Poll:Do you support the war in Iraq?

[Stellablue]

There are polls in newspapers and on TV but not one asked me, did they not ask you either? So here is the poll for us.

Do you support this war in Iraq?


you might also tell us where you live.
Not trying to start a debate just a poll.

[Boyo Jim]

Are you asking whether I support a particular side in the war, or that I support the general concept that any war in Iraq is a good war?

[Lobsang]

Boyo Jim obviously it is the fact that there is a war that he/she is asking about.


I can't decide weither I suport it or not. I know it's rumsfeld's war and not idiot's (Bush). I know sadman needs to be removed. I also know that this war may create 1000 bin-ladens. And that sadman may kill millions of his people by setting off chemical weapons (or even nuclear - maybe he has managed to hide them so well that we believe he doesn't have them)

[samarm]

Lobsang I think you misunderstood. Jim was saying that we are at war anyway and there's nothing we can do either way about it. Asking if we support for the war is a moot point, really. At least I *think* that is what he meant. :)

[Ringo]

Yup, hadda be done. You go, Cowboy! And the Brits and Ozzies as well! They've been there before.

[Lobsang]

As far as I can tell the OP asked something along the lines of 'Do you support the removing of an evil regime using war, specifically the sadman regime, after all other methods have been exhausted?' (not in so many words).


I was merely trying to expose a little unnecesary pedantry on Jim's part by saying it's easy to see what the OP meant. I believe there is an excess of pedantry on the boards. If Jim was not being pedantic then I apologise Boyo Jim :)

[Boyo Jim]

I don't think I'm being pedantic. I'm asking for specifity. I don't support the war. I support it ending. At this point I support it ending with an American victory, as that is better than the alternative. But I also believe that America is violating international law by pursuing this war, and that other countries might justifiably invoke sanctions against us.

[Michael Ellis]

Yes.

[Lobsang]

If what I have just seen is even remotely true, then I strongly oppose the war -


Apparently bush thinks he is playing a part in the 'story' of christianity by destroying the 'forces of evil' in the middle east, and paving the way for the second coming of christ.

It sounds far fetched - I bloody hope it is. Sometimes I am reminded that I fucking hate religeon.

I hate the fact that the world's only superpower is so strongly religeous. All that power in the hands of people who believe in pure fantasy!


I am sorry if I offend anyone, I am willing to believe there is such a thing as a 'good christian' and that most christians are 'good christians' I hate that I am forced to offend people by my hatred of the world's main religeons and the things they make peolple do/believe!

[Ice Wolf]

I oppose this war in Iraq.

I say this not with anti-American sentiment, but on the grounds that it should not have gone ahead without UNSC authorisation.

I hope it ends soon, and that the ramifications aren't as catastrophic as they may well be.

[galen]

No, no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no!!!

This war is illegal, imoral, and insane. If people knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, had no weapons to threaten the US except possibly some left over from the 80's supplied by Uncle Sam, and knew that it is the best recruiting tool that the fundamentalist fanatics could have hoped for,support would be in the toilet overnight.

And that's not even going into the fact that people don't know that this war has been a project years in the making by a small clique of neoconservatives around Wolfowitz, Perle, et. al.

[kniz]

Yes.
Northeast Mississippi.

:D That didn't hurt a bit, folks.

[ITR champion]

What galen said.

[Fugazi]

Yes.

The more I hear about Hussein, the more I believe this is the right thing to do.

I also don't think we've heard the last of WMD & ties to terrorism.

[gouda]

I don't support the war. This war is not going to eliminate (even in a miniscule way) the original reason for going to war - which BTW I barely remember, what with all the "we're liberating the Iraqis" talk. Sadly, all the goodwill and support America garnered in the aftermath of 9/11, even from most traditionally anti-american peoples, has been mindlessly and needlessly squandered away. And what's worse, I believe this war will result in more rather than less terrorist attacks on American targets the world over. It's indirectly made the world an even more dangerous place to live in.

However, now that the war is on though, I'd much rather have an American victory than anything else. Hussein & EVERYONE in his regime need to be dumped on the moon, or someplace equally far away from anywhere.

India.

[TheLoadedDog]

Yes.

The Allies ain't perfect. But Saddam is evil. He needs to be stopped, just as Hitler did. It boils down to whether one believes more lives will be lost by going to war, or by not going. In the long term, not going is more dangerous, IMHO. This is a just war. I support it. I grieve for those killed on both sides, but I support the allied invasion of Iraq.

Do nothing, and see what happens.

[MetalDog]

No.
Surrey, England.

[Othersider]

Originally posted by TheLoadedDog
Yes.

The Allies ain't perfect. But Saddam is evil. He needs to be stopped, just as Hitler did. It boils down to whether one believes more lives will be lost by going to war, or by not going. In the long term, not going is more dangerous, IMHO. This is a just war. I support it. I grieve for those killed on both sides, but I support the allied invasion of Iraq.

Do nothing, and see what happens. Basically what I think, too

I think we really should have finished this years ago. The world has been too nice to him, holding out in hopes that he would come clean and be honest. Of course, he has disappointed us time and time again. The fact remains that a bunch of people who are more knowledgeable than I about the subject have determined that he poses a clear and present danger to the world, and while I am personally against taking life in general, since I believe lives aren't ours to take, I simultaneously believe something needs to be done to rectify the situation. Even if it means some lives will be lost.

And I'm from Texas. Guess that makes me a typical redneck hayseed gung-ho Bush yes-man who wants to blow up them dang Iraqis, huh? :rolleyes:

[Achernar]

No. Lobsang mentions "all other methods have been exhausted" as a given, but I don't buy it. If I did, I would have a different point of view. I also agree that the Hussein regime is evil, but war is not the only way to solve your problems.

And I'm from Massachusetts. I guess that makes me a typical, leftist, anarchist, bleeding-heart liberal who wants to give the world a big group hug, huh? :rolleyes:

Okay, I admit it. I am. :D

[ruadh]

In a word, no.

Maryland native living in Ireland.

[gouda]

Originally posted by TheLoadedDog
..... It boils down to whether one believes more lives will be lost by going to war, or by not going.......

Do nothing, and see what happens. From this, I can only infer that you approve the Bush policy of pre-emption. That's just scary. Plain and simple scary.

Using the 'what if' argument to decide whether you're going to go to war with a nation is just not right. This idea belongs in medievial times, and should remain there. And more so when it's the 'what ifs' that the Bush government is using. Nobody the world over is convinced of these arguments.

I used to admire the US for what it was. Now I'm afraid of what it's turning into.

And no, I'm not a peacenik. I want my country to bomb Pakistan out of the planet. It's been almost 15 years since the Kashmir issue became an issue, and since then my country has been living with the threat of terrorists from accross our western border. There's been enough of provocation from the Pakis, and enough of restraint calls from western governments. We've been too nice with the Pakis for far too long, and I want to see us at war.

Tell me something TheLoadedDog, how'd you like to see two nuclear powers go at it?? How many more Kashmiris need to die before the 'what ifs' begin to count???

[gouda]

Sorry, I meant to say, "How many more Kashmiris need to die before the West deems it okay for India to undertake some pre-emptive action of it's own?"

[ShadiRoxan]

i don't support this war, but to be fair, i don't support any war.

i agree with gouda. it's scary what the united states is turning into.

yes the regime in iraq is horrible, but that should be left to the people to get rid of. even the most repressive and violent regimes can be brought down with a revolution. it is the people's responsibility and right to do this, not the united states.

[Pablito]

I completely support our military and respect the soldiers who are out there risking their lives.

I completely reject the Bush administration and virtually every step it has taken to date. With so many actions and policies being geared toward U.S. isolationism and unilateralism, is it any wonder that the rest of the world (save Britain) has not been eager to join the U.S. in putting additional pressures on Iraq to fully comply with inspections, disarm, etc.? If Bush had spent the previous 2 years using all the tools of diplomacy and world consensus at his disposal, and if Iraq (Hussein) had still proved to be intransigent, then my feelings about the war might be different, and I might be persuaded that humanitarian and western safety reasons were sufficient for us to use force. However, that has not been the case. So, no, I'm against the war and worry that it will take decades for the U.S. to restore and repair its reputation in the world.

[Stellablue]

Hey I did not answer my own question! :)

No I do not support this war. Nor those who are fighting.

Boyo Jim, I was just trying to state it as simply as possible. Guess it is hard to write questions for polls. Rearrange a few words and you will get different results I am sure.
Let me hear from others.

Stellablue
South Carolina

[cornflakes]

If you work for Nielsen, "No comment. Restate the question."

If you're just asking me:
Yes I support the war; I live in the USA and pay taxes. I didn't want to go to war though and still wish that we weren't there. Also, I thank those serving in the US armed forces for doing so. They have my respect and that will not change, regardless of what the politicians decide to do.

[Johanna]

No! This war is wrong!

Virginia

[Steve Wright]

No.
I'm from exactly where it says on the left there.
Shouldn't have started without UN approval. And it seems likely to me that it will end, not with democracy in Iraq, but civil war - a situation in which human rights abuses and terrorist activity will be exacerbated, not reduced. So it doesn't seem to me that the war will accomplish what it set out to do (certainly, it will remove Saddam, but it will end up replacing him with someone just as bad.)

[Terrifel]

No.

American, living in the United States.

[Michael Ellis]

Let me elaborate:

Do I support this war since it will almost certainly rid Iraq of Saddam? Yes.

Is there reason to doubt the numerous official statements regarding the purpose of this war? Yes.

Do I think that the Bush administration seriously bungled their attempts to obtain support for this war? Hell yes.

[Weird_AL_Einstein]

Yes, emphatically, with or without UN authorization.

[TheLoadedDog]

Originally posted by gouda
Using the 'what if' argument to decide whether you're going to go to war with a nation is just not right. This idea belongs in medievial times, and should remain there. And more so when it's the 'what ifs' that the Bush government is using. Nobody the world over is convinced of these arguments.
Huh? Where is the "what if" component of my post? I am saying that crises like this one require thinking, decent human beings to be bold enough to make a judgement call:

- Yes, this situation is out of control, we need to use military force to stop it
or
-No, a war would cost more lives than it would save.

Sticking one's head in the sand is not an option.

Your post, sadly, reminds me of simliar attitudes held towards Nazi Germany in the 1930s.


And you attempt to retain credibility by testing me with a two nuclear powers at war scenario (but I thought you didn't like "what if" arguments), yet you want to "bomb Pakistan off the planet"? Well that's consitent. :rolleyes:

Aah, I see your posting from India. I'll assume you've not let emotion cloud your judgement.

Grow up.

To the OP, I apologise for prolonging the debate which has crept into this thread, against your wishes. Just bear in mind that my original post was comprised of my position on the war, and a brief outline of why I hold that position. I did not choose to hassle those posters holding an opossing opinion, yet one of them chose to attack me, so I responded. Sorry, once again, but I had little choice.

[5-HT]

yes. now. I opposed this war before it started. however, I'm a pragmatist, I felt that the result of this war would be negative. however, the war has started now, and stopping partway through would only make things worse. A convincing victory is the best possible remaining option.

[msmith537]

Short answer, "yes with a 'but'"..long answer "no with a 'however'".

[little lighthouse]

NO!
gouda andShadiRoxan echo my setiments...

FYI: Hussein and Bin Laden are 2 different worlds, not one in the same as some would have us believe.

And there are worst "Hitlers" out there- just take good look and Saudi Arabia or North Korea as examples... do we "rid" the world of all of them???

[AHunter3]

I support it ending with a rapid and decisive American defeat, if that were possible, preferably at the hands of a 761-nation Coalition of the Worried. I think that would be the best thing for America at this point, and probably for the world as a whole.

I've never so much felt like burning an American flag.

[Sublight]

Do I support this war? No.

War is definitely a solution. Sometimes, it's the best solution.

In this case, however, it's being handled so ham-fistedly that for every problem it manages to solve, another dozen are going to crop up. Had Bush and his administration been able to make a convincing case before the UN (in particular, getting the support of other Islamic nations) and set up a truly international force with some long-term goals, I would probably have supported this. As it is, I see it as an enormous mess in the making that will have negative repercussions for the US for years to come.

[Dunderman]

While I can see AHunter3's point, I'll have to go with yes. The current regime in Iraq must fall, and I can't see it happening without violence. Although this war is handled badly, fought for the wrong reasons and generally yucky, I still think it's better than not fighting it.

So put me down for a Swedish yes.

[yojimbo]

No!

Ireland

[TwistofFate]

No, but now that its started I want to see it ended as soon and as peacefully as possible, with a full UN mission to rebuild Iraq, and not just Haliburton's assets.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by AHunter3
I support it ending with a rapid and decisive American defeat, if that were possible, preferably at the hands of a 761-nation Coalition of the Worried. I think that would be the best thing for America at this point, and probably for the world as a whole.

I've never so much felt like burning an American flag. [/B]

Why don't you cry about it a little more.

[jjimm]

No!

English in Ireland.

What Twisty said (BTW Halliburton are out of the main running, but do qualify for sub-contracting).

[elfje]

no, do not support it.

flemish in Ireland.

[gouda]

Originally posted by TheLoadedDog
Huh? Where is the "what if" component of my post? I am saying that crises like this one require thinking, decent human beings to be bold enough to make a judgement call:

- Yes, this situation is out of control, we need to use military force to stop it
or
-No, a war would cost more lives than it would save.

Sticking one's head in the sand is not an option. Your implication was that if Iraq was not attacked now, the chances are that we, the world in general, will end up suffering for it sometime down the line. But you don't know that. Nobody knows that. It's an assumption. Based on information that IMO is tenuous, at best. That's all. It's the same as saying, 'what if we don't attack him now? How bad will that be for all of us 10 years from now?' Thats where I believe the 'what if' component of your post lies. However, if I'm wrong, then please accept my sincere apologies, and if you don't mind, explain where I went wrong.

And the situation was never 'out of control'. It was far from it. North Korea is still much closer to that line. But that's a whole other argument.

As for my attempt to 'retain credibility', your ignorance about the situation between India and Pakistan as it stands today is just sad. There is no 'what if' component to that argument any more. India and Pakistan have already been to war 3 times - each time, Pakistan was defeated by the Indian armed forces. You'd think a country would give up after the first time, or even the second time, wouldn't you? But noooo, there was a third time. And if that wasn't confounding enough, there was another nasty conflict in Kargil just 3 years ago, when the Pakis were pushed out, again.

Meanwhile, civilians and military personnel are being massacared on a daily basis in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, by what the Pakistani government calls 'freedom fighters', and to whom it continues to give what they like to call 'moral support'. However, it's no secret that almost every terrorist organisation that has claimed responsibility for attacks on Indian soil is based in Pakistan. The US government has acknowledged this and banned a host of them recently (I have no cites now, but I can find them if anyone wishes to see news reports). On the other hand, bombs are exploding in buses, in buildings (one 500 meters from my school), in train stations, in local trains - and this is just Bombay, and all in the past 5 months alone. Each time, a Pakistan-based terrorist group claims responsibility for the attack. This goes on throughout the entire country. And after every attack, the West advises us to restrain ourselves! Please understand though, that my anger is directed at the West and the current US administration in particular, and not at you, TheLoadedDog. I'm sorry it came out the way it did. But I'd just love to see the US, or anyone else, living what we're living and not do anything about it.

We are living the 'what ifs'. We've been living them for 15 years now. And I think it's enough. So yeah, I do want us to go to war and bomb Pakistan out of the planet. But nooo, when we wanna do it, pre-emption is wrong, and the world will be all over India, slapping a thousand sanctions before you can say 'who'syourdaddy'!

To the OP and TheLoadedDog, I apologise again. I never meant my last post to come out as an attack, or to turn this into a debate, or for this post to be so long, and I'm sorry that I did.

[clayton_e]

No. I don't believe there is proof enough to show that Iraq is a real threat to our nation. I also believe this invasion has ulterior motives, possibly oil, a chance for our president to get a legacy, or just to try and keep the whole "Can't find Osama even though we vowed to take him in" pushed into a corner.

I'm against the war.

[TheLoadedDog]

Hey there gouda. Thanks for your apology. That was cool. I'm happy to respond to your post, but I don't feel up to doing the whole GD thing, and the Pit certainly would be overkill. Will give this thread back to the OP, and I'll email you if that's ok.

[PhiloVance]

Yes.
California.

No political comment(s).

[burundi]

No.
North Carolina

[Dinsdale]

No
Chicago

[flapcats]

Looting:

"Beneath the dust, the imitation French Baroque furniture was painted gold. The palace had numerous swimming pools, and troops rifled through documents and helped themselves to ashtrays, pillows, gold-painted Arab glassware and other souvenirs of war."

Murder:

"Americans have twice been victimized by suicide bombers, and among the newly dead was an old Iraqi man. Disoriented and alone, he moved ahead with aid of his cane despite three warning shots. "After you give the final warning shot, shoot them dead," an officer ordered. The rifleman did."

[Cervaise]

Define "support."

Before it started, I totally opposed it.

Now that it's on, stopping would be worse than continuing (assuming it's finished in short order and hasn't expanded to neighboring countries; ask me again if the shooting hasn't stopped two months from now).

In short, I believe it's the worst foreign policy mistake since the end of World War II. But we have no choice, at this point, but to continue and desperately hope for the best.

The pronouncements coming out of the Bush Administration strike me as dangerous groupthink fantasies, and I shudder to think of how they're going to mishandle the aftermath. (Look at Afghanistan. Yes, that's right, that country we invaded and promised not to forget. Remember them?)

So, again, define "support."

[Stellablue]

Cervaise,
"Support" can best be seen in this instance as "advocate" or even "uphold." Maybe "agree with this policy" could have been used in the question. I was not trying to make it difficult or to trick anyone.
It seems to me that you took the question as I intended and gave a full answer. Even if my opinion (that this invasion was and is a very bad move) was taken to heart by the powers that be, it would be horrible to remove our troops at this time, as you say. I hope for peace in all countries and in every person.
Stellablue

[Sylkyn]

Yes.

Alabama.

[gouda]

Originally posted by TheLoadedDog
Hey there gouda. Thanks for your apology. That was cool. I'm happy to respond to your post, but I don't feel up to doing the whole GD thing, and the Pit certainly would be overkill. Will give this thread back to the OP, and I'll email you if that's ok. Please do. I'd like to know your opinion! My email address is listed.

[greenteeth]

100% Yes

Texas

[jehovah68]

No.
California

[Othersider]

...and, as I'm sure we all suspected, there seems to be a good deal of predictability as to whether we support the war or not. At least, for those of us in the United States...

[DrNick]

No.
Scotland.

Obviously I want the war won, by us, as soon as possible now that it's started. But there was no good reason not to wait that little bit longer to get far more support for the whole escapade. It's a PR war, and Bush's team don't seem to care about how they're perceived, in rather marked contrast to the somewhat hapless Blair.

[Othersider]

Originally posted by DrNick
Obviously I want the war won, by us, as soon as possible now that it's started. But there was no good reason not to wait that little bit longer to get far more support for the whole escapade. It's a PR war, and Bush's team don't seem to care about how they're perceived, in rather marked contrast to the somewhat hapless Blair. Just curious, do you really think that by waiting we would have garnered more support?

I'm of the opinion that nearly all the nations that would support the cause (before it started) expressed their support by the time it began, and that the proportion of nations that would later offer their support decreases as time goes on - such that, by now, let's say, pretty much everybody that's going to be on "our" side already is.

[DrNick]

Originally posted by Othersider
Just curious, do you really think that by waiting we would have garnered more support?

I'm of the opinion that nearly all the nations that would support the cause (before it started) expressed their support by the time it began, and that the proportion of nations that would later offer their support decreases as time goes on - such that, by now, let's say, pretty much everybody that's going to be on "our" side already is.

Yes, I really do. There was a lot of whining about how long it was taking to get people onside. Well, tough titty, that's international politics for you. France and Russia are eminently buyable (as are all governments). They just wanted a decent deal on the reconstruction rights IMO, which may turn out to be a small price to have paid if there is an alarming backlash to all this. China keep their heads down as always. With the veto members all on board only Syria would have been that fussed out of the Security Council. With a UN mandate the Western sympathetic Arab states would have felt much more comfortable about being on 'our' side. That's how I see it anyway.

[Typo Negative]

I do not support the war.
I live in California.

A week ago, I was listening to Bush address troops at a base. He spoke of bringing freedom to Iraq and ridding the world of tyranny. And dammit, I wanted to believe. But I cannot.

War is on the front page of pretty much every newspaper. What's not on the front page, and what is not being talked about much?

The economy. Budget crisis in lots of states. The rise in fuel prices, and how they're not coming down(and more importantly, how some people are making billions on it). Corporate scandals. Our sorry state of education. The fact the Osama Bin laden has eluded, and continues to elude us.

Wag the dog. Change the story, change the focus.

[Cervaise]

"We are at war with Eastasia. We have never been at war with Oceania."

[leroy_the_mule]

No. I do not support this war. And I don't know anyone in my area who thought it was a good idea.

This war is another one of our unelected president's personal ego trips, just like abandoning the ABM treaty, abandoning the Kyoto protocol, abandoning the World Court, walking out of the world conference on racism, bankrolling Israel's bullying of the Palestinians, bankrolling government attacks on dirt farmers in Colombia, and forgetting to include aid to Afghanistan in his budget. What an asshole!

Plowing the back forty in Wisconsin.