In general: 57%
If other countries participate in invading Iraq: 79%
If the United Nations supports invading Iraq: 79%
If Congress supports invading Iraq: 69%
If the United States has to invade Iraq alone: 38%
If the United Nations opposes invading Iraq: 37% If Congress opposes invading Iraq: 37%
So the question begs, what the fuck is wrong with 100 million Americans? Wake up and smell the crude oil you bunch of war mongering, propaganda believing assholes.
I’m amazed that number is so low. Since when have American’s given a fuck what congress has to say about something? Someone is either for the war or against it, congress has nothing to do with it.
Well, the power to declare war is, according to the Constitution, reserved to Congress, not the president. While something bad needs to happen to Saddam, like an embolism, the US has no business starting wars just because we don’t like a nation’s leader. Who do we attack next, Zimbabwe?
Dubya is perverting the just destruction of terror in to the warmongering we all thought we would do once in office. I can’t wait until 2004 to vote that bozo out, provided that the Supreme Court doesn’t decide to rig the system again, like suspend elections or declare Bush president for life.
I’m a little confused. If you think “war mongering, propaganda believing assholes” support a war against Iraq, why would it matter to you whether or not Congress passed a resolution? Would congressional OK turn war supporters into reasonable people in your eyes?
(At Free Republic, what someone does is they post a link to a poll, or a phone number or whatever-and then call in or post en masse to skew the results)
I support building a giant time machine and sending our troops back to 1998 when we SHOULD have bitch slapped Saddam back into line. He broke the conditions of his surrender, and needed to have those conditions placed back on his ass, using whatever force necessary.
I’m one of the 37%. Here’s why:[ol][]The question is quite hypothetical, since it appears that Congress will authorize military action within the next 2 or 3 weeks. []According to some attorneys, Congress has already authorized military action by the War Powers Act.Ultimately, the more important question is whether attacking Iraq is the right thing to do. If you think an attack is wrong, you would probably oppose it regardless of Congressonal of UN authorization. Since I think the attack is essential, I would support it even without further Congressional approval. However, I’m glad the President has asked Congress for (further) approval. It’s better that way.[/ol]What freaks me out is that same number, 37%, would support the attack if the UN opposes it. That seems to mean that the American public gives the UN the same weight as our own Congress in deciding America’s war policy. I don’t get that. Our Constitution doesn’t require UN approval. I didn’t vote for the UN representatives. I would give much greater weight to Congressional approval.
Nah, it’s a legit, professional survey…questions look good, sample only 1, 010 and phoned but there’s a 95% chance of it being 3%+/- accurate, so they argue. Looks okay to me.
Attack Iraq on the grounds of violated UN sanctions with a UN coalition
Remove support for “friendly despots” perceived as necessary to secure US oil interests
Redirect that support to moderate, non-violent Islamic organizations (yes they do exist)
Lock the Palestinians and Israelis in a room until they can agree on terms for a Palestinian state
Campaign to make Jerusalem an independent city state ala the Vatican, run by a board of trustees with equal representation from the three religions that lay claim to it
Take half the $40 billion Homeland Security budget and put it into education
In short do everything Bush wouldn’t
Anyone that wants to send 50,000 boys and girls a few thousand miles to fight a war that not even hawkish Republicans in congress want to fight are most assuredly war mongering assholes.
Pardon my continuing confusion. Your number one option is “Attack Iraq on the grounds of violated UN sanctions with a UN coalition.” So you would attack, but people who want to attack are war mongering assholes?
I still don’t see how the approval of Congress could make any difference in the asshole determination.
Bush is building congressional support to attack Iraq because he wants to deflect attention away from the flagging economy (and his and Cheney’s conflict of interest in handling corporate malfeasance), and the still present threat of massive domestic terror attacks. One could also make the case that the ungodly amount of oil buried beneath Iraq has something to do with it.
At this juncture I trust the UN more than Congress.
Your OP criticized people who want to go to war with Iraq without congressional approval. Then you said your first option would be to go to war with Iraq. Now it appears you’re saying you think we should go to war without congressional approval because Congress can’t be trusted.
I don’t we should go to Iraq with congressional approval only
I think we should go to Iraq with UN approval
Therefore I think anyone that wants to go to war without the approval of either is especially foolish (no offense, december), hence my dismay that over a third of Americans support that very thing.
I just read Scandal. One of Coulter’s points is that liberals often “debate” by calling conservatives dumb. So, no offense is taken. You are merely behaving in character.
I think you mean Slander. Charming woman that Ann Coulter. :rolleyes:
I didn’t call conservatives dumb nor would I. I’m sure a great many conservatives do not support an attack on Iraq without congressional approval. And, extremists lie on both sides of the fence.