. the whitehouse is not contradicting anything of substance in either of woodwards two books. together they provide much more than a mere glimpse at what went on...is going on...in the administration in public and behind the scenes for the past 3 years. erosion of popular support for the war isnt suprising. clearly the public was misled. bush admits there wasnt enought evidence to convince him, much less joe sixpack. very few people, relatively speaking, seem angry (which is a surprise to me). its almost as if the majority expects nothing more or less from this president.

valleyboyabroad

on May 02, 2004

this Gallup poll from June 2003 shows that the majority of US Americans at this time still believed Saddam would have weapons of mass destruction. http://www.gallup.com/content/login.aspx?ci=8623so who misled them? the liberal media if it was not the US government? i could swear i saw Colin Powell trying to present false evidence to the UN security council though.i have my doubts on your statement that that the US government did not link Saddam with 9/11as well. maybe not directly with 9/1, but for sure they tried to link him with Al Qeda. at least that is what a "fair and balanced" tv station says at the bottom of this article: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77618,00.html" President Bush has accused Iraq of being linked to Al Qaeda and said those ties "portend a danger for America and for Great Britain, anybody who loves freedom." guess FoxNews is part of that liberal media conspiracy as well

You know, I have no proof of this and I hate myself for saying it, my gut instinct is that Powell did not deliberately decieve anybody, I think he knew the evidence was shaky but trusted the intelligence presented to him.

He thought that the hard evidence would be forthcoming.

But also, he recognised that it was better to be on the inside countering the vampires that surround Bush with their insidious cloaks than to walk and stand without.

For some reason, again without rhyme or reason, I basically believe that Powell is someone that I would basically trust.

Don't ask me to defend this, I cannot.

yechydda,

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!