Majority Says Iraq War "The Right Thing"

[nbcrusader]

Majority (57%) Says U.S. Did the Right Thing In Going To War

One year after the start of the Iraqi war, a majority (57%) of Americans says the U.S. did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq (37% disagree). Nonetheless, 36 percent say military action against Iraq has done more to increase the risk that large numbers of Americans will be killed in a future terrorist attack, (up from 28 percent in the Dec. 18-19 Newsweek poll); 30 percent say it has done more to decrease the risk of attack, 27 percent say it has made no difference.

Maybe this is the uneducated 57%....

 

[Rono]

Majority (57%) Says U.S. Did the Right Thing In Going To War





Maybe this is the uneducated 57%....

No, but they got propaganda as education.

 

[Dreadsox]

Maybe the 57% need to protest...because the press certainly is not reporting it this way.

I would never have known based on the pictures on my TV.

 

[deep]

before you all wet yourself

consider this

Bush has staked everything on Iraq/ blurred into war on terror

-about 50 per cent support Bush




Below is what the numbers would look like if the War was deemed justfied by a majority.


as was The attack on the Taliban.

Overwhelming support for strong military action has been in place since September 11 through to the present. Questions that have asked about taking action against the responsible parties show support ranging from 85 to 92%. Most recently, in a December 12-13 Fox News poll 91% said they supported "US military action being taken in response to the terrorist attacks." On December 6-7 Newsweek found 88% approving "the current US military action against terrorism." At the time bombing began, NBC found 90% approving of the action. [1] Only 6% thought the action was too strong, while 76% said it was about right (53%) or not strong enough (23%)

 

[Dreadsox]

before you all wet yourself

I always releive myself before coming in here. Not to worry....thanks for your concern.

 

[nbcrusader]

before you all wet yourself

I'm sure this was meant in a way to further the discussion....

 

[STING2]

before you all wet yourself

consider this

Bush has staked everything on Iraq/ blurred into war on terror

-about 50 per cent support Bush




Below is what the numbers would look like if the War was deemed justfied by a majority.


as was The attack on the Taliban.

57% is a majority. According to the latest polls, a majority of Americans and a majority of Iraqi citizens approve of the US military action to remove Saddam from power one year after it happened.

 

[meegannie]

"In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens."
"45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11"

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm

If those numbers are still the same, then it's no surprise to me that polls show that a majority support the war.

 

[STING2]

When you have polls in Europe showing Europeans feeling Bush is more dangerous than Bin Ladin, that is even more absurd.

 

[DrTeeth]

Unfortunately, for me these polls usually raise more questions than they give answers. What I would like to know is why these people believe it was the right thing to go to war. Was it because they thought Saddam posed an immediate threat, or was it because he hadn't verifiable dissarmed? Do they think Saddam was behind 9-11, or do they think he had links with terrorists? Is it because of Saddam's human rights records? The list of questions go on and on and on, it would be interesting to see some more depth in these polls than just asking for a yes or no.

Anyway, I've been taking a look at the polling statistics and they are very interesting to say the least. I took out some of the things I think are interesting. First off, the margin of error is plus or minu 3 percentage points, which make many questions too close to call really.

A majority (52%) of registered voters say they have a favorable opinion of Bush, 51 percent say the same of Kerry (10 percent say they "don't know" and three percent say they had never heard of Kerry).

So these are registered voters

One year after the start of the Iraqi war, a majority (57%)of Americans says the U.S. did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq (37% disagree).

Nonetheless, 36 percent say military action against Iraq has done
more to increase the risk that large numbers of Americans will be killed in a future terrorist attack, (up from 28 percent in the Dec. 18-19 Newsweek poll); 30 percent say it has done more to decrease the risk of attack, 27 percent say it has made no difference.

And more than half of Americans (55%) think the administration misanalyzed or misinterpreted reports that indicated Iraq had banned weapons (up from 36% in a Newsweek poll last May), while 35 percent disagree.

A majority (53%) says the amount of money the U.S. is spending for postwar operations in Iraq is too high (34% say it's about right).

A majority (55%) also says the U.S. should reduce the number of military personnel in Iraq and begin bringing troops home; 27 percent say it should keep the same amount of troops, 10 percent say send more troops.

So the majority thinks the war on Iraq is too expensive, occupies too much military personnel, didn't decrease the risk on terrorist atacks in the U.S. and was based on false analysis or interpretations. And they still support it?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

"In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens."
"45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11"

The scariest thing about this is that directly after September 11th the number of Americans who thought Saddam was involved was about 3%.

Really shows you what a sustained campaign of disinformation can do.

 

[deep]

At the time of the Iraq attack 70% of the American people believed Saddam was involved and that a direct AI-Queada link to Saddam existed.



The Administration, Cheney, that worthless sack, promulgated these falsehoods.


Then they had the gall to say they do not know why the public believed it.


They are bald-face liars.

And btw, I do not have a tape of Bush and Cheney saying we know this information is false, we choose to put it out and we admit we are liars.

So those of you who wish to say that I can not "prove" they are liars
Well, you can sleep in comfort delusion one more night.

 

[nbcrusader]

The scariest thing about this is that directly after September 11th the number of Americans who thought Saddam was involved was about 3%.

I though this number was substantially higher. Do you have a reference for the polling number?

 

[STING2]

DrTeeth,

"So the majority thinks the war on Iraq is too expensive, occupies too much military personnel, didn't decrease the risk on terrorist atacks in the U.S. and was based on false analysis or interpretations. And they still support it?"

Some corrections are needed.
1.

The majority thinks money being spent on the current occupation and rebuilding of Iraq is to much, not the war that removed Saddam from power last year.

2.

The majority thinks the US should withdraw the number troops involved in occupation duty. They did not oppose the number of troops involved in the military action that removed Saddam from power.




3.

27% say the military action to remove Saddam made no difference in regards to terrorist attacks.

30% said it would decrease terrorist attacks.

36% said it would increase terrorist attacks.


So you have 57%, the majority, saying that removing Saddam WOULD NOT increase terrorist attacks.

4.

The poll never asked "Was the war based on false analysis or interpretations."

The poll asked "do you think the administration misanalyzed or misinterpreted reports that indicated Iraq had banned weapons"

The question did ask if the president's WHOLE basis for war was false. It only asked if they thought if there was misanalyzed or misinterpreted information among some of the Presidents reports.


So, once one understands that, its easier to understand why 57% still approve of the military force that was used to remove Saddam from power.

 

[deep]

I though this number was substantially higher. Do you have a reference for the polling number?

The day of the 911 attack and on 9-12-03 most people did not believe it had anything to do with Iraq.

The 93 attempt had no Iraq/ Saddam connection/ nor did the Cole attack / or the African Embassies attack Why would they think Iraq/ Saddam?


Has your thinking been conditioned by the Administration?s orchestrated campaign of misinformation?

 

[deep]

It only asked if they thought if there was misanalyzed or misinterpreted information among some of the Presidents reports.

Would you want a surgeon to operate on you or your children if he misanalyzed or misinterpreted information.


At most they knew the info was cooked or bad.



At least they are incompetent.




Rumsfeild launched 50 surgical missile strikes to take out Saddam and his high leadership. 50 times they missed and killed or maimed the wrong people.


And Rummy wants mini nukes!


This guy should be certified and locked up.

I think there are some openings at GITMO.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I though this number was substantially higher. Do you have a reference for the polling number?

I was actually quoting from a book: Twilight of Empire: Responses to Occupation. (Which is an excellent book, btw.)

However, I did find this online:

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

The article can be found at:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm

Hope that clarifies.

 

[STING2]

At the time of the Iraq attack 70% of the American people believed Saddam was involved and that a direct AI-Queada link to Saddam existed.



The Administration, Cheney, that worthless sack, promulgated these falsehoods.


Then they had the gall to say they do not know why the public believed it.


They are bald-face liars.

And btw, I do not have a tape of Bush and Cheney saying we know this information is false, we choose to put it out and we admit we are liars.

So those of you who wish to say that I can not "prove" they are liars
Well, you can sleep in comfort delusion one more night.

I've never seen more lies pushed as fact in order to prevent the removal of one of the worst dictators in history. Liberals claim Bush lied knowing they have no evidence to prove that. But they don't explain that to the public.

 

[STING2]

Would you want a surgeon to operate on you or your children if he misanalyzed or misinterpreted information.


At most they knew the info was cooked or bad.



At least they are incompetent.




Rumsfeild launched 50 surgical missile strikes to take out Saddam and his high leadership. 50 times they missed and killed or maimed the wrong people.


And Rummy wants mini nukes!


This guy should be certified and locked up.

I think there are some openings at GITMO.

#1 Mistakes are made in intelligence every day. That is the nature of intelligence.

#2 The central case for war was Saddam's failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM OF ALL WMD!

#3 As far as the military strikes go, that is the nature of war. If Liberals would not stand in the way of increases in defense spending and intelligence spending, one would have even better weopons and intelligence to operate with. The strikes were clearly justified as they could have potentially brought an end to the war even sooner saving lives.

#4 And Rummy wants mini nukes!

This nation first developed "mini-nukes" in the 1950s. If there is a particular senerio that would justify their use, then I say bring em back.

#5 Rumsfeld should be locked up?

For What?

 

[deep]

You may not remember


but before the Iraq War

I said Saddam should be removed.


I posted a thread with a reel audio link to Iraqis being interviewed from a NPR site.

Hearing the first hand testimonials from people about being tortured, seeing families members raped and killed was enough for me.

There should be a program in place where a true coalition

goes in and takes out and brings people the likes of Saddam, and some African dictators, and some others who butcher people to justice.


Wolverwits and the people surrounding Bush never made this argument or set up with other countries a program to do this.


Wovlerwitz instead said we settled on WMD?s. What a lying bastard.


Saddam should have been removed. Not supporting misinformation and alienating allies. Is not supporting Saddam.

Milosivic was removed without lying, or as some say misanalizing, or misinterpreting information.

 

[STING2]

deep,

It is a mystery to me why you choose to ignore the international communities efforts to verifiably disarm Iraq peacefully for 12 years and the fact that those efforts failed.

The United Nations in the 1991 Gulf Ceacefire declared that Saddam had to verifiably disarm of all WMD or face renewed military action as approved by resolution 678. The world viewed the failure of Saddam to verifiably disarm as a serious threat making the use of military force necessary to insure Saddam was disarmed.

The Majority of the Countries in NATO supported the removal of Saddam. Over 17 UN resolutions were passed against Saddam. There were 3 different resolutions approving the use of force against Saddam if he failed to comply with any of the resolutions.

The coalition consist of over 60 countries and is one of the largest coalitions in history. Just because France and Germany are not apart of it does not mean it is not a "true coalition".

The fact that Wolf said the Presidents Council felt WMD was the most urgent threat from Saddam is an obvious fact. I don't know how you could consider that a "lie".



"Milosivic was removed without lying, or as some say misanalizing, or misinterpreting information."

If your talking about the Kosovo war, there was plenty misinterpreting of information and misanalizing of information.

Milosivic power position vs. his opponents was always weak unlike Saddam who had killed almost all of his opponents in his country.

Milosovic did not loose power until over a year after the Kosovo war. When he lost an election but attempted to nullify the results. Saddam did not have real elections.