Support For Bush, Iraq War At New Lows

[Wurm]

"Back in the United States, a new poll shows President Bush’s approval rating is at a record low. According to Fox News, just 33% percent of Americans say they approve of the President’s performance. Meanwhile, a new Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll has found that 58% of Americans believe the war in Iraq was unnecessary."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/21/132223

What the hell are the other 42% thinking? Oh that's right...they can't think.

 

[Carrera]

I can see where the thinking came from - an over simplification. The idea behind the war seemed to be that 9/11 took place partly due to the ongoing sanctions and standoff in Iraq. So, they figured they could overthrow Saddam in a quick, painless military operation and then install a democratic regime more friendly to the U.S. and more willing to do business with the U.S. (as opposed to France and Russia and China).
After that, they could pull out and concentrate on the Israel/Palestine conflict so terrorists would have no further grounds for recruitment.
The thing is, though, Rumsfeld made a total mess of his war plan. Possibly a more competent leader might have pulled it off and avoided the insurgency. You wonder why they didn't have those elections from day one and then pull out quickly - many Iraqis would have possibly been happy to see Saddam go.
P.S. Wurm, I figured I'd rescue your post.

"Back in the United States, a new poll shows President Bush’s approval rating is at a record low. According to Fox News, just 33% percent of Americans say they approve of the President’s performance. Meanwhile, a new Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll has found that 58% of Americans believe the war in Iraq was unnecessary."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/21/132223

What the hell are the other 42% thinking? Oh that's right...they can't think.

 

[Wurm]

Appreciate it, Carrera, though I am a bit surprised by the silence from the Right-Wing Sheep.

They're probably running to find the nearest unused lifeboat, because their ship is fast a-sinking.

 

[Carrera]

I think it's more likely people have taken to their bikes now the weather is picking up. That includes the left-wing radicals on wheels as well as the right-wing sheep on wheels.
Myself I did do quite a few miles today and then worked on my boat all day stripping off the old paintwork ready for summer painting.
However the case may be, the Iraq War doesn't seem to have worked out and I guess most Americans now accept that and will probably decide who they will vote for come the next election. The only worrying thing is that Bush might use a war of convenience in Iran to boost his flagging polls. Not that I oppose taking a stand over Iran but so long as the motivation is based on fact and not convenience.

Appreciate it, Carrera, though I am a bit surprised by the silence from the Right-Wing Sheep.

They're probably running to find the nearest unused lifeboat, because their ship is fast a-sinking.

 

[darkboong]

Not that I oppose taking a stand over Iran but so long as the motivation is based on fact and not convenience.

"Taking a stand" is somewhat different from the world's largest nuclear stockpile being unleashed on a second world country. The people who get the most benefit from this malarkey are the "defence" suppliers. They seem to be doing an extraordinary job of peddling weapons of mass destruction judging by the exponential growth of the US defence budget. Rummy et al are just trying to get some return on the gigabux spent on "defence" every year...

 

[lyotard]

one can only have concern over your statement re: "taking a stand".

the fact is, iran is a concern to the oil industry, as they are less than pledging allegience to the flag of the us...and this may hit 'em where it hurts in terms of us corporate profitability from exploitaion of their resources, but in terms of breaking any laws, no, this is not happening.
the un will not impose sanction on them as their nuke program
(set up in the days of the shah by guess who, rummy 'n cheney)
as it is monitored and inspected for compliance by the un as a power, not weapon program.
the real threat is that people making statements like "taking a stand" are easily manipulated into believing a war is justifiable due to them being a threat to us national corporate, oops, i mean national security interest.

the us demonstrated it is the ultimate rogue nation by hampering and then disregarding the un weapon inspector findings, these were the top best inspectors the planet has to offer, the same ones who have insured compliance of the nuke energy progam of iran today.

a war of convenience in Iran to boost his flagging polls. Not that I oppose taking a stand over Iran but so long as the motivation is based on fact and not convenience.

 

[Wurm]

Well Carrera, I'm not in the saddle lately as much as I would normally be, due to a crash about 1.5 weeks ago and broken ribs #'s 9, 10, and 11. But they've healed enough I think for me to do a reasonably fast 30+ miles tomorrow, weather and bones permitting.

lyotard -

Much of this seems to be the BushCo's worries about Iran starting a new oil bourse, going to the euro with the US dollar not being involved. If other oil-producers then jumped aboard, the US would be up ****'s Creek without a paddle. Then BushCo would have China's outstanding bond debt/trade deficit to deal with, and well...one can quickly see where this all would lead.

 

[lyotard]

ah yes, the repo man then cometh...
www.au.news.yahoo.com/040808/19/q8m3.html

banking on the brink, it seems...

lyotard -

Much of this seems to be the BushCo's worries about Iran starting a new oil bourse, going to the euro with the US dollar not being involved. If other oil-producers then jumped aboard, the US would be up ****'s Creek without a paddle. Then BushCo would have China's outstanding bond debt/trade deficit to deal with, and well...one can quickly see where this all would lead.

 

[Carrera]

Put it this way: I never believed Iraq or S H was a threat. I never bought the idea S H was mad, as Bush and Blair claimed.
However, Iran is a different matter and my reasons for not trusting Iran boils down to religion. Even S H understood the Iranian mullahs weren't quite the full dollar bill so, call me paranoid or whatever, but I would never trust Iran with a nuclear weapon - period.
You guys, on the other hand, feel willing to give Iran the benefit of the doubt and that's where we part company. I think most Europeans and probably the Russians feel very uneasy alarmed over Iran and see the difference between Iran and Iraq under S H.

one can only have concern over your statement re: "taking a stand".

the fact is, iran is a concern to the oil industry, as they are less than pledging allegience to the flag of the us...and this may hit 'em where it hurts in terms of us corporate profitability from exploitaion of their resources, but in terms of breaking any laws, no, this is not happening.
the un will not impose sanction on them as their nuke program
(set up in the days of the shah by guess who, rummy 'n cheney)
as it is monitored and inspected for compliance by the un as a power, not weapon program.
the real threat is that people making statements like "taking a stand" are easily manipulated into believing a war is justifiable due to them being a threat to us national corporate, oops, i mean national security interest.

the us demonstrated it is the ultimate rogue nation by hampering and then disregarding the un weapon inspector findings, these were the top best inspectors the planet has to offer, the same ones who have insured compliance of the nuke energy progam of iran today.

 

[limerickman]

Put it this way: I never believed Iraq or S H was a threat. I never bought the idea S H was mad, as Bush and Blair claimed.
However, Iran is a different matter and my reasons for not trusting Iran boils down to religion. Even S H understood the Iranian mullahs weren't quite the full dollar bill so, call me paranoid or whatever, but I would never trust Iran with a nuclear weapon - period.
You guys, on the other hand, feel willing to give Iran the benefit of the doubt and that's where we part company. I think most Europeans and probably the Russians feel very uneasy alarmed over Iran and see the difference between Iran and Iraq under S H.

............but you seem to be implying that Iran possesses a nuclear weapon.

Iran doesn't possess a nuclear weapon presently.
In addition, credible reports suggest that Iran is 10 years away from being able to develop a nuclear weapon.

The USA in particular has been suggesting that because iran has a nuclear program that this means it has also must be developing a nuclear weapon.
This suggestion - like the lies it put about concerning Iraq - is false.

 

[Carrera]

What we seem to have is a battle taking place between the Judaic-based religions in the world today.
From monotheistic Judaism arose Christianity and Islam. The Christian West and the Islamic World seek control over the interpretation of religion and key religous sites.
Forget this idea in the U.K. of an imagined left-liberal alliance with the Islamic World as this is myth. In reality, the mullahs and radical clerics have more in common with the biblical-waving Bush than they do with genuine secular liberals. They are a conservative population and many of them believe in the death-penalty either for blasphemy or other crimes judged offensive to morality. They do not believe in or stand for tolerance and freedom of speech, gender equality or secularism.
In short, the root problem is religion. Bush believes God is on his side and that he has a personal, first-name basis relationship with God (who appears to him occasionally for a chat and calls him George).
The Iranian mullahs believe Alah is on their side - period. The Jewish populations believe Yahweh chose them as a special people. No side will compromise.
The only hope for peace and common sense lies in secularism and liberalism. But for liberalism to remain you have to defend it (liberalism) from religous extremists, be they evangelicals, Jewish radicals or Islamic extremists.
If you lie down and offer them all a bunch of pansies or roses as a peace offering, they will tread all over you.

"Taking a stand" is somewhat different from the world's largest nuclear stockpile being unleashed on a second world country. The people who get the most benefit from this malarkey are the "defence" suppliers. They seem to be doing an extraordinary job of peddling weapons of mass destruction judging by the exponential growth of the US defence budget. Rummy et al are just trying to get some return on the gigabux spent on "defence" every year...

 

[Carrera]

"Society bends over backward to be accommodating to religious sensibilities but not to other kinds of sensibilities. If I say something offensive to religious people, I'll be universally censured, including by many atheists. But if I say something insulting about Democrats or Republicans or the Green Party, one is allowed to get away with that. Hiding behind the smoke screen of untouchability is something religions have been allowed to get away with for too long."
-- Richard Dawkins, quoted in Natalie Angier, "Confessions of a Lonely Atheist," New York Times Magazine, January 14, 2001

 

[limerickman]

What we seem to have is a battle taking place between the Judaic-based religions in the world today.
From monotheistic Judaism arose Christianity and Islam. The Christian West and the Islamic World seek control over the interpretation of religion and key religous sites.
Forget this idea in the U.K. of an imagined left-liberal alliance with the Islamic World as this is myth. In reality, the mullahs and radical clerics have more in common with the biblical-waving Bush than they do with genuine secular liberals. They are a conservative population and many of them believe in the death-penalty either for blasphemy or other crimes judged offensive to morality. They do not believe in or stand for tolerance and freedom of speech, gender equality or secularism.
In short, the root problem is religion. Bush believes God is on his side and that he has a personal, first-name basis relationship with God (who appears to him occasionally for a chat and calls him George).
The Iranian mullahs believe Alah is on their side - period. The Jewish populations believe Yahweh chose them as a special people. No side will compromise.
The only hope for peace and common sense lies in secularism and liberalism. But for liberalism to remain you have to defend it (liberalism) from religous extremists, be they evangelicals, Jewish radicals or Islamic extremists.
If you lie down and offer them all a bunch of pansies or roses as a peace offering, they will tread all over you.

I agree!
Church and State must be separate.

I am an RC.
However I wouldn't want RCC doctrine to be used as the basis for secular law or rule.

Unfortunately, some Muslims want to see Sharia Law invoked as a means to govern society.
I would oppose this - as I would oppose RCC doctrine being imposed on secular society.

 

[Carrera]

I crashed out too. Got hit by a taxi coming at my left on a roundabout. Winded up flying over the car and landing flat on the road - my bike going in the oposite direction. That happened a few weeks ago when rushing to get to work on time.

Well Carrera, I'm not in the saddle lately as much as I would normally be, due to a crash about 1.5 weeks ago and broken ribs #'s 9, 10, and 11. But they've healed enough I think for me to do a reasonably fast 30+ miles tomorrow, weather and bones permitting.

lyotard -

Much of this seems to be the BushCo's worries about Iran starting a new oil bourse, going to the euro with the US dollar not being involved. If other oil-producers then jumped aboard, the US would be up ****'s Creek without a paddle. Then BushCo would have China's outstanding bond debt/trade deficit to deal with, and well...one can quickly see where this all would lead.

 

[Carrera]

Religion poses many serious issues. Myself I'm not an atheist but I don't follow any particular religion - except I have a vague interest in gnosticism, Judiac and Christian.
The trouble is, if you teach people that evolution and atheism are the only option, we are left with a problem - morality and ethics. Billions of people in the world today adhere to civilized standards of conduct as they genuinely believe they will go to hell and be tormented if they don't accept scripture. Myself, I follow fairly strict ethics of conduct too and believe in decent standards but I don't base myself on any organised religion. But then again, I do believe in God (or better said Mother Nature as a rational entity).
I agree with Dawkin and Rod Liddle that religion is responsible for the killing and hatred we see today but really you can't simply do away with peoples' need to find a spiritual rationale for their existence whether it be Roman Catholicism, Krishna Consciousness or Kabbalah.
This is the source of all the currrent hatred, though. The Moslem, the Christian and the Practising Jew all feel their way alone is right so the other one is the enemy. Sadly, it's these fundamentalist believers who are now dictating global policies.
It's a pity you couldn't sling them all together in a classroom and give them all a crash course in each others religions and the meaning of the term "tolerance".

I agree!
Church and State must be separate.

I am an RC.
However I wouldn't want RCC doctrine to be used as the basis for secular law or rule.

Unfortunately, some Muslims want to see Sharia Law invoked as a means to govern society.
I would oppose this - as I would oppose RCC doctrine being imposed on secular society.

 

[davidmc]

"Society bends over backward to be accommodating to religious sensibilities but not to other kinds of sensibilities. If I say something offensive to religious people, I'll be universally censured, including by many atheists. But if I say something insulting about Democrats or Republicans or the Green Party, one is allowed to get away with that. Hiding behind the smoke screen of untouchability is something religions have been allowed to get away with for too long."
-- Richard Dawkins, quoted in Natalie Angier, "Confessions of a Lonely Atheist," New York Times Magazine, January 14, 2001

Here is something interesting, along those lines, what w/ the release of The Davinci Code @ the corner as it were:

`Conspiratorial Theories'

In ``The Da Vinci Code'' (Doubleday, 2003), Opus Dei and the Vatican are covering up the story of early Christianity, including the secret that Jesus fathered a family. The secret is guarded by a society known as the Priory of Sion, whose ``grand masters'' have included Leonardo da Vinci.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_us&refer=culture&sid=afC6cxjKOvr0

 

[stevebaby]

I think the "priory of sion" has been proven to be a fraud.That doesn't negate the theory that jesus married and had children.The idea of marriage for love is a fairly recent one (and I suspect,a largely illusory one) and I think it would have been unusual for a marriage not to have been arranged for him.
Carrera will know.

 

[Wurm]

So, how did this thread get so far into religion? (YET AGAIN)

To the OP's point, (and that would be ME) it looks as though Chimpenfuhrer's numbers are going even lower.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/04/24/rel11a.pdf

 

[stevebaby]

YBSB Rule 1.All threads will be hijacked.
If you want a sensible discussion about support for dubya...it may be better to start with a "helmet debate".

 

[Wurm]

YBSB Rule 1.All threads will be hijacked.
If you want a sensible discussion about support for dubya...it may be better to start with a "helmet debate".

Yeah, it's worse around here than talking with wimmin.