MERGED-->FYM Election Poll - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Who will you be voting for, for US President?
Kerry 171 66.02%
Bush 74 28.57%
None. I'm a loser and won't vote. 4 1.54%
Other. I'm a loser too and would prefer to waste my vote on someone else in this tight race. 3 1.16%
Undecided between Bush and Kerry. 7 2.70%
Voters: 259. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-15-2004, 11:29 PM   #46
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,415
Local Time: 10:25 AM
116 votes in the Electoral College will be extraordinarily difficult to make up in the next 3 months, what with the extremely vast majority of voters already decided.
__________________

__________________
DaveC is online now  
Old 08-16-2004, 01:04 AM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveC
116 votes in the Electoral College will be extraordinarily difficult to make up in the next 3 months, what with the extremely vast majority of voters already decided.
Remember, this is only one view of the electoral college. Newsweek has a similar map that uses multiple polls in each state rather than just one like this website does. Because it uses multiple polls and takes the average, it is probably much more accurate.

Newsweek gives Bush 261 Electoral Votes and Kerry 277.

In addition, over 100 electoral votes could go either way at any time. These electoral votes come from states where there is really no lead at all by either candidate because the polling results continue to fall within the margin of error. Newsweek and the Website have simply given their best guess, largely based on polls which only show a percentage lead for either candidate in some states that still falls within the margin of error.

You really can't say a state is going for a certain candidate unless their leading by more than 5 percentage points on average in all polls, which would be above any margin of error. Based on that fact, Newsweek states that Bush had 211 Electoral Votes in the bag and Kerry has 207 Electoral votes in the bag.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 01:28 AM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:25 PM
True Battlegrounds May Be Across the Sea

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...verseas_factor


"Contrary to widespread belief, it was more likely American voters in Israel, not Florida, who put George W. Bush in the White House four years ago — a phenomenon that has Kerry's supporters in Israel vowing to do whatever it takes to make certain that doesn't happen again in November."


"After Labor Day, Republicans Abroad also plans campaign ads on the president's behalf in the International Herald Tribune and in Stars and Stripes, a newspaper with wide distribution among the estimated 300,000 to 400,000 U.S. military personnel serving abroad."

"Those who doubt that Americans living abroad could tip the balance in 2004 might consider this: Various chads aside, Al Gore (news - web sites) received 202 more votes than George W. Bush on Election Day 2000 in Florida. Only after all the overseas votes were counted, including more than 12,000 from Israel alone, was Bush's election victory certified. The margin was 537 votes."
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 01:49 AM   #49
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 08:25 AM
To summarize, it's impossible to say at this point who is going to win the next election.

I'm inclined to believe it will be George W. Bush because Americans in general are so ridiculously conservative.

What most Americans don't realize, however, is that the Republican Bush adminstration presently running the country is not a true representation of most Republicans and certainly not most Americans. The Bush administration is made up of members of the extreme right wing of the Republican party. Mindless right wing zealots, who believe that America should go back to being the "God-fearing Christian nation" it used to be.

If you don't believe me, watch Dick and Lynne Cheney's town hall meetings on C-Span or read the transcripts at GeorgeWBush.com


*edited for typo
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 02:14 AM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 09:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

All things considered, one cannot claim they got a bounce if they are now actually behind in a poll such as Gallup. The majority of polls that showed Kerry was ahead were still within the margin of error. Historically, a bounce is a clear increased lead beyond the margin of error.
.
Kerry is up by more than the margin of error in more than one poll, one of them is the Newsweek poll which had him up by 7, I think. Check pollingreport, he's ahead of the MOE.



Quote:
On the jobs issue, Bush had actually done very well. There is not another industrialized country in the world that has the GDP growth rate that the United States currently does.
[/B]
Bush has done very well so much that he is 2 1/2 months from the election and is over a million negative jobs in the bank. It's about perception. There isn't a worse job creation record in 50 years, since Hoover in fact.

Quote:
The Unemployment rate in the United States is exactly the same as it was when Bill Clinton was re-elected as president in 1996. It has fallen from 6.4% last year down to 5.5% currently. The United States currently has the 5th lowest unemployment rate in the World. Only Austria, Switzerland, Japan and the United Kingdom have lower unemployment rates.
The unempoyment rate is calculated by the number of UE benfits that are appiled for, and if those benefits have run out, then that person who either has a job or doesn't is counted the same. It's only a figure on who is getting benefits. Not to mention, if you made $20/hour before you got laid off and now you make $6/hour, you aren't represented in this statistic either as being adversly effected by the economy.


On Iraq, the insurgents only care about getting our soldiers out of their country, the terrorists will attack us if we had invaded India, it basically doesn't matter. The situation in Iraq will remain the same, and poltically the only thing that could change it either way is total removal of US troops. The insurgents are mostly Iraqi nationalists and Hussein loyalists with the terrorists just joining the battle.

Bush and Kerry are basically even in the national polls, but the electoral counts could shift on a moments notice. It will be close until November, right now, no incumbent has ever had the numbers that Bush has had and won, but this is a different election, there arent that many people who are just "undecided".
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 10:26 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:25 PM
Here is some polling information from CNN and the Pew Research center.




1. A majority of Americans approve of President Bush's job performance. President Bush's job approval in the Gallup poll is now at 51%, while his disapproval is at 46%, a net increase of 6 points since the beginning of August. His 51% approval is now almost identical to President Clinton's 52% in August 1996 and President Reagan's 54% in August 1984. As USA Today noted, "no president who has been at or above 50% at this point in an election year has lost."

2. After spending over $100 million in media, selecting a running mate, and holding a national convention, John Kerry has either stayed the same or lost ground on key presidential attributes

The Kerry campaign's main goal at the convention was to present John Kerry to the American people as a strong and decisive leader.

But we could do very important things [at the convention], particularly convince people that he would be a strong commander-in-chief.

-- Tad Devine, Kerry Campaign Senior Advisor, Inside Politics, 8/3/2004

The latest poll from the Pew Research Center shows that despite Kerry's convention fewer voters think that John Kerry is a strong leader and more voters think that he changes his mind too much.


3. The fundamentals of the horserace also remain unchanged. As shown in the recent Gallup and Pew polls, President Bush and John Kerry remain locked in a close race. Gallup shows President Bush essentially tied with John Kerry, 50% to 47% (unchanged since immediately after John Kerry was nominated in Boston), while Pew continues to show Kerry ahead by a statistically insignificant two points, unchanged since July.

4. Voters have increasingly favorable opinions of President Bush. The recent Pew survey also reported that 58% of voters now have a favorable opinion of President Bush, a net increase of 12 points since June, and the same as it was in May 2000. Since John Kerry locked up the Democratic nomination, President Bush's favorability has risen from a net +9 to a net +19, while John Kerry's favorability has fallen from a net +30 to a net +20.

5. John Kerry's support continues to be the most negative in recent history, while President Bush's continues to be the most positive. Just 42% of Kerry's supporters say their vote is "for" Kerry, while 51% say that it is "against" President Bush. Conversely, 76% of President Bush's supporters say that their vote is "for" him, while 18% say that it "against" Kerry. John Kerry's support continues to be the most negative of any presidential candidate since Pew began asking the question in 1988.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 10:55 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan


Kerry is up by more than the margin of error in more than one poll, one of them is the Newsweek poll which had him up by 7, I think. Check pollingreport, he's ahead of the MOE.





Bush has done very well so much that he is 2 1/2 months from the election and is over a million negative jobs in the bank. It's about perception. There isn't a worse job creation record in 50 years, since Hoover in fact.



The unempoyment rate is calculated by the number of UE benfits that are appiled for, and if those benefits have run out, then that person who either has a job or doesn't is counted the same. It's only a figure on who is getting benefits. Not to mention, if you made $20/hour before you got laid off and now you make $6/hour, you aren't represented in this statistic either as being adversly effected by the economy.


On Iraq, the insurgents only care about getting our soldiers out of their country, the terrorists will attack us if we had invaded India, it basically doesn't matter. The situation in Iraq will remain the same, and poltically the only thing that could change it either way is total removal of US troops. The insurgents are mostly Iraqi nationalists and Hussein loyalists with the terrorists just joining the battle.

Bush and Kerry are basically even in the national polls, but the electoral counts could shift on a moments notice. It will be close until November, right now, no incumbent has ever had the numbers that Bush has had and won, but this is a different election, there arent that many people who are just "undecided".
Economist and the United Nations also record what is called "long term" unemployment. Currently, that figure would only add 1% to the unemployment percentage total. Also, new employment figures do not record a new change to our economy in which many people have become self employed through the internet and other means.

Fact is, this is one of the lowest unemployment percentages of the past 30 years. That is an indisputable fact. The United States ranking in terms of standard of living remains virtually unchanged from the Clinton years according to the United Nations annual Human Development index report.

Unemployment currently stands at 5.5%. If it drops below 4.5%, people will again be talking about a labor shortage, be concerned about inflation, and the Fed will be increasing interest rates. The Fed has just increased interest rates, a sign that the economy is indeed doing well.

Pick up any weeks Economist and look at the GDP and Uemployment figures for the top 15 Industrialized nations and you will see that the United States is doing very well.

While Bush's polling data may be weaker at certain points than other incumbent presidents, his economic numbers are actually stronger. Can you name an incumbent president that was not re-elected with an unemployment rate of 5.5% or less?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-17-2004, 12:32 AM   #53
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 08:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Here is some polling information from CNN and the Pew Research center.




1. A majority of Americans approve of President Bush's job performance. President Bush's job approval in the Gallup poll is now at 51%, while his disapproval is at 46%, a net increase of 6 points since the beginning of August. His 51% approval is now almost identical to President Clinton's 52% in August 1996 and President Reagan's 54% in August 1984. As USA Today noted, "no president who has been at or above 50% at this point in an election year has lost."

2. After spending over $100 million in media, selecting a running mate, and holding a national convention, John Kerry has either stayed the same or lost ground on key presidential attributes

The Kerry campaign's main goal at the convention was to present John Kerry to the American people as a strong and decisive leader.

But we could do very important things [at the convention], particularly convince people that he would be a strong commander-in-chief.

-- Tad Devine, Kerry Campaign Senior Advisor, Inside Politics, 8/3/2004

The latest poll from the Pew Research Center shows that despite Kerry's convention fewer voters think that John Kerry is a strong leader and more voters think that he changes his mind too much.


3. The fundamentals of the horserace also remain unchanged. As shown in the recent Gallup and Pew polls, President Bush and John Kerry remain locked in a close race. Gallup shows President Bush essentially tied with John Kerry, 50% to 47% (unchanged since immediately after John Kerry was nominated in Boston), while Pew continues to show Kerry ahead by a statistically insignificant two points, unchanged since July.

4. Voters have increasingly favorable opinions of President Bush. The recent Pew survey also reported that 58% of voters now have a favorable opinion of President Bush, a net increase of 12 points since June, and the same as it was in May 2000. Since John Kerry locked up the Democratic nomination, President Bush's favorability has risen from a net +9 to a net +19, while John Kerry's favorability has fallen from a net +30 to a net +20.

5. John Kerry's support continues to be the most negative in recent history, while President Bush's continues to be the most positive. Just 42% of Kerry's supporters say their vote is "for" Kerry, while 51% say that it is "against" President Bush. Conversely, 76% of President Bush's supporters say that their vote is "for" him, while 18% say that it "against" Kerry. John Kerry's support continues to be the most negative of any presidential candidate since Pew began asking the question in 1988.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Er, Sting, every single assertion you've posted above is utterly obvious. You don't need a poll to tell you that this conservative America still worships a president who likes to bomb and kill people who are not white and Christian.

You certainly don't need a poll to tell you that Kerry is not a man of vision; that he is trying to be a more palatable version of George W. Bush.

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with your biased political slant.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 08-17-2004, 03:11 AM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler


Er, Sting, every single assertion you've posted above is utterly obvious. You don't need a poll to tell you that this conservative America still worships a president who likes to bomb and kill people who are not white and Christian.

You certainly don't need a poll to tell you that Kerry is not a man of vision; that he is trying to be a more palatable version of George W. Bush.

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with your biased political slant.
"President likes to bomb and kill people who are not white and Christian."

Do you honestly believe that?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-17-2004, 03:29 AM   #55
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:25 AM
Good Grief "President likes to bomb and kill people who are not not white and Christian", where is your evidence for the above statement.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-17-2004, 11:44 AM   #56
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 08:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


"President likes to bomb and kill people who are not white and Christian."

Do you honestly believe that?
I made a broad statement there and I don't believe it at absolute face value. Much of it comes from my anger towards this current administration for what I view as its unilateral invasion of Iraq, and the fact that people have been killed there - U.S. soldiers, Brits, Aussies, Iraqis, a lot of people - when they didn't have to be. In my opinion, this invasion never had to happen.

Some of it comes from the fact that the polls say that conservative Christians largely voted for Bush, and I believe they put a man in office who -- by invading Iraq -- has done something extremely immoral. Right wing Christians believe Bush to be what they call a "Godly man." Given his actions (i.e., the invasion), this perplexes me to no end. I also believe the invasion of Iraq will haunt us for years to come -- decades, even. We will experience terrorism on our own soil and it will be directly connected to the invasion and occupation.

Sting, I would have pretty much ignored the Bush administration this last four years if Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz hadn't decided to invade Iraq. I've been jaded a long time about politics in America. But with the invasion this administration has woken me up -- and made me very angry. I'm paying more attention to politics than I have in my entire life because of that one single issue.

By the same token, as much as I've criticized John Kerry, there is much that I like about him and I still may vote for him, but I've got to take him to task when I think it's warranted.

In any event, I'm sorry if you found my statement repugnant and/or offensive. My statement came from anger.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 08-17-2004, 08:47 PM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler


I made a broad statement there and I don't believe it at absolute face value. Much of it comes from my anger towards this current administration for what I view as its unilateral invasion of Iraq, and the fact that people have been killed there - U.S. soldiers, Brits, Aussies, Iraqis, a lot of people - when they didn't have to be. In my opinion, this invasion never had to happen.

Some of it comes from the fact that the polls say that conservative Christians largely voted for Bush, and I believe they put a man in office who -- by invading Iraq -- has done something extremely immoral. Right wing Christians believe Bush to be what they call a "Godly man." Given his actions (i.e., the invasion), this perplexes me to no end. I also believe the invasion of Iraq will haunt us for years to come -- decades, even. We will experience terrorism on our own soil and it will be directly connected to the invasion and occupation.

Sting, I would have pretty much ignored the Bush administration this last four years if Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz hadn't decided to invade Iraq. I've been jaded a long time about politics in America. But with the invasion this administration has woken me up -- and made me very angry. I'm paying more attention to politics than I have in my entire life because of that one single issue.

By the same token, as much as I've criticized John Kerry, there is much that I like about him and I still may vote for him, but I've got to take him to task when I think it's warranted.

In any event, I'm sorry if you found my statement repugnant and/or offensive. My statement came from anger.
#1 What would you have done about Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD per UN 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement? Realize that the United States and other countries had tried everything short of military invasion to resolve the problem peacefully over the past 12 years, but ultimately failed to achieve the objective.

#2 Considering that the planet depends on Persian Gulf Oil for its economy and standard of living, what would you have done to insure that Saddam would never be able to commit the his previous actions to include, the unprovoked invasion and attack of four different countries, threatening the planets energy supply with siezure or sabotage, threatening the planet with global economic depression and ruin, the murder of 1.7 million people to include Iraqi's and other people through out the Persian Gulf, thousands of Kuwaiti citizens continue to remain unaccounted for from Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the use of WMD more times than any other country in history, as a percantage of GDP the largest investment in the development of WMD, stringing out and playing games with an inspection process that was only supposed to take 2 years and ended up with the removal of UN inspectors and the prevention of the return for four full years, the refusal to account for thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, Sarin Gas and other WMD related material?

#3 Many people who opposed the war focused on the cost of it without ever considering the cost of not going to war? Based on the facts above, what do you think the cost of letting Saddam stay in power could potentially have been, both for the planet and the region as well as the Iraqi people, millions of whom had been murdered, raped, and tortured by that mans regime over the previous 24 years?

#4 What do you think of the fact that John Kerry and 75% of the United States Congress as well as the majority of the American people supported the use of military force to insure that Saddam was disarmed?

#5 So often, people mention "Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz" without mentioning George Bush's chief advisor on Foreign Policy, Colin Powell!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-18-2004, 12:59 AM   #58
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 08:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


#1 What would you have done about Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD per UN 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement? Realize that the United States and other countries had tried everything short of military invasion to resolve the problem peacefully over the past 12 years, but ultimately failed to achieve the objective.
I have every reason to believe that you’ve researched the relevant U.N. resolutions and the ceasefire agreement extensively and, as has been pointed out so often on this board, you have cited the resolutions time and time again. I am not going to look up the U.N. resolutions that you have cited (although I did read and re-read them when you first referenced them here back around the time that the invasion began). The resolutions have been debated here many times and I am not sure that anyone’s mind has been changed by those arguments. That said, I do understand that you believe you have an airtight argument with respect to the resolutions. My only response would be that I am not convinced that president Bush went to war solely due to Sadaam's non-compliance with resolutions. Remember that, according to CBS News, "Richard Clarke said that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan. Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld was joking."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in607356.shtml

Quote:
#2 Considering that the planet depends on Persian Gulf Oil for its economy and standard of living, what would you have done to insure that Saddam would never be able to commit the his previous actions to include, the unprovoked invasion and attack of four different countries, threatening the planets energy supply with siezure or sabotage, threatening the planet with global economic depression and ruin…
Why didn’t Sadaam sabotage the planet’s energy supply after Gulf War I? Wouldn’t you agree that if he could have he would have?

Quote:
…the murder of 1.7 million people to include Iraqi's and other people through out the Persian Gulf…
Again, I am convinced that the majority of westerners did not care about gassed Kurds or murdered Iraqis until it became convenient to do so. I never heard a word about Iraq’s oppressed peoples outside of the context of the U.S. going to war with Iraq….. and, to some degree, I seem to recall reading of discussion amongst certain groups (usually women) who were concerned about the treatment of women in Iraq. Sting, are you willing to assert that, between Gulf War I and II, there was a national debate/discussion of the atrocities committed by Hussein in Iraq??

Quote:
…thousands of Kuwaiti citizens continue to remain unaccounted for from Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the use of WMD more times than any other country in history, as a percantage of GDP the largest investment in the development of WMD, stringing out and playing games with an inspection process that was only supposed to take 2 years and ended up with the removal of UN inspectors and the prevention of the return for four full years, the refusal to account for thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, Sarin Gas and other WMD related material?
Okay, I hear ya, but Sting, the bottom line is, we were told we were going to war with Iraq because of an imminent threat. It turns out that, as best we can tell, there was no imminent threat. Those “thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, Sarin Gas and other WMD related material” apparently no longer exist, if they ever did.

The following text is taken from David Kay’s interim report:
[q]
“What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work? We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later…” http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair..._10022003.html[/q]

Kay’s doublespeak makes it sound as though his team had found significant evidence and yet, later in the report, he essentially said that they had not found any physical components of biological or nuclear weapons. Just “concealment efforts”… oh, and the burned remnants of computers which may or may not have been used as databases for destructive purposes.

You’ll recall that Kay later quit the Iraq Survey Group:

[q]In an interview with Reuters news agency after his resignation was announced, Mr Kay said he did not believe there had been large-scale production of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991. "I don't think they existed," Mr Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the 90s."
"I think we have found probably 85% of what we're going to find." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3424831.stm[/q]

Continuing with your points:

[q]
#3 Many people who opposed the war focused on the cost of it without ever considering the cost of not going to war? Based on the facts above, what do you think the cost of letting Saddam stay in power could potentially have been, both for the planet and the region as well as the Iraqi people, millions of whom had been murdered, raped, and tortured by that mans regime over the previous 24 years? [/q]
In answer to #3, please see my responses to #2 above.

Quote:
#4 What do you think of the fact that John Kerry and 75% of the United States Congress as well as the majority of the American people supported the use of military force to insure that Saddam was disarmed?
I’m not going to jump to Kerry’s defense here. Elsewhere on this forum I’ve stated my disagreement with his position on terrorism. As for the rest of congress, in my opinion many Democrats showed with their vote that they have no backbone. As for the American people, I concede that this is a conservative nation. I think Americans were duped by their president. I think Americans trusted their president and he played upon their fears of a terrorist attack.... of an imminent threat posed by Iraq.

Quote:
#5 So often, people mention "Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz" without mentioning George Bush's chief advisor on Foreign Policy, Colin Powell!
I’ll agree that Powell has managed to avoid a lot of scrutiny with respect to the invasion of Iraq.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 08-20-2004, 02:19 AM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:25 PM
pub crawler,

I think it would be wise to focus on US policy on Iraq from March 1991 to March 2003 instead of simply focusing on the Bush administration. In doing so, you will discover that there has been a consistent policy aimed at achieving the verifiable disarmament of Iraq per the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement. These efforts have gone through 4 Presidential administrations.

The United States and other member states of the UN have routinely bombed various targets in Iraq from 1991 to 2003 with varying levels of intensity in addition to the inspections, sanctions and embargo. The point here is there was not some new conflict that all of a sudden started when Bush Jr. became president.

In regards to Saddam sabotaging or siezing the planets oil supply, I remind you of his invasions and attacks on Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Did you have see what Kuwait looked like with all the oil wells on fire or what the oil spill do to the environment in the Persian Gulf back in 1991?

After Gulf War I, Saddam had just suffered a massive defeat and the loss of 2/3s of his military, and he was facing a revolt which he would successfully put down at home.

The fact is, Saddam had attempted to do these things which is why the internatinional community required in the resolutions that he verifiably disarm or face the use of military force to do just that.

One does not have the luxury of assuming that because dictator A did not attack last year or the year before that they would never attempt to attack. One has to base their security response on "past behavior" and "capability". Both proved that Saddam at any moment could launch more attacks. No one predicted that he would launch his invasions and attacks on Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Israel, so the idea that one could pretend that he would not invade or attack again is not supported by the evidence.

There absolutely was a debate about the atrocities being committed by Hussein on daily basis in Iraq between Gulf War I and Gulf War II. The United States had created an Iraqi government in Exile, had set up a protection zone for Kurds in Northern Iraq, were setting up and supporting small resistence groups to Saddam and were trying to peacefully help inspect the country to insure that Saddam's WMD was dismantled. People also debated about the effect of sanctions and the hardships the people in Iraq were experiencing, some said from Sanctions, others said from Hussein. So yes, the debate was there and been embraced by all sides even before Gulf War I.

The realities of the Cold War back in the 1980s, made military intervention by the United States in the Iran/Iraq war highly unlikely.

In regards to the "imminent threat" comments, the United Nations already determined back in March 1991 that Saddam and his possession of WMD was obviously and imminent threat to the region and the world. That is why Saddam was required to verifiably disarm of all the WMD or face renewed military action to do just that. At any time, Saddam could send his military into a neighboring country or launch WMD on missiles into other countries. Think, in most cases that is basicially what he often did while he was in power which is why the UN required that he be disarmed with military force if necessary.

Kay's group has offered a THEORY as to what happened to the WMD. They have not shown any evidence that proves their theory. The fact remains that Saddam has failed to verifiably disarm and account for thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, Sarin Gas and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells. The fact that Kays group did not find it does not mean the items don't exist. This is not Harry Potter, there is no magic wand to make these things disappear. It exist in one form or another, intact or dismantled. Fact is, no one knows what condition it is in or where it is. Saddam is required to let the world know. He didn't. That is why the invasion became a necessity.

By the way, Dr. Kay fully supports the military action to remove Saddam from power.

With a rap sheet like Saddam's, I do not know how any one would let Saddam get away with such an arsonal.



In light of the facts, you have yet to answer me in how you would have conducted any policy against Saddam, if at all.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-21-2004, 02:07 PM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:25 PM
Amazing! In perhaps the most anti-Bush place on the planet, FYM, Bush is closing in on the 30% mark in a poll here! I didn't think there was more than 10 people here that would vote for Bush and now there is 21, almost half of the number of votes for Kerry.
__________________

__________________
STING2 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 10:25 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