34%

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
STING2 said:

The current polls are entertaining for liberals, but thats about the extent of their significance.


the republicans facing re-election in 2006 certainly view the current polls as significant as they beg the White House to look as if it's changing course and shaking up its staff, seek to distance themselves from Bush himself, and try to separate themselves from the Iraq debacle. it also affects Bush's effacacy in getting his legislation passed in the House.
 
STING2 said:


He already won the only poll that was relevant, the 2004 election. You can talk about this weeks poll, next months poll or next year's poll, but he will still be President carrying out his policies. The current polls are entertaining for liberals, but thats about the extent of their significance.

Are these writings are therapeutic?
 
STING2 said:


He already won the only poll that was relevant, the 2004 election. You can talk about this weeks poll, next months poll or next year's poll, but he will still be President carrying out his policies. The current polls are entertaining for liberals, but thats about the extent of their significance.

It's a signifigant number when you start losing your base in such a manner, you should know this. 33% for Bush from a Fox News poll is beyond horrible.

How on earth is Bush's policy going to be carried out by a bunch of politicians running away from him like he has the plague?
 
nbcrusader said:
So, given the poll trends, we should see significant Democratic gains in both houses this fall.

Haha, well let's see the quality of candidates the Dems roll out this time around, my money is still on the Reps holding it down. I see Bush as the abberation to the camp, a complete bufoon that most smart conservatives and Republicans are distancing themselves from, eventually he'll be as 'lame duck' as you can get.

In fact, that will be the secret to success for the Reps in '06 or even '08. Run away from the worst President of any of our lifetime. It's not hard to figure out if someone is willing to just try and be objective. The Reps could save still face, I don't think it's that big of a deal yet, they just need to say "this isn't the type of policy and competency we are all about".

According to these same poll trends, Republicans have given a higher approval rating to congress, so I still think the Dems are fighting more than an uphill battle.

That said, according to Gallup, these are the worst congressional approval ratings since, you guessed it, 1994, when the last shift of power occured.

Which going back to what Sting was saying, is even more evidence that these new approval ratings are important. Because this is their opportunity to step back from the mistakes and start working towards favorability, they can't do it backing Bush, everyone left on his bandwagon is blinded by loyalty or stupidity.
 
U2DMfan said:


Haha, well let's see the quality of candidates the Dems roll out this time around, my money is still on the Reps holding it down. I see Bush as the abberation to the camp, a complete bufoon that most smart conservatives and Republicans are distancing themselves from, eventually he'll be as 'lame duck' as you can get.

In fact, that will be the secret to success for the Reps in '06 or even '08. Run away from the worst President of any of our lifetime. It's not hard to figure out if someone is willing to just try and be objective. The Reps could save still face, I don't think it's that big of a deal yet, they just need to say "this isn't the type of policy and competency we are all about".

According to these same poll trends, Republicans have given a higher approval rating to congress, so I still think the Dems are fighting more than an uphill battle.

That said, according to Gallup, these are the worst congressional approval ratings since, you guessed it, 1994, when the last shift of power occured.

Which going back to what Sting was saying, is even more evidence that these new approval ratings are important. Because this is their opportunity to step back from the mistakes and start working towards favorability, they can't do it backing Bush, everyone left on his bandwagon is blinded by loyalty or stupidity.

So your saying I'm loyal or stupid, which is it?:wink:

But on to the relevance of these polls and Bush carrying out his policy. How have the current polls impacted Bush's foreign policy and his ability to carry it out? How have the current polls impacted Bush's policy in Iraq and Afghanistan?

How many Republicans have abandoned Bush on Iraq and what have they been able to do to change policy either there or in Afghanistan?

The fact is, Congress continues to pass all of his spending bills for both wars. A bill was introduced calling for the immediate withdrawal of US troops and it was crushed.


Its true that the Historic support that Bush has had previously from Congress may not be there to that degree anymore, but he does not need that level of support to carry out his Foreign Policy.

After Bush's first two years in office, the public went to the election booths in November of 2002, and gave the Republican party a boost in both houses of Congress. In most mid-term elections, the party in the White Houses loses seats in both houses.

Even more historic was the fact that Bush picked up seats in both houses of Congress during the 2004 election. The last time an incumbent president picked up seats in both houses of congress in their run for re-election was a half century ago. As for the 2004 election, this was the first election in which a president won by a solid majority since 1988. You may think he is the worst President of the past several decades, but those elections results do not indicate that the American public agrees with you.

As for this year, I don't see the Republican Congress adopting a platform that rejects or goes against Bush in Iraq, Afghanistan, or his overall Foreign Policy. When it comes to supporting spending for his projects in these area's, the support is still there.

In regards to Bush's most important objectives for his second term, I don't see anywhere where low poll numbers or the fact that some congressman may have distance themselves from him, have significantly impacted the votes on the key issues in congress in regards to supporting these objectives.

For there to be a significant impact on Bush's policies, control in congress would first have to change. Even then, its unlikely that the Democrats could stop Bush from carrying out his most important policies. Democratic majorities in both houses did not stop Reagan or Bush Sr., and is a sign of the Democrats historic lack of unity.

As for the 2006 elections, the Senate will remain in Republican control. The Democrats have a shot at retaking the House, but thats it. The Democrats have been talking up these poll numbers for so long now, that if they do not retake the House in November, it will be seen as a major defeat for them. At that point, Bush will have two more years in office before McCain starts his 8 years in the White House.
 
STING2 said:


So your saying I'm loyal or stupid, which is it?:wink:

But on to the relevance of these polls and Bush carrying out his policy..........

Well, I don't think your stupid, so I'll say loyal to a fault.
That's not the worst quality in the world to have, but it can be difficult to converse with. :wink:

We're not going to see eye to eye on this issue, Bush is almost infallable to you, clearly I can't reach someone who beleives this.

I'm talking about the future, elections, policy both domestic and foreign, all of it. And you are talking about war policy. Because foreign policy with little to no diplomacy is really just war policy.
And he can further that because he has the executive power to do so. So it's not a straw in his cap on that alone, nevermind it's failures.

So I'll leave it there. Have a nice weekend.
 
U2DMfan said:


Well, I don't think your stupid, so I'll say loyal to a fault.
That's not the worst quality in the world to have, but it can be difficult to converse with. :wink:

We're not going to see eye to eye on this issue, Bush is almost infallable to you, clearly I can't reach someone who beleives this.

I'm talking about the future, elections, policy both domestic and foreign, all of it. And you are talking about war policy. Because foreign policy with little to no diplomacy is really just war policy.
And he can further that because he has the executive power to do so. So it's not a straw in his cap on that alone, nevermind it's failures.

So I'll leave it there. Have a nice weekend.

There has been a lot of diplomacy despite what critics may say. Most foreign troops in Afghanistan at the moment are not American, their from other NATO nations. Its really impossible to seperate what you refer to as war policy and diplomacy. The United States is actively involved in hunting Al Quada all over the world with the help of foreign intelligence and security agencies worldwide. The United States has continued to work with other countries on international trade matters through the WTO as well as individually. Bush just met with China's President although there were no major accomplishments on disputes in regard to the trade balance and China's markets and currency. Not a surprise though since progress tends to be more gradual than sudden in regards to those matters.

Lets remember though that the office of President in the United States is really a foreign policy position in terms of the level of influence the President has vs domestic policy. The chief goals of the President involve Foreign Policy. The country is in a middle of a war right now, and that trumps any domestic issue period. You are correct in bringing out the point that the President can further these things to a great degree simply because of his executive power, which simply supports my point that the weekly poll of 1,000 people showing Bush's rating at this percentage is simply irrelevant.
 
Yep, we understand that if Congress funds it, the President can do pretty much what he wants to do with foreign policy for the next several years, whether the people he serves want him to do it or not.

I think there is probably an increasing perception that Iraq is the President's war, not America's. We're just paying for it.
 
BonosSaint said:
Yep, we understand that if Congress funds it, the President can do pretty much what he wants to do with foreign policy for the next several years, whether the people he serves want him to do it or not.

I think there is probably an increasing perception that Iraq is the President's war, not America's. We're just paying for it.

If the American public is really that strongly against the war, there are things they can do, and congress with enough support could indeed cut off the funding for the war. But that level of support simply does not exist. On the third anniversy of the war, many large cities in America only had a few hundred people marching against the war.
 
Lack of street protest doesn't mean full on support of the war. I don't do street protests because on the whole, I think they are a waste of time and energy. I find other forms of dissent more effective. I'm sure others would reasonably disagree with me. But I think a good amount of Americans have just disattached themselves from the war.
 
So nobody who voted for Bush regrets it or has changed his/her mind about him? Not even any conservative Republicans?

Yes he got the job but the public's negative opinion of that job certainly doesn't just consist of "liberals". He got the job but his job performance is sorely lacking.

That's like saying Sting that "I got the job but my bosses evaluation of my performance doesn't matter". As far as I'm concerned we are all still Bush's bosses, even though he doesn't seem to think so.
 
Last edited:
STING2 said:

On the third anniversy of the war, many large cities in America only had a few hundred people marching against the war.



funny, the protests i've been to have had tens of thousands of people. of course, they were organized months in advance.

could it be that nothing was officially organized on that specific day? could it be that using the lack of protests as an example is completely and totally misleading and inaccurate as well as throughly irrelevant? does this draw into question the rest of your "facts" about the war as well as the ultra-convenient, blinkered "conclusions" as well? where are the pro-war demonstrations? where was the re-enacement of the toppling of the statue of Saddam on that's third anniversary? it was well stage-managed for the cameras back in 2003, why coudln't they have done the same thing in 2006 in Washington DC? are we to read the lack of any pro-war demonstrations or celebrations as an indication that the level of support you (and, perhaps, only you) believe exists in the United States?
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:




funny, the protests i've been to have had tens of thousands of people. of course, they were organized months in advance.

could it be that nothing was officially organized on that specific day? could it be that using the lack of protests as an example is completely and totally misleading and inaccurate as well as throughly irrelevant? does this draw into question the rest of your "facts" about the war as well as the ultra-convenient, blinkered "conclusions" as well? where are the pro-war demonstrations? where was the re-enacement of the toppling of the statue of Saddam on that's third anniversary? it was well stage-managed for the cameras back in 2003, why coudln't they have done the same thing in 2006 in Washington DC? are we to read the lack of any pro-war demonstrations or celebrations as an indication that the level of support you (and, perhaps, only you) believe exists in the United States?

Street demonstrations have long been an important characteristic and activity of any anti-war movement. Street demonstrations and celebrations have never really been characteristics of pro-war support except after the end of hostilities as we find with both World War II and the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The lack of street demonstrations in support of a war is irrelevant, since even during this countries most popular wars, there were never any large demonstrations or celebrations until the end of hostilities. The lack of street demonstrations or unsually small numbers at them is relevant when looking at the anti-war movement since that is a key characteristic of that movement.

The toppling of the Saddam statue was really a more random event back in 2003. US Marines and Soldiers were still supposed be engaged against well dug in Republican Guard units on that day. US forces moved far faster though than they had planned with light casualties, unlike the thousands they were supposed to suffer according to many in the media as well as the anti-war movement. A unit commander heard about a small group of Iraqi's attempting to take down a statue and decided to help them out now that Iraqi resistence forces had largely been crushed in his area. With so many military and civilian reporters with camera's imbedded with most units, the whole thing was naturally filmed as was much of the combat and movement of these particular units in the days leading up to that time. The American soldier who initially got to the top of the statue first put an American flag over the face of it, definitely not a sign of some well rehearsed plan. The comparison between this and the anti-war movements key demonstrations in the United States is absurd.

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.
 
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.
 
STING2 said:

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.
 
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.
 
anitram said:
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.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:


Would only diamond being left register as a percentage? :wink:

Haha, how do you explain him losing STING's support? :wink:

I think Irvine is probably right - the absolute bottom is whatever support Cheney has. Those people will absolutely never change their mind.
 
Irvine511 said:




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.
 
Last edited:
STING2 said:


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.
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:




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!
 
[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!
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:
[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 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:



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 said:
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom