Majority Opposes Iraq War!

[antiklaus]

A majority of Europeans oppose the war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2747175.stm

And Austrailians
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040504-122512-9591r.htm

80% of Japanese oppose it...
http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=1&id=254732

and most americans (3 different polls, ABC, CNN, CBS)
http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=9&aid=D83FKIN80_story
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/iraq-a30.shtml

and even the Argentinians
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200302/04/eng20030204_111157.shtml

truth told, almost every country polled...

What affects (if any) will this opposition have upon US policy and presence in Iraq?

[Kirk-Cocaine]

it won't have an effect because those staticics are very misleading. The majorty of people who took thoses polls were against the war. and there is no was they could have vote 100% of the entire population. Also they may only have surveyed thosed aged 18+ so that would cut out a huge section of the population.

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/16/04 10:22 AM, Kirk_Cocaine wrote: it won't have an effect because those staticics are very misleading. The majorty of people who took thoses polls were against the war. and there is no was they could have vote 100% of the entire population. Also they may only have surveyed thosed aged 18+ so that would cut out a huge section of the population.

In fact, if they'd polled the students, a HIGHEr percentage would have beeen against war. Students generally are evil left-wing socialists. It won't make a difference to the Iraq war. When has the Bush Administration cared about what people think?

[Kirk-Cocaine]

At 7/16/04 10:28 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: Students generally are evil left-wing socialists.

True. And then they grow uo become old and become evil right-wing conservatives it's the circle of life...*starts singing*

[Spookshow]

I have to disagree. Most of the people (12-18) are left wing. At my old high school anyways. Very few people appreciate the rights of gun ownership etc.

[Kirk-Cocaine]

What? We both just said that age group is left-wing, Dickhead. Get some eyes prick.

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/16/04 10:32 AM, Kirk_Cocaine wrote:

At 7/16/04 10:28 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: Students generally are evil left-wing socialists.

True. And then they grow uo become old and become evil right-wing conservatives it's the circle of life...*starts singing*

Nah. They grow up to be come moderately left-wing centeralists. Society has moved to the left since 1600, and will always move to the left. Thank god...

[delteated]

Depends what school you go to - my school is full of conservatives and always will be... which is good because I'm a conservative and PROUD!!

Down with socialism!

[Jirekianu]

Wow... talk about joining a side eh? I'm a republican but I'm mostly middle of the road. Honestly... I don't care about why we went into Iraq originally or what the "real" reasons were... We have done something good, we kicked out someone who was a KNOWN DICTATOR a person who on many occassions killed his own people just to test weapons. Also, those who say that he didn't have weapons of mass destruction... he had the capability and a man like Saddam would've used it. In fact we know he has used it in the past. I mean... the man has been known to swim almost obsessively, and switched his guards regularly so that he wouldn't get assassinated and wouldn't be thought of as weak.

Anyway.... enough on my rant there >.>;

There are two blogs/sites going of people IN Iraq that live there, and post about all the good things of Saddam being gone. When most of the news is always about how many soldiers have died and how many people, in general, have died.

But think of this one... in the early parts of the Iraq war, when we had just occupied it and there were deaths happening... a little over a hundred if I'm correct, the numbers of murders in Oakland, California were higher than that. Now what is a much more sad, and traumatic thing? People dying serving their country, in a job they KNEW had risks like this. Or people who were killed for a small reason or no reason at all that were just living their lives?

[ReddSky]

No wonder barley anyone is ok with the war. The war was ILLEGAL and doing it broke international laws. Alot of innocent people were killed (way more than normal) and the country is now worse than ever. The main scapegoat for the war (nukes) werent found in the country. Bush rants on about iraq giving guns to osama, even though osama and saddam have hated eachother for a while.

Bush should be facing trial for war crimes, but he hides behind the USA. Other countries were supposed to have stepped in and stoped the USA from invading iraq, but they just sat there.

And now bush is about to defeat democracy (again) in the next election.

Theres plenty of reasons for people to be against the whole war and bush.

[witeshark]

Isn't this a great time to have majority or otherwise oppose the war. Keep looking back and hurry building that DeLorean

[thekinman]

The Iraq war,did take down Saddam, and I wont deny that was a good thing. But, for one thing, way too many innocent people died, the US is deep into debt, I think its like a few trillion, and the womdwere never found. And, not much Later, Bush gets nominated for the nobel peace prize. Whoo hoo

[TheWakingDeath]

At 7/16/04 12:32 PM, Jirekianu wrote:

those who say that he didn't have weapons of mass destruction... he had the capability and a man like Saddam would've used it. In fact we know he has used it in the past. I mean... the man has been known to swim almost obsessively, and switched his guards regularly so that he wouldn't get assassinated and wouldn't be thought of as weak.

Ok, let me just take you up on this point, because i agree with your first statement that saddam hussein was a terrible person who we never should have helped come to power in the first place.
A lot of people might have the ability to make WMD's, sure, Paraguay, France, US, and he's certainly not the only dangerous head of state in the global community.
The point is that whenever you decide to wage a preemptive war, which is what this is, despite all the rhetoric now about it being about liberating IRAQ (which wasn't the cause until we realized we'd been lied to twice, first about al Quaeda connections, and then WMD) the burden of just cause is on your shoulders. The evidence used to justify the war was entirely fabricated, and unfortunately, you cannot justify the loss of lives by saying "well, he would have done it if we didn't invade his country." No evidence suggests that Saddam had any intentions of attacking the US or any other foreign nation.

[theburningliberal]

I just saw this topic, so excuse me if I make a redundant comment.

But, when has the Bush Administration cared about what the majority wanted? He didn't win the majority of people's votes in 2000, yet thanks to his daddy's friends on the Supreme Court, he is the President.

[thereallurch]

Of course this won't have any affect because what is done is done.

The polls were quite valid. No poll gets 100% of the population but if it is structured properly then it does usually do a fair job of representing the population. Those were structured properly.

Also, I agree that Bush should be on trial for war crimes and France should get a medal. Just thinking about that makes me want to go out and buy a couple bags of FRENCH fries and eat them. Bush is a great manipulator and nothing more. He took advantage of people's fears after the trade center was attacked and transferred them to something that he could only marginally relate to what actually happened, probably just as a matter of pride--finishing what daddy couldn't. And now, as I told my room mate months ago would be the case, he is trying to hold on to power even longer by using a state of emergency during elections. He is manipulating millions of people for his own personal gains in an illegal war that most of the people do not even approve of. As if that was not bad enough, this master of manipulation hides behind both the US and the Lord Jehovah.

I would love to see him on trial...

[Darklilangel23]

guess what the war is done we cant change what we have done

if we were to complety pull out

the entire country would go to shit and terrorists would seize control it would be worse than before with saddam in charge so dont say we are the oppressors enough of that shit

we fought them they lost iraq is now the 51st state

[Gunter45]

At 7/16/04 09:36 PM, Lucifur666 wrote:

:Just look at france. THe french nation should have gotten a medal. Instead we got freedom fries and liberty toast.

For what? Being against the war because they were getting oil under the table from Iraq in exchange for weapons? I really don't think that deserves a medal, but I don't know, maybe you're for that sort of thing.

The fact is, we're in Iraq, and nobody can dispute that. Whether we should have gone there or not is almost completely irrelevant. Everyone is crying to get the US out, but what would happen if we DID pull out now? The entire area would be in chaos, the whole system of government there would be thrown into anarchy, only to have another charismatic dictator like Saddam rise up to "unite the people." Was I for going into Iraq? To some extent, yes. I think the timing was a little bit off, we should have done it after he gassed a bunch of Kurds, or direly after the Persian Gulf War. However, I also agree that timing plays a big factor on the world stage and that going into Iraq at this point was not a wise move. I also know, that my opinions on the matter are unimportant. I am absolutely for finishing out what we started. We would cause a much larger problem if we pulled out before things completely settle down over there. Oh, and a lot of innocent people died just like a lot of Muslims are terrorists. Both are relative terms. The fact is, compared to other wars, collateral damage was extremely low, but you wouldn't know that because every innocent person with a scratch was put on the air so it made it appear as if there was an enormous number of innocent people injured. I think it is appalling that innocent people were killed, but in war, that is to be expected, because war is an awful thing. I also don't believe that all of the people they showed were necessarily wounded by the US, they could have been injured by the Iraqis as well, and, judging from the past Iraqi treatment of their own citizens, is highly possible, which is not to say people weren't hurt by accidental US fire. Additionally, this war is one of the shortest wars we've ever had, and had one of, if not the lowest, numbers of US casualities. If people are going to be mad about the Iraq war, it's best that they're mad for the right reasons, not because the TV screen tells them to be.

[mabzie]

was iraq polled?

im sure they hate being free (scarcasm)

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/17/04 04:43 PM, mabzie wrote: im sure they hate being free (scarcasm)

I'm sure they love the Coalition Soldiors, and Abu-Garib, and the no water or electricity.

[Gunter45]

I see, so the fear of getting raped and tortured at a whim is preferable?

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/17/04 06:02 PM, Gunter45 wrote: I see, so the fear of getting raped and tortured at a whim is preferable?

Dunno. Don't suppose it makes much difference weather it's us or Saddams men that does it.

[mabzie]

At 7/17/04 06:09 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 7/17/04 06:02 PM, Gunter45 wrote: I see, so the fear of getting raped and tortured at a whim is preferable?

Dunno. Don't suppose it makes much difference weather it's us or Saddams men that does it.

ya except we dont oder tourtures. saddam gassed thousands of iraqis, and what, we humiliated 100 of em'.

the point is iraqis can have a diffrent opinion and not get killed.

[Gunter45]

Bingo mabzie, even with all these "horror stories" of what Americans are doing to the people of Iraq, you NEVER hear about a soldier raping an Iraqi, much less being ordered to do it on a regular basis, which is also less than being ordered to dust whole villages with chemical munitions. I'm really sick of hearing about how America is commiting atrocities in Iraq. The prisoner abuse scandal aside (which was absolutely deplorable, but it was only a handful of US soldiers), I have hears nothing about the willful torturing and murdering of helpless innocents. Iraq, on the hand, has no reservations about doing horrible, disgusting things to the prisoners they capture. I mean if they do horrendous things to their own citizens, imagine what they've been doing to the Americans who have been unlucky enough to be captured. If I were like you, bumcheekcity, and only worried about what happened to one of the country's citizens, I would save my pity for the American prisoners, but it's just because I care more about the people who have to suffer more pain and torture, I don't want to speak for you.

[antiklaus]

At 7/17/04 06:37 PM, mabzie wrote:

At 7/17/04 06:09 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 7/17/04 06:02 PM, Gunter45 wrote: I see, so the fear of getting raped and tortured at a whim is preferable?

Dunno. Don't suppose it makes much difference weather it's us or Saddams men that does it.

ya except we dont oder tourtures. saddam gassed thousands of iraqis, and what, we humiliated 100 of em'.

Saddam gassed thousands, and our govt still thought he was worthy of doing business with.

It was only when he was advocating that OPEC start trading in Euros instead of US Dollars that Saddam was elevated to threat level. Up to that point we were VERY comfortable with his past doings. In fact, Rumsfeld met him personally to sell him MORE gas after he had gassed his own.

the point is iraqis can have a diffrent opinion and not get killed.

Thats not exactly true. While Saddam has no power to stop protests of his regime anymore (a good thing), the Iraqi people have no power to protest American occupation. We chose their government, and we still maintain a huge military force. I don't see this as freedom. Especially when civilians are shot or bombed by mistake daily.

[theburningliberal]

At 7/17/04 03:18 PM, Darklilangel23 wrote: guess what the war is done we cant change what we have done

if we were to complety pull out

the entire country would go to shit and terrorists would seize control it would be worse than before with saddam in charge so dont say we are the oppressors enough of that shit

we fought them they lost iraq is now the 51st state

Guess what man? After we leave Iraq, no matter when we leave it, the entire country is going to go to shit. Remember, there are 5 differents groups that want power in Iraq:

1) The US wants a government friendly to us.

2) The Kurds want a Kurdish government

3) The Shia Muslims want a Shia government.

4) The Sunni Muslims want a Sunni government

5) Al-Qaeda wants a traditional Islamic state.

Now, quite obviously, options 3 & 4 would fulfill the al-qaeda requirement. But, no matter who has power when we leave Iraq, that person will be assassinated, and then the new head of the Iraqi government will launch a war against the people responsible, and then Iraq will descend into a state of Civil War.

No matter what happens between now and the time we leave Iraq, that country was doomed to civil war the minute coalition troops touched foot on Iraqi soil.

The only question is, when?

[Raptorman]

At 7/18/04 03:20 AM, theburningliberal wrote:
1) The US wants a government friendly to us.

2) The Kurds want a Kurdish government

In the long run the Kurds want a Kurdish state, not all of Iraq or any other country but an independant area of their own. In the medium and short run however, they are happy to not be everyones' party bitches so they strongly back the US.

3) The Shia Muslims want a Shia government.

Traditionally, the Shia branch of ISlam has been a secular branch, believing that mixing government and religion corrupts both. Further, Iraq is the historic center of Shia power, not thoecratic Iran. This makes Iran very nervous about the propects of a secular and successful Islamic state next to it as it can barely control it's own internal democracy movement. Internal to Iraq, the Shia's are happy about disposing Saddam but mixed about US occupation and are probaly going to be the key to the Iraqi long term prosperity.

4) The Sunni Muslims want a Sunni government

The Sunni's are fragmented into two major groups, the diehard Baathists and the Wahhibists (AKA the line of thinking that produces Al-Quaida et. al.) The Baathists are slowly losing power and and will remain a thorn, but not a real threat for some time. The Wahhibists, on the other hand, are supported from the outside and are responcible for most for the strife, believing that any price, in their own lives, US soilders, or Iraqis is worth paying if it can stop the infidels. This is understandably not to popular with the Iraqi people. Marginalizing them and mobilizing the Iraqi forces against this (Largly forigen) group is our best bet against them and is showing some sign of working.

Got to go but to summerize. The Iraq campaign is not only winnable, it is slowly being won.

[Gunter45]

Good post Rapto, you brought up some interestingr. I don't see Sunni's being too much of a problem. The Sunni sect only accounts for about 15% of the Muslims in general, and, I'm not positive on this, but I think Iraq was mostly a Shi'ite country with an elite Baathist ruling party. Therefore I would expect that, while the Sunnis are going to stir up some trouble, as they always tend to be the extremists, their ability to do so will be limited.

And you're absolutely right about the Shi'ites, if they are able to position themselves in a seat of power in Iraq, which is all but an absolute certainty at this point. And I believe that they are not happy with the occupation, but they are most likely willing to tolerate it. Shi'ites are a peaceful people, and have tended to be far less rash than the Sunni's, and they will probably take this as a small price to pay for the removal of Saddam.

I don't really see what you mean by winnable, Raptor. I guess one of our objectives is to make sure that the transition of governments in Iraq goes... cordially, but I don't see it as a condition of victory. I think that we have already won from a military standpoint. This stage in the game is like, as mentioned before, the post WW2 rebuilding process. We occupy the capital and pretty much every key location in Iraq, the only resistance are scattered groups that are probably frustrated Baathist sympathizers, and not a capable resistance movement, much less an army. Therefore, we have already won the military campaign, and we are merely in the process of helping Iraq to stabilize at this point.

[Devaint-Lucifer]

this is bullshit true bullshit.

the war was illegal
bush is an ass

and whats sad is no one cares. u think you've got it bad? look at one child from Iraq and americans still wont shut up.

you have no freedoms. what you thought is wrong.

of course no one ( unless you're disturbed) likes killing children starving them.

some people say bush is satin
i say satin has more of a heart

i oppose this war and still do

why kill for a black liquid

[theburningliberal]

At 7/19/04 12:45 AM, Devaint_Lucifer wrote: this is bullshit true bullshit.

the war was illegal
bush is an ass

and whats sad is no one cares. u think you've got it bad? look at one child from Iraq and americans still wont shut up.

you have no freedoms. what you thought is wrong.

of course no one ( unless you're disturbed) likes killing children starving them.

some people say bush is satin
i say satin has more of a heart

i oppose this war and still do

why kill for a black liquid

Dude, I opposed the war from the outset. I took a fair amount of abuse for it, too. I know the war is illegal, and I agree that Bush is an ass.

And I also agree that oil had something to do with the war. And Bush just doesn't want us to know about it...

[FatherVenom]

At 7/19/04 01:26 AM, theburningliberal wrote: I opposed the war from the outset.

As did much of the rest of the world. Seriously folks, the majority of the planet was against the war at the outset. Has that fact seemed to cause any impact? Of course not, we're the United States and therefore can do no wrong.