Poll: Iraq war not worth it

Popeye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
3,023
Location
Washington state
It's now been 5 years since the invasion and Americans don't think much of it, if this poll by CNN is any indication.

71 percent said they think U.S. spending in Iraq is a reason for the nation's poor economy.

66 percent said they oppose the war and it was not worth it.

61 percent of those polled said the next president should remove most U.S. troops from Iraq "within a few months of taking office."

One of the biggest foreign policy blunders in USA history? I don't think there is much question about that. BTW, a White House spokesman said the war had cost the U.S. $406.2 billion through December 2007.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/poll.iraq.economy/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
 
Werbung:

ilikeboobs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
289
Location
Up your butt, Jobu.
It was the UN's war to fight, not the US's war. Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions, not US resolutions. If the UN is too pansy to enforce their own resolutions, then so be it. Shouldn't have been Bush's place to go to war. That's why I voted constitution party!
 

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
Ok since we know Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons... and we know that he was getting together with Al Qaeda, are you saying we should leave the hands of our national security with the UN of all places?
 

pocketfullofshells

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
12,009
Location
land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
Ok since we know Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons... and we know that he was getting together with Al Qaeda, are you saying we should leave the hands of our national security with the UN of all places?

we knew he was trying to get Nukes? ummmm actually we knew he was not even close and there was no shot he would any time soon. He was not with Ql Qaida, in fact they hated each other and he was the reason Al Qaida did not have a real hold in Iraq before...as he would killed them as a threat to his power.

Stop listing to Bush, who said a letter from Al Qaida was proof of a connection once....when in the letter it even said they aimed to overthrow Saddam...
 

Bunz

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,215
Location
Alaska
Ok since we know Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons... and we know that he was getting together with Al Qaeda, are you saying we should leave the hands of our national security with the UN of all places?

While I think PFOS summed up pretty well the Iraq-Nuke connection, but by your argument, we should be fighting in NKorea, and Pakistan, possibly Iran on top of Iraq.
 

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
we knew he was trying to get Nukes? ummmm actually we knew he was not even close and there was no shot he would any time soon. He was not with Ql Qaida, in fact they hated each other and he was the reason Al Qaida did not have a real hold in Iraq before...as he would killed them as a threat to his power.

Stop listing to Bush, who said a letter from Al Qaida was proof of a connection once....when in the letter it even said they aimed to overthrow Saddam...

Mr Straw insisted that intelligence had shown that the Iraqi regime appeared to be allowing a permissive environment "in which al-Qaeda is able to operate".

Jack Straw "Certainly we have some evidence of links between al-Qaeda and various people in Iraq," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. But he said: "What we don't know, and the prime minister and I have made it very clear, is the extent of those links."

"What we also know, however, is that the Iraqi regime have been up to their necks in the pursuit of terrorism generally."
-Mr. Jack Straw Foreign Secretary of the UK
Summary: We KNOW there was a link, just not sure how deep a link. We KNOW he supported terrorism, without question.

Iraq officials had ratcheted up their obstruction of UNSCOM inspection efforts. They interfered with UNSCOM air operations and denied and delayed access of inspectors to sites. In September, they burned documents at sites while inspectors watched outside the front entrance. By mid-November, Saddam Hussein had demanded an end to U-2 surveillance flights over Iraq and called on American inspectors to leave Iraq.1 Iraqis also began moving equipment that could produce weapons of mass destruction out of the range of video cameras inspectors had installed inside key industrial facilities.
-June 1997 Clinton Administrations Case Against Saddam

Iraq must "let the weapons inspectors resume their work to prevent Iraq from developing an arsenal of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons." To achieve this, "we are prepared to pursue whatever options are necessary" because, Clinton added, "I do not want these children we are trying to put in stable homes to grow up into a world where they are threatened by terrorists with biological and chemical weapons."
-Captain underpants himself, Bill Clinton. He is clearly linking Saddam and Terrorism, as well as nuclear weapons.

So please answer this last question: Was Bill Clinton and the entire Democrat establishment lying and deceiving the entire world then.... or now? Oh wait let me guess... he made it all up then... just to confuse Bush into attacking... so he could then suddenly tell the truth that he lied before and Bush is wrong!! Great plan...
 

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
While I think PFOS summed up pretty well the Iraq-Nuke connection, but by your argument, we should be fighting in NKorea, and Pakistan, possibly Iran on top of Iraq.

Saddam was given a conditional cease fire that required him to stand down and disarm. He refused. The cease fire was, by his choice, broken. At which point all bets or off, and our forces rightfully brought him down.

If any of the others are foolish enough to try something, I would support war. Particularly with Iran. That guys is clearly nuts.
 

Bunz

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,215
Location
Alaska
Saddam was given a conditional cease fire that required him to stand down and disarm. He refused. The cease fire was, by his choice, broken. At which point all bets or off, and our forces rightfully brought him down.

If any of the others are foolish enough to try something, I would support war. Particularly with Iran. That guys is clearly nuts.

Interesting to note, in a recent NIE concerning Iran, it stated they stopped thier program in 2004 I believe. So why attack Iran over some rhetoric that goes both ways and all the claims Bush made about Iran until late 07 were effectively false.
In the meantime, NKorea not only broke thier promises to end its Nuke program, it went to the point of testing one. Where as the "decider" on that one?
 

TruthAboveAll

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
615
Location
Further North than I'd like
OMIGOSH! The POLLS, usually of people who have no idea what the three branches of government are, or what their own state capital is, or even where Iraq is, etc. have spoken!

Perhaps we'll all be so blessed to have Hilary elected and the Congress remain in control of the Dems, and have a government once again guided by poll numbers.

Brilliant!
 

9sublime

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
2,620
Location
Bristol
Remember the government lie, especially people like Jack Straw, to make things fit their desired plan of action.
 

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
Remember the government lie, especially people like Jack Straw, to make things fit their desired plan of action.

Jack Straw of England, under a liberal government? So you are suggesting that Bush/Clinton both, went to England and a number of other governments, all to convince all of them to lie to democrats in our congress, to confuse the entire nation into believing that all the evidence against Saddam was not falsely manufactured for the past 10-13 years? I'd almost have an easier time believing Mao in China, was really Santa Clause trying to get gifts for the rest of the world through cheaper labor.
 

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
OMIGOSH! The POLLS, usually of people who have no idea what the three branches of government are, or what their own state capital is, or even where Iraq is, etc. have spoken!

Perhaps we'll all be so blessed to have Hilary elected and the Congress remain in control of the Dems, and have a government once again guided by poll numbers.

Brilliant!

Scary truth here. Especially when the political hacks of our day cite Clinton routinely and yet fail to realizes he and his politically contractual spouse, both were the original war hawks for a re-invasion of Iraq. :cool:
 
Werbung:

Dr.Who

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
6,776
Location
Horse Country
It's now been 5 years since the invasion and Americans don't think much of it, if this poll by CNN is any indication.

71 percent said they think U.S. spending in Iraq is a reason for the nation's poor economy.

66 percent said they oppose the war and it was not worth it.

61 percent of those polled said the next president should remove most U.S. troops from Iraq "within a few months of taking office."

One of the biggest foreign policy blunders in USA history? I don't think there is much question about that. BTW, a White House spokesman said the war had cost the U.S. $406.2 billion through December 2007.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/poll.iraq.economy/index.html?eref=rss_topstories


Considering how often the main stream media tells them that they should believe that, it is a credit to Americans that the remainder are able to think for themselves.
 
Top