It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: 53% of America says Iraq war was not worth it

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Despite the fact that the situation in Iraq seems to be stabilizing, a new Gallup poll revealed that 53% of the American population believes that the War on Iraq was 'not worth it'.
 



www.editorandpublisher.com
With the conflict in Iraq seemingly stabilizing, a new government elected and American deaths declining, media coverage has dropped considerably. Perhaps that is partly based on feeling the public now has a more favorable view of U.S. involvement there. But a new Gallup poll, released Wednesday, firmly disputes that.

It found that only 45% of all Americans now feel the Iraq invasion was “worth it,” with 53% saying it wasn't.

Gallup reported: “Levels of support vary by political party, race, and age. Democrats are much less likely than Republicans to say it was worth going to war in Iraq. Nearly 8 in 10 Republicans, 79%, say it was worth going to war, while just 19% say it was not worth it. Among Democrats, only 17% say it was worth it and 82% say it was not. The divide among political independents is not as wide: a third, 36%, say it was worth going to war, while 61% say it was not.”


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I think what's notable in the article is that most democrats are less likely to support the war as opposed to republicans which is bizarre in the least.

If our president was a Democrat and used the same methods as George Bush would democrats still oppose the war?




posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I don't know when it comes to stabilizing, if you mean they have a "Government" yes they do, if you talk about what goes on everyday in the country, I think is war as usual.

To many death including our troops in a country that should be "Stabilized" by now, after all we claimed victory a long time ago.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
The situation in Iraq is "stabilizing"?!?

Fifty Shiites dumped in a river, a US helicopter shot down killing nine troops...

Despite the propaganda, the situation in Iraq is not "stabilizing", Iraq is essentially in a state of low intensity civil war.

It gives me a glimmer of hope to see that more and more Americans are seeing the disaster in Iraq for what it really is, despite the propaganda we are fed day in, day out. Maybe there's hope for this country yet.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Stabilizing? What news-channel are you listening on? That´s news to me...



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
People believe that the somewhat recent capture of Saddam coupled with the recent elections appear as if this war region is 'stablizing'. When US soldiers are buried daily from Iraq, I would think otherwise.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
What in the hell does the phrase "worth it" translate into?

Every response could mean million different things to a million different people...

What a ridiculous question.....



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
We captured Saddam almost a year and a half ago. I remember, coz I was in Cancun that Christmas.


Not exactly recent.

Anyways, I agree with others - if this is stable, then I don't wanna know what unstable is. This is kind of off topic, but since it was mentioned in this thread: in the introductory paragraph of today's news story about the commercial helicopter being shot down, the author called the shooters "freedom fighters." Well, some of these Iraqi combatants may be "freedom fighters," but the people that shot down those innocent civilians are called "murderous savages" in my book.

Zip



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   
And how exactly was Iraq stable with Saddam Hussein when he was responsible for the deaths of as many as 1 million Iraqis?....

Of course people would say it was stable then, despite the fact that it was not, but now because the coalition who number among the dead is there, and the media has caught the attention of the public who were asleep, the place is not stable?......

And BTW....the link that was given is an editorial. if i remember right editorials are supposed to be OP/Ed.

[edit on 21-4-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I smell a civil war.John titor could still be right and i dont want him to be right.Why cant the congress impeach bush as no wmd were found.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Ok, 53% think the war was not worth it, what else is new.

I can tell you what else will be new: when more people wake up from the media-induced hallucination and realize this war is BS. Especially when all out soldiers come home, and the country is left again all to itself. Why bother.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   
53%? I think if you only surveyed the people who know the facts regarding cooked up WMD claims, cooked up Iraqi connections to Al-qaeda, hidden Iraqi civilian body counts, high-level U.S corporate interests in Iraq, U.S government support of Saddam in the 80's, the staged capture of fake-o-Saddam, and the plane-loads of coffins coming back to the U.S, that number might be a little higher...saaaaaaay 100 percent.

Oh, and did I mention oil?

[edit on 2005/4/21 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
53%? I think if you only surveyed the people who know the facts regarding cooked up WMD claims, cooked up Iraqi connections to Al-qaeda, hidden Iraqi civilian body counts, high-level U.S corporate interests in Iraq, U.S government support of Saddam in the 80's, the staged capture of fake-o-Saddam, and the plane-loads of coffins coming back to the U.S, that number might be a little higher...saaaaaaay 100 percent.


If you surveyed only the people who have read literature about Peak Oil, the number of people who think war in Iraq is "not worth it" would be 0%.

Zip



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Truckloads of coffins?.... a staged capture of Saddam?.... and the "cooked up WMD claims" which the whole world were saying Saddam had......cooked up Iraqi connections to Al Qaeda....

What about the evidence that was also found by the intelligence reports in Spain and by what "supposedly" the Russian intelligence and Putin himself warned the US about?.....


wecomeinpeace....what other cooked up comments are you going to make up??......




[edit on 21-4-2005 by Muaddib]

[edit on 21-4-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   
One more question....

Why is it that this link does not give any link or clear evidence of where, who and how was this gallup made?.....



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Stabilizing--we haven't been able, in two, years to open the airport road. Jesus, we won the 2nd world war in that amount of time, give or take a few months. People are starting to feel the real costs of this war, and I for one, am tired of hearing about all the peole Saddam killed--he did with our blessing until we realized he went rogue, well with Reagan's and bush 40's blessing.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
How can anyone who's not directly involved say it was worth it or not? Worth what? Did we not get nuked because of it? What exactly has occured that has made it worth it? Lets see someone took over the oil fields and now we pay $3 a gallon for gas instead of $1.50. Hmm... I think I liked Saddams prices better. Maybe we're only paying $3.00 a gallon instead of $5.00 like the evil Saddam had planned - yeah that must be it.

I guess it must be worth it to who ever has benefited from the extra revenue and is able to buy more caviar, lobster tails & sex slaves for their meetings & parties.





[edit on 21-4-2005 by outsider]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnronOutrunHomerun
What in the hell does the phrase "worth it" translate into?

Every response could mean million different things to a million different people...

What a ridiculous question.....

Well, you could take the few obvious ones into account. Was it worth spending 200+ billion dollars on? Was it worth the new enemies we've made and the mess we've gotten into, probably forever? Are we really safe now that Iraq (who never had WMD and wasn't even going to attack us anyway) is now, not exactly controlled, but occupied? I'd say no. It was a waste of time and money. It also didn't do alot for our reputation. Was it worth it to start a new pre-emptive war policy, in which paranoia is enough to attack someone?



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Moe Foe

Well, you could take the few obvious ones into account. Was it worth spending 200+ billion dollars on? Was it worth the new enemies we've made and the mess we've gotten into, probably forever?


What "new" enemies?.......



Originally posted by Moe Foe

Are we really safe now that Iraq (who never had WMD and wasn't even going to attack us anyway) is now, not exactly controlled, but occupied? I'd say no. It was a waste of time and money.


Every intelligence agency believed that Saddam had WMD, former president Clinton also believed there were wmd....we also have evidence that seems to point that the Russians helped the Iraqis hide these weapons because it was not in their best interest for the coalition to find who gave Saddam these wmd....

There were truckloads of documents dealing with wmd programs which we found. Saddam kept them for a reason and not to look good in some bunkers....

We also found traces of some of that weaponry that Saddam was not supposed to have...first they fired 4-6 missiles which were banned and they were not supposed to have upon the coalition at the beginning of the war....(whether it was 6 or 600 doesn't matter, they were not supposed to have them according to the UN sanctions...) and also several missile parts and rockets were found in scrap yards around the world which were banned and Saddam got rid up before the war started.... The list of evidence is long and we have discussed it and presented this evidence in these forums...



Originally posted by Moe Foe
It also didn't do alot for our reputation. Was it worth it to start a new pre-emptive war policy, in which paranoia is enough to attack someone?


Even if Kerry would have been choosen as a president or anyone else would have been choosen as president the only solution that we had at the time was exactly what was done.

I just don't understand why people are so blind after all the evidence that has been presented and which even comes from other countries.....

Even authorities in Spain found evidence of a link between Al Qaeda and the iraqi embassy among some other evidence they found.....

Saddam was aidding and abetting terrorist against the US and Israelis.... so, he was a threat towards the US and US interests....

Even the Russian put in the last luring trap telling us after 9/11 and up until the war started that their intelligence agencies, and by the word of Putin himself, Saddam was seeking terrorists to make attacks on US soil and US interests..... of course the Russians knew this information and it was true...they helped to set this up.



[edit on 22-4-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Well, they set us up pretty good anyway, didn't they?

Has nobody considered the possibility that Iraq was a trap, laid for us by powers that wanted to see the US take a fall? We're tied down in a long, grinding counterinsurgency, hemmoraging money and men...

If Saddam was planning to attack the US, how come nobody has been able to find even the tiniest scrap of physical evidence? We found reams of stuff in Afghanistan concerning Al Quaeda's terrorist plans, but not so much as a memo in all of Iraq.

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, Putin was whispering to Bush about BS threats from Iraq (and Bush was obviously looking for an excuse) because he wanted to see the US jam its foot right into a nasty bear trap? Iraq is a nation composed of three major ethnic groups which have hated each other for centuries. The only thing holding the place together was Hussein's brutality. Now we're stuck in the middle of another country's civil war.

Whose interests does that serve? Ours? How?

[edit on 22-4-2005 by xmotex]



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 04:01 AM
link   
I know it was a trap, and the countries that laid that trap made sure we couldn't have done anything else.... why else would they be having these double standards towards the US?.... The Russians warned us right after 9/11 about Saddam using terrorists against the US.


MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.


Excerpted from.
www.cnn.com...

The Russians have been playing chess for a long time, along with China and some others to weaken the image and infrastructure of the US....and a lot of people are falling for the old kremlin/chinese plan. You want a conspiracy? this one is the master of them all imo.



[edit on 22-4-2005 by Muaddib]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join