Skip to comments.Poll: Support for Iraq War Still Strong
Posted on 02/21/2003 3:27:15 PM PST by Indy PendanceEdited on 04/22/2004 12:35:34 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON — Public support for eventual military action against Iraq remains strong, but the number of people who think the United States doesn't have enough international support yet for such military action is growing, says a new poll.
Nearly six in 10 Americans, 57 percent, say the United States should get a second U.N. resolution before attacking Iraq, and about the same number, 58 percent, say this country does not currently have enough international support for such an attack. These are the findings of a poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
We have the support of most European allies. 16 out of 19 NATO country allies, Japan, Australia, and a host of other nations - we know the drill ... To imply otherwise is POLLAGANDA.
WHO has joined the ALLIES FOR LIBERTY & FREEDOM?
THESE ARE the 29 ALLIES for IRAQI peoples (women & children included) FREEDOM
U.S., Britian, Australia, Spain, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Italy, Portugal, Armenia, Lithuania
Slovakia, Denmark, Czech Republic, Quatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Albania, Kuwait, Israel, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Macedonia, Croatia, Azerbaijan, Georgia Republic, Marshall Islands and Japan
FREE the IRAQI people!!!
| We have the support of most European allies... To imply otherwise is POLLAGANDA.
I don't think it's "pollaganda" so much as it is an illustration of the limitations of using public perceptions to determine policy. The poll tells us that "58 percent say this country does not currently have enough international support." But who are these people, and what do they know? If we went to their houses and gave them a quiz, could they name five countries that support the U.S., or are these yahoos who heard Dan Rather tell them that "Bush is going alone" and honestly think that is the case?
It makes a difference. To hear some of these demagogues tell it, foreign policy should be determined by every change in the weather pattern exhibited by people who make very little effort to know what they're talking about.
Pew is a leftist stooge outfit anyway. It pisses me off that they would even report a finding like that. They know damned well that half the people who answered that question don't have a clue which countries support the U.S., and which don't.
Right. Isn't that about the same percentage that thinks that foreign policy doesn't matter when choosing a president? Chances are good those 6 in 10 have no basis for forming an opinion either way.
Since we already HAVE international support, and France and Germany are the only two holdouts (Russia wants more oil, and China just wants to be a pain) I'd say the media propaganda must be working.
I think if Bush started the liberation of Iraq tonight America would still be behind him.
This poll asks a few questons that are minor in the bigger sceme of things. If the question was "Should Bush start the liberation of Iraq now?" The answer would be a "Well, sure." And he rest wouldn't really matter that much.
That's a darned good point. They sure wouldn't ask such a question now, when the public is aware of Saddam's illegal missiles.
Hmmmm... a fair question.
But an objective questioner would also ask, which of the nay-saying coutries -- France, Germany, Belgium, Russia and China -- doesn't do business with Iraq.
Your above post is not objective.
It sounds like you automatically trust that this poll was done fairly. Who paid for this PEW poll? What does it mean, that this poll "was carried out with the Council on Foreign Relations"?.
(%)Luminance compared to Full Moon
(Starlight alone is 1/2 of 1% of a Full Moon)
Nighttime TOTAL BLACKOUT period
( + ) hours AFTER sunset when Moon is behind the Earth, OR
( - ) hours BEFORE sunRISE when Moon behind the Earth (Times not adjusted for 25 minutes of civil twilight after sunset or before dawn)
(Luminance figures are approximate based on an average lunar cycle. Figures
are even less when the moon is lower in the sky ... and crescent moons don't get
very high in the sky until after daybreak)
When it next gets dark, the Moon will be behind the Earth the first 7 hours, Then it slowly builds to a maximum brightness (around dawn) of only 14% of that of a full Moon.
|Detailed Local Forecast For Baghdad, Iraq|
|Tonight: Partly cloudy skies. Low 48F. Winds SSW at 5 to 10 mph.|
|Tomorrow: Partly cloudy. High 62F. Winds WNW at 10 to 20 mph.|
|Tomorrow night: Clear to partly cloudy skies. Low 41F. Winds NE at 5 to 10 mph.|
|Sunday: Partly cloudy. Highs in the mid 60s and lows in the upper 30s.|
|Monday: Light rain likely. Highs in the upper 40s and lows in the upper 20s.|
|Tuesday: Partial sunshine. Highs in the upper 40s and lows in the mid 20s.|
|Wednesday: Mix of sun and clouds. Highs in the low 50s and lows in the mid 20s.|
|Thursday: Mix of sun and clouds. Highs in the mid 50s and lows in the upper 20s.|
|Friday: Partly cloudy. Highs in the upper 50s and lows in the upper 20s.|
|Saturday: Partial sunshine. Highs in the upper 50s and lows in the upper 20s.|
|Sunday: Partly cloudy. Highs in the low 60s and lows in the low 30s.|
|Click Weather.Com for updates|
|Last Updated Friday, February 21, at 8:05 PM Local Time (Friday 9:05 AM EST)|
Actions speak louder than words.
This "drop" in support is directly related to the press (and demacRAT party's) latest attempt to perpetrate another lie on the American people. Namely, that we are considering "going it alone" into Iraq, or how about "the American people don't want to go it alone" . How many times have you heard these words used by the press? It's a lie. How much coverage was given to the letter in the Wall Street Journal signed by all the countries who are with us? Answer: Not much. The press mentioned the letter breifly, but they have continued to use the "go it alone " and "unilateral " terms in their reports on public support.
The question in the poll is false. It asked weather we should go WITH OUT ALLIES and of course many of the American people said no. THE QUESTION GIVES THE FALSE IMPRESSION THAT WE HAVE NO ALLIES. Then it aks about another UN resolution, wich people assume is about gaining allies. What our people are confused about, is weather we have allies or not.
If I were President Bush and his staff , I would make a concerted effort to explain to the American people that WE HAVE ALLIES WITH OR WITHOUT THE UN. For example: any time a reporter tries to use the term "go it alone" (or some term like this) President Bush should stop him and repeat the names of the countries that are with us . He could send his staff members out to the mainstream press outlets and cable and read have them read the WSJ letter again or he could just say, "the press is trying to give the impression we don't have allies; this is not true. We have (repeat the entire list of countries who have pleged their support)" at various press conferences and public appearences, until people get it. Everyone on his staff should have the names of the countries that support us memorized so they can immediately respond when the press tries the "going it alone " impression. It should be made clear that the UN is representative of the "axis of weasles". Our people should be reminded of things like the UN has Syria in charge of Human Rights (and that Syria has HUGE Human rights violations) while we were kicked off the commission, and that they are planning on putting Iraq in charge of disarming itself. But it is most important to clear up the confusion between who our allies are(that we have them), and UN support,make it clear these are 2 different things.
Australia, Britain, Spain, and probably several more on the list.
As someone else pointed out the questions give the impression that we are literally doing this alone. If I were a Brit, I would be pissed! Secondly, if you ask me honestly, I would love one last good U.N. resolution to demonstrate further the bankruptcy of the anit-war Left.
But the worst thing is this crap about a "second resolution." We are now on Resolution #17!!!!! So why isn't the debate about an "18th resolution?????" Is it because to label this honestly would make people go "HMMMMM?"
Tow problems with the word should. The first is it isn't MUST. I might think we should get a UN resolution but it doesn't mean its a prerequiste.
Secondly, the word "should" can be intrepreted in another way. As in, the UN "should" give a second resolution because it would be nuts not to.
57%, according to a poll that claims surprising support for Blix. Something is wrong with this poll. It doesn't add up. Finding people who both admire and respect Blix yet think that Saddam was involved with 9-11? How often do you run into that kind of person?
Even these questionable numbers, however, speak of a powerful mandate for Bush to whip it out and douse Iraq with yellow koolaid if he wanted.
I hadn't thought of it that way. Brain wakes up again. LOL.