34% - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-24-2006, 02:38 PM   #106
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 08:13 AM
I think STING would be an awesome salesman. Like that potato peeler guy they wrote about in the new issue of Vanity Fair.

After reading his posts, I almost think that Bush's 33% approval rating is just peachy! Fabulous.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-24-2006, 03:02 PM   #107
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

Virtually every media organization reported on the protest of the 3rd anniversy of the war and what the key feature of the news was, was how poorly attended the events were. Such poor attendance would never have happened during the Vietnam War. In a country that is 50% larger in population today than it was during the days of Vietnam, such tiny numbers at protest are not a sign of a strong thriving anti-war movement. The numbers are tiny even compared to the protest 3 years ago at the start of the war, let alone what was seen during Vietnam when the country was clearly divided on the issue.


STING: there were no large protests planned on the 3rd anniversary of the war. hence, there were no large protests on the 3rd anniversary of the war.

what's so difficult about that to understand?

but go ahead, continue to slurp down that delicious Kool Aid.

large protests have been planned ever since 2002, and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people have shown up. i've been to three of them. and that's just in Washington DC.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-24-2006, 05:06 PM   #108
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:13 PM
I wonder how many people like me there are. I'd go to the D.C. demonstrations if I could afford to go. I can't. I support Pax Christi and other peace groups. I go to local demonstrations. There might be even more protesters if we could afford to go.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-24-2006, 05:44 PM   #109
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 08:13 AM
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/24/bush.poll/

Bush hits a new low - 32% approval rating.

How low can you go?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-24-2006, 05:48 PM   #110
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
How low can you go?


i believe it's statistically possible to go below 10%, though i believe Cheney's approval ratings are somewhere in the neighborhood of 18%.

and remember, there's a good 20% of the population that would love Bush even if he ate their children alive.

still, i think it's quite clear that the lack of anti-war protestors shows that his low approval ratings are not shared by a majority of Americans.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-24-2006, 05:50 PM   #111
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,987
Local Time: 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram

How low can you go?
Would only diamond being left register as a percentage?
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is online now  
Old 04-24-2006, 05:51 PM   #112
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen


Would only diamond being left register as a percentage?
Haha, how do you explain him losing STING's support?

I think Irvine is probably right - the absolute bottom is whatever support Cheney has. Those people will absolutely never change their mind.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-24-2006, 06:34 PM   #113
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




STING: there were no large protests planned on the 3rd anniversary of the war. hence, there were no large protests on the 3rd anniversary of the war.

what's so difficult about that to understand?

but go ahead, continue to slurp down that delicious Kool Aid.

large protests have been planned ever since 2002, and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people have shown up. i've been to three of them. and that's just in Washington DC.
Well, thats a rather convenient explanation for why there were so few people there. I guess its inconceivable that someone in a major city DID plan for a large protest but simply could not get enough people to come. If in fact no large protest was planned, perhaps its because they knew they could not attract the numbers they would like. How many 10,000 plus or 100,000 plus protest are planned in 2006 for any particular city against the Iraq war? What date do they plan to hold the protest and why on that date? I would think that the 3rd anniversary of the war would be the date most likely to attract the largest number of people as well as media attention in 2006. During the Vietnam War, you would never have a period so devoid of protest or numbers so small, 3 years into the war.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-25-2006, 01:00 PM   #114
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Well, thats a rather convenient explanation for why there were so few people there. I guess its inconceivable that someone in a major city DID plan for a large protest but simply could not get enough people to come. If in fact no large protest was planned, perhaps its because they knew they could not attract the numbers they would like. How many 10,000 plus or 100,000 plus protest are planned in 2006 for any particular city against the Iraq war? What date do they plan to hold the protest and why on that date? I would think that the 3rd anniversary of the war would be the date most likely to attract the largest number of people as well as media attention in 2006. During the Vietnam War, you would never have a period so devoid of protest or numbers so small, 3 years into the war.


yes, you are still incorrect. there were no large planned protests for the 3rd anniversary of the war; hence, there were no large protests, and it is not because they could not draw the numbers.

the reason why there wasn't a large protest organized was because many of the major organizing groups had recently split apart, and despite this lack of coordinated effor, you still had tens of thousands deomonstrating in San Francisco, New York, LA and Chicago mostly upon their own initiative. the DC marches are usually highly coordinated and draw people from all over the country, where as demonstrations in other cities are filled mostly with locals.

let's see ... last ralley i went to was in September 2005 in DC and there were estimated to be 150,000 people.

and we could go back to 2002, 2003, and 2004, and find similar numbers. as for 2006, i am aware that something is being held this weekend in both New York and in DC.

and, yes, it is inconceivable that someone planned a protest and couldn't get people to come. opposition to the Iraq War is widespread and deep, however the sense of crisis is different than it was in late 2002 and early 2003 when people thought they could prevent this debacle. now that it has happened, the focus is less on preventing a war and more on bringing troops home, and such a focus does not lend itself as easily to protest marches where the main point is to put bodies in the street to demonstrate opposition.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-25-2006, 02:06 PM   #115
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




yes, you are still incorrect. there were no large planned protests for the 3rd anniversary of the war; hence, there were no large protests, and it is not because they could not draw the numbers.

the reason why there wasn't a large protest organized was because many of the major organizing groups had recently split apart, and despite this lack of coordinated effor, you still had tens of thousands deomonstrating in San Francisco, New York, LA and Chicago mostly upon their own initiative. the DC marches are usually highly coordinated and draw people from all over the country, where as demonstrations in other cities are filled mostly with locals.

let's see ... last ralley i went to was in September 2005 in DC and there were estimated to be 150,000 people.

and we could go back to 2002, 2003, and 2004, and find similar numbers. as for 2006, i am aware that something is being held this weekend in both New York and in DC.

and, yes, it is inconceivable that someone planned a protest and couldn't get people to come. opposition to the Iraq War is widespread and deep, however the sense of crisis is different than it was in late 2002 and early 2003 when people thought they could prevent this debacle. now that it has happened, the focus is less on preventing a war and more on bringing troops home, and such a focus does not lend itself as easily to protest marches where the main point is to put bodies in the street to demonstrate opposition.
It was widely reported in the news that the numbers for any of the protest that occured were small, even for a city like San Francisco on the 3rd anniversy. During the Vietnam War, there was no need to for such a large organization to plan a protest with over a 100,000 people. Most protest could depend on the local population of a large city for the protest, there was no need for a highly cooridinated event drawing people from all over the country to produce such numbers. Since that is the case with the best numbers the Iraq anti-war movement has posted, it shows that its strength is even weaker than I thought.

Notice, I NEVER said that someone who would plan a protest would not be able to get people to come. I said they were not able to get ENOUGH people to come for it to be considered a large or even average size rally. That appears to have been the case based on most media reports from around the country on the 3rd anniversy.

In Vietnam, protest did not begin until after troops had been deployed. The focus was on bringing the troops home immediately. So to say that a focus on simply bringing the troops home cannot not translate into large numbers on the street is false. The largest anti-war protest ever held in this country were in fact conducted after several years of war with people trying to bring troops home.


So I guess this Monday, we will all be reading about the combined 200,000 people who marched in New York City and Washington DC this weekend. Oh, and the figure had better be from the police or other city officials, not some inaccurate pumped up figure from a protest organizer.

If opposition to the war were really as deep and widespread as you have claimed, it would have been impossible for George Bush to be re-elected President. In fact, he would have dropped out of the race 8 months in advance just like Lyndon Johnson did in 1968, as opposed to winning with the first majority for a President since 1988 and increasing his party's numbers in the House and Senate, a first for an incumbent president in half a century!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-25-2006, 02:39 PM   #116
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 08:13 AM
[q]It was widely reported in the news that the numbers for any of the protest that occured were small, even for a city like San Francisco on the 3rd anniversy. During the Vietnam War, there was no need to for such a large organization to plan a protest with over a 100,000 people. Most protest could depend on the local population of a large city for the protest, there was no need for a highly cooridinated event drawing people from all over the country to produce such numbers. Since that is the case with the best numbers the Iraq anti-war movement has posted, it shows that its strength is even weaker than I thought. [/q]


care to cite those numbers? also, is 1968 not a much different year than 2006? or do you only demand direct one-to-one historical comparisons if and when it suits your purposes ... this coming from someone who denies any possible comparisons to be made between Vietnam and Iraq.


[q]In Vietnam, protest did not begin until after troops had been deployed. The focus was on bringing the troops home immediately. So to say that a focus on simply bringing the troops home cannot not translate into large numbers on the street is false. The largest anti-war protest ever held in this country were in fact conducted after several years of war with people trying to bring troops home.[/q]


it's amazing that you're using Vietnam, widely considered the greatest American failure of the 20th century, as a measuring stick. i suppose you really do view Iraq as a quagmire analgous to Vietnam, and i also suppose you've overlooked the following protests:

January 16, 2002 -- over 200,000 in Washington DC alone
October 26, 2002 -- over 100,000 in Washington DC; 50,000 in San Francisco
January 18, 2003 -- over 200,000 in San Francisco
February 15, 2003 -- sets a world record for the largest protest in human history involving millions upon millions of people around the globe including the United States
March 15, 2003 -- 50,000 in Washington DC
March 29, 2003 -- 50,000 in Boston in the biggest protest in that city since Vietnam
April 12, 2003 -- 30,000 in Washington DC
October 25, 2003 -- "tens of thousands" in various cities across the US
October 17, 2004 -- 10,000 in Washington DC
January 20, 2005 -- thousands attend counter-inaugural rallies
September 24, 2005 -- 150,000 in Washington DC, 15,000 in LA, 20,000 in San Francisco, 2,000 in San Diego

and more to come. and i've only focused on protests that i could find hard numbers for. there have been dozens and dozens and dozens more in small cities and towns across the US demonstrating that this is by far the biggest anti-war movement since Vietnam.





[q]So I guess this Monday, we will all be reading about the combined 200,000 people who marched in New York City and Washington DC this weekend. Oh, and the figure had better be from the police or other city officials, not some inaccurate pumped up figure from a protest organizer. [/q]


we will see.


[q]If opposition to the war were really as deep and widespread as you have claimed, it would have been impossible for George Bush to be re-elected President. In fact, he would have dropped out of the race 8 months in advance just like Lyndon Johnson did in 1968, as opposed to winning with the first majority for a President since 1988 and increasing his party's numbers in the House and Senate, a first for an incumbent president in half a century![/q]

!

!!!
!!!
!!

STING, i dont' claim anything. the poll numbers both in reagards to the Iraq War as well as Bush's overall approval ratings are in the cellar.

[q]George W. Bush now receives the lowest marks of his Presidency, even on fighting terrorism, a measure that has long been his strongest suit. [...] Most Democrats and Independents disapprove. Bush’s overall job rating has tumbled, too, to an all-time low in this poll. It is now 34%, down from 42% last month. 59% disapprove. The previous low of 35% came last October, one month after Hurricane Katrina, shortly after the withdrawal of Harriet Miers from a Supreme Court nomination and just after U.S. deaths in Iraq reached the 2,000 mark. Not since November 2004 has a majority approved of the President’s overall performance.

PRES. BUSH JOB APPROVALS
Now 1/2006 10/2005 11/2004
Overall 34% 42% 35% 51%
Iraq 30% 37% 32% 40%
Economy 32% 39% 34% 42%
Energy 27% -- -- --

Ratings for the President’s handling of the Iraq war have also plummeted, to their all-time low of 30%.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_bush_022706.pdf

[/q]

and that was in February!

it's also amazing that you are, again, comparing Bush to LBJ!

you've admitted much more than you think!
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-25-2006, 03:31 PM   #117
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
[q]It was widely reported in the news that the numbers for any of the protest that occured were small, even for a city like San Francisco on the 3rd anniversy. During the Vietnam War, there was no need to for such a large organization to plan a protest with over a 100,000 people. Most protest could depend on the local population of a large city for the protest, there was no need for a highly cooridinated event drawing people from all over the country to produce such numbers. Since that is the case with the best numbers the Iraq anti-war movement has posted, it shows that its strength is even weaker than I thought. [/q]


care to cite those numbers? also, is 1968 not a much different year than 2006? or do you only demand direct one-to-one historical comparisons if and when it suits your purposes ... this coming from someone who denies any possible comparisons to be made between Vietnam and Iraq.


[q]In Vietnam, protest did not begin until after troops had been deployed. The focus was on bringing the troops home immediately. So to say that a focus on simply bringing the troops home cannot not translate into large numbers on the street is false. The largest anti-war protest ever held in this country were in fact conducted after several years of war with people trying to bring troops home.[/q]


it's amazing that you're using Vietnam, widely considered the greatest American failure of the 20th century, as a measuring stick. i suppose you really do view Iraq as a quagmire analgous to Vietnam, and i also suppose you've overlooked the following protests:

January 16, 2002 -- over 200,000 in Washington DC alone
October 26, 2002 -- over 100,000 in Washington DC; 50,000 in San Francisco
January 18, 2003 -- over 200,000 in San Francisco
February 15, 2003 -- sets a world record for the largest protest in human history involving millions upon millions of people around the globe including the United States
March 15, 2003 -- 50,000 in Washington DC
March 29, 2003 -- 50,000 in Boston in the biggest protest in that city since Vietnam
April 12, 2003 -- 30,000 in Washington DC
October 25, 2003 -- "tens of thousands" in various cities across the US
October 17, 2004 -- 10,000 in Washington DC
January 20, 2005 -- thousands attend counter-inaugural rallies
September 24, 2005 -- 150,000 in Washington DC, 15,000 in LA, 20,000 in San Francisco, 2,000 in San Diego

and more to come. and i've only focused on protests that i could find hard numbers for. there have been dozens and dozens and dozens more in small cities and towns across the US demonstrating that this is by far the biggest anti-war movement since Vietnam.





[q]So I guess this Monday, we will all be reading about the combined 200,000 people who marched in New York City and Washington DC this weekend. Oh, and the figure had better be from the police or other city officials, not some inaccurate pumped up figure from a protest organizer. [/q]


we will see.


[q]If opposition to the war were really as deep and widespread as you have claimed, it would have been impossible for George Bush to be re-elected President. In fact, he would have dropped out of the race 8 months in advance just like Lyndon Johnson did in 1968, as opposed to winning with the first majority for a President since 1988 and increasing his party's numbers in the House and Senate, a first for an incumbent president in half a century![/q]

!

!!!
!!!
!!

STING, i dont' claim anything. the poll numbers both in reagards to the Iraq War as well as Bush's overall approval ratings are in the cellar.

[q]George W. Bush now receives the lowest marks of his Presidency, even on fighting terrorism, a measure that has long been his strongest suit. [...] Most Democrats and Independents disapprove. Bush’s overall job rating has tumbled, too, to an all-time low in this poll. It is now 34%, down from 42% last month. 59% disapprove. The previous low of 35% came last October, one month after Hurricane Katrina, shortly after the withdrawal of Harriet Miers from a Supreme Court nomination and just after U.S. deaths in Iraq reached the 2,000 mark. Not since November 2004 has a majority approved of the President’s overall performance.

PRES. BUSH JOB APPROVALS
Now 1/2006 10/2005 11/2004
Overall 34% 42% 35% 51%
Iraq 30% 37% 32% 40%
Economy 32% 39% 34% 42%
Energy 27% -- -- --

Ratings for the President’s handling of the Iraq war have also plummeted, to their all-time low of 30%.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_bush_022706.pdf

[/q]

and that was in February!

it's also amazing that you are, again, comparing Bush to LBJ!

you've admitted much more than you think!
Well, the fact that the protest are so much weaker for the Iraq war than for the Vietnam war is in fact another reason why there is little if any comparison between the two wars as far as being similar.

Vietnam is one of the only wars in US history that had significant public opposition to it. There for, it is a measuring stick when it comes looking at the size of opposition to any war.

Claiming that this is the biggest anti-war movement since Vietnam does not really tell us anything since the level of sustained anti-war activity against any other US military action since the early 1970s has been tiny.

Where do your "hard numbers" come from for the size of those protest? Since the war started over 3 years ago, your list only has a total of 5 protest.


The poll numbers for Bush's approval rating as well as the Iraq War are largely irrelevant. They have not changed policy nor will they while Bush is in office. A poll of a thousand people is nothing compared to an election where 130 million people go out and VOTE!

LBJ is the only President that faced an election with true massive opposition to a war. The opposition was such that he felt he could not win re-election. The reason I compare Bush to that situation is to point out that there has yet to be relevant and significant opposition to the President and his policies. Perhaps this will change in November 2006, but right now the Democrats only have a shot at taking back the House, but not the Senate. Even if the Democrats win back the House in November, its not likely to be by a large margin, which would make it difficult to make the case that the victory was the result of some sudden mass opposition to the war in Iraq. Then again, the Democrats may not take anything back in November, which will make todays Democrat politicians and officials the biggest laughing stock in US political history.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-25-2006, 03:45 PM   #118
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
[B]Well, the fact that the protest are so much weaker for the Iraq war than for the Vietnam war is in fact another reason why there is little if any comparison between the two wars as far as being similar.

then you should probably stop comparing when it is convenient for you, and then debate comparisons when it is inconvenient for you. i think there are historical paralles to be drawn, history does tend to repeat itself but never in the same way.


[q]Vietnam is one of the only wars in US history that had significant public opposition to it. There for, it is a measuring stick when it comes looking at the size of opposition to any war. [/q]


and therefore, we have the 2nd most unpopular war in US history.


[q]Where do your "hard numbers" come from for the size of those protest? Since the war started over 3 years ago, your list only has a total of 5 protest. [/q]


wikipedia. and go re-count those protests -- i count 15 in that extremely abbreviated list alone. and i also count personal experience having been to three of them and i would be going this weekend but i have volunteered to do a neighborhood clean up with the Alexandria Gay and Lesbian Community Association.


[q]The poll numbers for Bush's approval rating as well as the Iraq War are largely irrelevant. They have not changed policy nor will they while Bush is in office. A poll of a thousand people is nothing compared to an election where 130 million people go out and VOTE![/q]


so now we're changing our tune. first it was, "no, there is no widespread opposition to the war!" now, that you see you were inaccurate, it's, "no, the widespread opposition to the war is irrelevant."

if an election were held today, do you really think Bush would still be in office?

and ultimately, i think it's really, really poor thinking on your part to use numbers from an anti-war ralley to act as the only way to determine how popular a war is with the American people. it is a great way to measure how many people are willing to march, but it is not a good way to measure popular opinion. as i've shown you above, the poll numbers on Iraq are in the basement; there is a vibrant and healthy anti-war movement that's truly global. however, we are never going to see protests the size of Vietnam for many, many reasons, not least of which is the fact that there is no draft and the fact that the military has done a terrific job minimizing access journalists are able to get in comparison to the carnage that came into every living room during Vietnam. also, the right wing has done a great job attempting to paint anyone who demonstrates as little better than their insipid boogeyman "hanoi jane" -- this is fading with time, but Vietnam does cast a long shadow.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-25-2006, 05:27 PM   #119
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



then you should probably stop comparing when it is convenient for you, and then debate comparisons when it is inconvenient for you. i think there are historical paralles to be drawn, history does tend to repeat itself but never in the same way.


[q]Vietnam is one of the only wars in US history that had significant public opposition to it. There for, it is a measuring stick when it comes looking at the size of opposition to any war. [/q]


and therefore, we have the 2nd most unpopular war in US history.


[q]Where do your "hard numbers" come from for the size of those protest? Since the war started over 3 years ago, your list only has a total of 5 protest. [/q]


wikipedia. and go re-count those protests -- i count 15 in that extremely abbreviated list alone. and i also count personal experience having been to three of them and i would be going this weekend but i have volunteered to do a neighborhood clean up with the Alexandria Gay and Lesbian Community Association.


[q]The poll numbers for Bush's approval rating as well as the Iraq War are largely irrelevant. They have not changed policy nor will they while Bush is in office. A poll of a thousand people is nothing compared to an election where 130 million people go out and VOTE![/q]


so now we're changing our tune. first it was, "no, there is no widespread opposition to the war!" now, that you see you were inaccurate, it's, "no, the widespread opposition to the war is irrelevant."

if an election were held today, do you really think Bush would still be in office?

and ultimately, i think it's really, really poor thinking on your part to use numbers from an anti-war ralley to act as the only way to determine how popular a war is with the American people. it is a great way to measure how many people are willing to march, but it is not a good way to measure popular opinion. as i've shown you above, the poll numbers on Iraq are in the basement; there is a vibrant and healthy anti-war movement that's truly global. however, we are never going to see protests the size of Vietnam for many, many reasons, not least of which is the fact that there is no draft and the fact that the military has done a terrific job minimizing access journalists are able to get in comparison to the carnage that came into every living room during Vietnam. also, the right wing has done a great job attempting to paint anyone who demonstrates as little better than their insipid boogeyman "hanoi jane" -- this is fading with time, but Vietnam does cast a long shadow.
The comparison is not done because it is convenient, but because there is nothing to really compare it to but Vietnam since that is the only war that had significant anti-war protest in US history.

It is indeed correct to say that this is the second most unpopular war in US history, but that does not mean it is on the same level as Vietnam. Opposition to the war has not changed US policy in Iraq in any way.

As for the number of protest since the start of the war on March 19, 2003, your list has 6 dates and 9 cities.

I stated that their is no relevant or significant opposition to the war. The polls are irrelevant in that regard and are by themselves not proof of widespread opposition to the war.

If an election were held today, I think that Bush would still be in office. I think the poll numbers overstate the level of disapproval in the country. Poll numbers go up and down, and Democrats should be prepared to see Bush's numbers rise again.

I don't think looking at anti-war ralleys is the only way to measure anti-war feeling in the country, but it is a significant indicator.

The poll numbers you have posted don't add up to anything though. They have not changed policy at all in regards to Iraq. Elections are important and they can have an impact on policy.

There is currently not a draft because there is simply no need for a draft given the current military commitments. The United States has 2,700,000 troops on active duty and in the Reserves. Of that number, 160,000 are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In terms of actual ground combat units, 21 Brigades out of a total of 88 are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, less than 25% of the force.

In some ways, Journalist have more access to information today than they did in the days of Vietnam. In addition, technology has allowed for reporting in ways that no one ever saw in Vietnam. The level of carnage you see is less, not because its not being reported, but because the level of carnage really is less than Vietnam.

For example, in 1968, the United States lost 16,500 troops in Vietnam. Nearly 100,000 US troops were wounded in 1968. South Vietnamese and coalition forces suffered the same number of casaulties. North Vietnamese and Vietcong troop deaths were over 300,000. Civilian deaths were well over 100,000. All of this for just one year. Nothing in Iraq remotely approaches this level.

With international media and the internet, the average person can see and read things that the major news networks don't show. A much smaller number of people today get their news from the major news networks than they did back in the 1960s when it was really the only option. In the days of Vietnam, it would sometimes take days for a newstory to make back to the United States. Now the media often reports Live video of combat as it happens! Military personal communicate with their family and friends at home at the click of a mouse through the internet as well as sending pictures that the media never report. Many have been able to view actual combat footage recorded by helicopters, tanks and other vehicles that is common and often taken home by US troops for their personal records of their time in Iraq. If that wasn't enough, the terrorist and insurgents record nearly all of their big horrific bomb attacks from attacking a vehicle, killing a single individual, to blowing up large area's or buildings. They then post it on the internet for anyone to view.

Add up all the video that has been used to record events in Iraq, whether its the US military, some media outlet from any country, or insurgents and terrorist, and there has probably never been a war that has been this well recorded and broadcast so quickly around the world than any war in history.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-25-2006, 05:56 PM   #120
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
[B] As for the number of protest since the start of the war on March 19, 2003, your list has 6 dates and 9 cities.
1. January 16, 2002 -- over 200,000 in Washington DC alone
2, 3. October 26, 2002 -- over 100,000 in Washington DC; 50,000 in San Francisco
4. January 18, 2003 -- over 200,000 in San Francisco
5. February 15, 2003 -- sets a world record for the largest protest in human history involving millions upon millions of people around the globe including the United States
6. March 15, 2003 -- 50,000 in Washington DC
7. March 29, 2003 -- 50,000 in Boston in the biggest protest in that city since Vietnam
8. April 12, 2003 -- 30,000 in Washington DC
9. October 25, 2003 -- "tens of thousands" in various cities across the US (and that's being generous, since we have many, many cities)
10. October 17, 2004 -- 10,000 in Washington DC
11. January 20, 2005 -- thousands attend counter-inaugural rallies
12, 13, 14, 15. September 24, 2005 -- 150,000 in Washington DC, 15,000 in LA, 20,000 in San Francisco, 2,000 in San Diego


[q]I stated that their is no relevant or significant opposition to the war. The polls are irrelevant in that regard and are by themselves not proof of widespread opposition to the war.[/q]

you stated that opposition to the war was neither deep nor widespread. the continuation of the anti-war movement in combination with division amongst the Republicans as well as abysmal poll numbers on the presendent's handling of Iraq (let alone his overall performance rating) demonstrates that opposition to the war is both deep and widespread, and i would point to the massive shift amongst independents AWAY from Bush, and please not that in the most recent polls, 49% of the country strongly disapproves of Bush.

there's really not much to be debated here. the only reason that Bush hasn't totally changed course on Iraq is because that would be an admission of failure.



[q]If an election were held today, I think that Bush would still be in office. I think the poll numbers overstate the level of disapproval in the country. Poll numbers go up and down, and Democrats should be prepared to see Bush's numbers rise again.[/q]

the poll numbers have gone nowhere but down since November 2004. what happened to the mandate? what happened to the "majority" electing Bush in 2004 that you always punctuate with so many exclamation points?


[q]The poll numbers you have posted don't add up to anything though. They have not changed policy at all in regards to Iraq. Elections are important and they can have an impact on policy.[/q]


haven't changed at all?

[q]PRES. BUSH JOB APPROVALS
Now 1/2006 10/2005 11/2004
Iraq 30% 37% 32% 40%[/q]



[q]There is currently not a draft because there is simply no need for a draft given the current military commitments. The United States has 2,700,000 troops on active duty and in the Reserves. Of that number, 160,000 are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In terms of actual ground combat units, 21 Brigades out of a total of 88 are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, less than 25% of the force.[/q]

yes, which is why you don't see the same numbers on the streets as you did in 1968. if there WERE a draft, you'd see protest rallies far above and beyond what happened in 1968.

the rest is your usual cut-and-paste irrelevancies.


[q]The level of carnage you see is less, not because its not being reported, but because the level of carnage really is less than Vietnam.[/q]

when it comes to American troops, yes; not at all when it comes to Iraqi casualties.

but still, we do not see body bags of American soldiers. we do not see coffins. the administration has done everything it can to insulate the American public from the realities of this war.

however, i work just up the street from Walter Reed, so i get to see 20 year olds in wheel chairs or missing limbs having lunch at Pot Belly or Panera every day.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com