Informal Poll (Where's Zabe when you need her?)
La Reina
another saying either most Americans support the war, or it's about 50-50 in
favor. I've yet to see any polls with the anti-war votes outnumbering pro-war
votes (unless you count the UN).
So, without getting on our own personal soap boxes (first time for everything,
even at ath), just give a simple answer saying whether you support the
impending invasion of Iraq or not. I really don't need to know why on either
count -- I'm just curious as to how our numbers reflect the national average,
even if it seems to vary day-to-day and poll-by-poll.
Me? I'm against it.
Reina De Paréntesis
Martha K.
"La Reina" <kari...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030317133310...@mb-mw.aol.com...
That makes two of us.
Tempted to preach, but sticking to the Queen's rules,
Martha K.
quixote
La Reina wrote:
(Coming temporarily out of B*ffy-inspired lurkdom...)
> With war seemingly looming heavily on the horizon, I've heard one poll
after
> another saying either most Americans support the war, or it's about 50-50
in
> favor. I've yet to see any polls with the anti-war votes outnumbering
pro-war
> votes (unless you count the UN).
And *every single poll ANYWHERE else in the world*
Oops. Almost a soapbox.
>
> So, without getting on our own personal soap boxes (first time for
everything,
> even at ath), just give a simple answer saying whether you support the
> impending invasion of Iraq or not. I really don't need to know why on
either
> count -- I'm just curious as to how our numbers reflect the national
average,
> even if it seems to vary day-to-day and poll-by-poll.
>
> Me? I'm against it.
>
>
Against.
Jason.
snarkygirl
>With war seemingly looming heavily on the horizon, I've heard one poll after
>another saying either most Americans support the war, or it's about 50-50 in
>favor. I've yet to see any polls with the anti-war votes outnumbering pro-war
>votes (unless you count the UN).
And as were beginning to see, the UN counts for little...
>So, without getting on our own personal soap boxes (first time for everything,
>even at ath), just give a simple answer saying whether you support the
>impending invasion of Iraq or not. I really don't need to know why on either
>count -- I'm just curious as to how our numbers reflect the national average,
>even if it seems to vary day-to-day and poll-by-poll.
>
>Me? I'm against it.
Against. (Although I wanted to batter the throng of anti-war
protesters who got in my way this evening whilst I was trying to do my
shopping.)
snarkygirl
Petey Blue
> Against. (Although I wanted to batter the throng of anti-war
> protesters who got in my way this evening whilst I was trying to do my
> shopping.)
I have it on good authority that some of the polls were weasel worded to ask
the question not as "do you support the war" but instead as "do you support
the troops." That can seriously skew the results since we tend to support
our troops even if we don't support our leaders.
Sadly, lots of people I know say "let's just get it over." Oddly, most of
those are civilians. Almost all the military people I know are dead set
against it, fearing that the stink of an unpopular war will once again get
onto the military as it did during the Vietnam era.
I have to ask my esteemed British colleague: is it just me or does Dumbya
strike you as the kind of guy you wouldn't even trust with a burned out
match?
Pete - very much against. This, I believe is the beginning of WWIII - a
great Muslim v. Judeo-Christian religious war.
Patrick
>With war seemingly looming heavily on the horizon, I've heard one poll after
>another saying either most Americans support the war, or it's about 50-50 in
>favor. I've yet to see any polls with the anti-war votes outnumbering pro-war
>votes (unless you count the UN).
>
>So, without getting on our own personal soap boxes (first time for everything,
>even at ath), just give a simple answer saying whether you support the
>impending invasion of Iraq or not.
While recognizing that we are heading into dangerous and uncharted
territory (http://makeashorterlink.com/?U55E215C3), I'm in favor.
--Patrick
snarkygirl
>Snarkygirl weighed in as a peacenik with a minor shopping-related caveat:
Yeah well, nothing gets between me and my food...
>I have to ask my esteemed British colleague
You talking to me? <doing my best De Niro>
> is it just me or does Dumbya
>strike you as the kind of guy you wouldn't even trust with a burned out
>match?
It's not just you.
It seems to be a case of having declared his great war on terrorism,
he needs to be seen to be doing something.
The weekly poll on my work's intranet site amused me somewhat. Usually
the slightly fascistic tendencies of my co-workers shine through (out
with asylum seekers, in with ID cards, hang 'em, flog 'em, blah blah
blah) but so far the votes are overwhelmingly (about 70%) of the view
that we have no justification for a war without a UN mandate.
snarkygirl
usually spoiling for a fight
caffeineaddict
Question: since you are asking about American opinion, are us
non-Americans allowed to answer this poll as well?
If so, I'm against it. Otherwise, just ignore this post.
-- caffeineaddict
Petey Blue
dig!" said:
> Question: since you are asking about American opinion, are us
> non-Americans allowed to answer this poll as well?
>
> If so, I'm against it. Otherwise, just ignore this post.
Since you write better English than the 50% of the Americans who are pro war
(because they believe Saddam was behind 9/11) we'll consider you an honorary
US citizen for the purposes of this poll (or the porpoises of this pool).
Pete "Jag älskar Nicole Kidman" Blå
caffeineaddict
Dang, Pete! I just noticed I forgot to remove one trigger word from my
latest post in that long thread regarding Swedish and meatballs that
we had. There's a new post that's been laying there waiting for you
for a few days. My bad.
-- caffeineaddict
Ashley
I'm against it. But then you knew that.
ash
"I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government
had better get out of their way and let them have it."
Dwight D. Eisenhower
>
>
> Reina De Paréntesis
RESchwalb
<< So, without getting on our own personal soap boxes (first time for
everything,
even at ath), just give a simple answer saying whether you support the
impending invasion of Iraq or not. >>
Against.
Robin
in favor of a happy Purim to y'all
La Reina
>
>Snarkygirl weighed in as a peacenik with a minor shopping-related caveat:
Well, the cheeky girl takes her shopping *very* seriously. She's never met a
bargain jumper she can't do without.
>I have it on good authority that some of the polls were weasel worded to
>ask
>the question not as "do you support the war" but instead as "do you support
>the troops." That can seriously skew the results since we tend to support
>our troops even if we don't support our leaders.
Very good point. I don't know many people who don't support and worry about (if
not actively pray for) the *troops* but who still oppose a war.
>I have to ask my esteemed British colleague: is it just me or does Dumbya
>strike you as the kind of guy you wouldn't even trust with a burned out
>match?
I wouldn't trust him with a burnt out match if he were under water and
surrounded by the entire DC fire department.
>
>Pete - very much against. This, I believe is the beginning of WWIII - a
>great Muslim v. Judeo-Christian religious war.
Let's hope you're wrong on this one, okay Petey? (It does happen sometimes,
right? You being wrong, I mean.)
Reina De Paréntesis
La Reina
>
>Question: since you are asking about American opinion, are us
>non-Americans allowed to answer this poll as well?
Hey -- Dubya wants to drag us *all* into WW3, so everyone's opinion counts.
>
>If so, I'm against it. Otherwise, just ignore this post.
So counted.
Reina De Paréntesis
Petey Blue
> Against.
>
> Robin
> in favor of a happy Purim to y'all
And to you! And I want to say thanks to the NYC camera district. I went
on-line to search for some replacement disks for an expensive ATT
computerphone I bought years ago that I want to move to a new PC. Lucent,
who apparently now handles such support, wanted to charge me $25 PLUS
shipping for 3 lousy floppy disks. I found a NYC electronics store via
Google that was closing out same phones for $19.99 INCLUDING free shipping.
So I get a free phone with the replacement disks and still pay less. Such a
deal! I love NY!
Pete
Keith Gow
lyrical:
>Me? I'm against it.
Against. (As are 71% of Australians if there is no UN backing... and
there is no UN backing.)
-- Keith Gow --
Ashley
Well hell, 49% of people in my very pro-military state (North
Carolina) are against the war without UN backing. Of course the
article I found this stat in had the headline "51% of NC Residents
Favor War" in Sunday's paper. But I prefer to be positive and say
that, esp. in a state like North Carolina, 49% of the people being
against the war is really quite surprising and impressive.
ash
"I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to
promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want
peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of
the way and let them have it." -Dwight D. Eisenhower
> -- Keith Gow --
Lauren
I've been opposed to war on Iraq since 1991.
quixote
Ashley wrote:
> Keith gave poll numbers:
> > On 17 Mar 2003 18:33:10 GMT, kari...@aol.com (La Reina) waxed
> > lyrical:
> >
> > >Me? I'm against it.
> >
> > Against. (As are 71% of Australians if there is no UN backing... and
> > there is no UN backing.)
>
> Well hell, 49% of people in my very pro-military state (North
> Carolina) are against the war without UN backing. Of course the
> article I found this stat in had the headline "51% of NC Residents
> Favor War" in Sunday's paper. But I prefer to be positive and say
> that, esp. in a state like North Carolina, 49% of the people being
> against the war is really quite surprising and impressive.
>
That seems to be pretty much the national picture at the moment. From the
latest Gallup Poll (March 15th)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030317.asp
"If the United States decides not to offer any new resolutions on Iraq and
goes forward with military action without a new U.N. vote at all, half of
Americans would oppose an invasion of Iraq, while 47% would be in favor"
The only time I remember these polls being broken down on a regional basis,
they made for interesting reading. Though it's out of date, the August
Gallup poll did this, and sadly I can't find anywhere to link to it fully
without going through subscription (calling Petey Blue). But from memory, it
showed the Northeast and West Coast against the war and, with analysis from
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/18/judis-j.html "southerners favored an
invasion by 62 percent to 34 percent, compared with 47 percent to 44 percent
for midwesterners". Texas, Texas, Texas.
quixote
Patrick wrote:
Remind me: Does Patrick have veto powers on the ath council?
Leslie
"Patrick" wrote:
> While recognizing that we are heading into dangerous and uncharted
> territory (http://makeashorterlink.com/?U55E215C3), I'm in favor.
>
> --Patrick
Dear Patrick,
Thank you for providing a link to this very useful essay! While I actively
campaigned for Gore, and was very upset at the outcome of the last election,
and do not support bellicosity of any kind, I find myself thinking: I just
don't have enough information. Worse, I believe that I would have to leave
my home and family, work and community, and devote myself to years to
scholarship before I could have enough information. In the face of this
impasse, I have decided to try to support the decisions of my government
(because, for me, it leaves more room for useful action than attempting to
disown it), but with open eyes. I found these two passages from the essay
Patrick recommended especially helpful:
But what happens when you a playing chess with someone who refuses to accept
the rules of the game? How do you respond if your opponent begins to jump
his knight in all sorts of bizarre zigzag patterns, so that you cannot
predict where he will land or what piece he will seize?
In a game of chess the answer is obvious: You stop playing with the madman
and go your separate way. But this, unfortunately, is not an option in
dealing with genuine conflicts arising in the real world. That is why the
supposed realism expressed by the concept of Realpolitik can only be of
value in a world comprised exclusively of rational actors.
[snip]
Once the world-historical magnitude of the risk is understood, it is
possible for men of good will to differ profoundly over the wisdom of this
or that particular response - and not only possible, but necessary. But this
must be done in a climate free of pettiness and personalities: the cult of
naīve cynicism - that oxymoron that characterizes so much of what passes
today for intellectual sophistication - must be dismantled and as soon as
possible if we are to make our response as intelligent and as creative as it
must and can be. To call prudence appeasement is wrong. But to call the
United States' response a bid for empire is simply silly.
No one's crystal ball is in such good shape that they can afford to be too
vehement in denouncing those who disagree with them. Fear and trembling is
the first order of the day, both on the part of those who counsel action and
those who do not.
Reina is right; I hope this doesn't lead to WWIII. Our government's response
is a wild card. I pray that it will prove wise. I pray that the number of
fatalities is small. I pray for the wisdom to know what to pray for. Fear
and trembling is right.
L
Patrick
wrote:
>
>Remind me: Does Patrick have veto powers on the ath council?
Yes, I assert the power to veto all this endless exchange of views
accompanied by the doing of nothing in ath. Furthermore, I will
henceforth not wait for people to come in here and show themselves to
be idiots before I flame them; from now on I will seek out idiots in
other newsgroups and flame them before they get here.
--Patrick
This has been a public service announcement.
Patrick
wrote:
>Question: since you are asking about American opinion, are us
>non-Americans allowed to answer this poll as well?
Is Bill Clinton allowed to answer this poll in a British newspaper?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,00.html
--Patrick
Petey Blue
> The only time I remember these polls being broken down on a regional
basis,
> they made for interesting reading. Though it's out of date, the August
> Gallup poll did this, and sadly I can't find anywhere to link to it fully
> without going through subscription (calling Petey Blue).
Sorry - can't help you on this one. Which subscription are we talking
about?
> http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/18/judis-j.html
Shows: "The administration's core supporters are rural, white, male,
southern Republicans without a college diploma." In other words the kind of
Good Ol' Boys who still answer the phone whenever it rings, unlike most of
us who are sick to death of telemarketeers of any kind. My J-prof had a
treasured copy of the newspaper headline mounted over his desk proclaiming
"Dewey Wins!" just to remind students how fallible polls can be. I say it's
especially true of telephone polls in a world of three or four calls a night
from drips trying to sell everything from charities to condos. I'm sure
that your typical Biloxi Bubba has plenty of time to talk to pollsters. I
don't - but I might next time because it seems that it has a direct relation
to our willingness to make war.
Just like the "contract on America" did, this mistaking of a slim majority
for a mandate will cost the Republicans dearly in the upcoming elections.
Like the Palestinkians and their inability to recognize a good deal when
they were offered one, the Repubs never miss an opportunity to miss an
opportunity.
Pete - registered Republican
alcove
Lauren wrote:
> I've been opposed to war on Iraq since 1991.
I'm OPPOSED to it. I am not an American citizen, though.
^alcove^
Petey Blue
the biggest, steaming pile of bilious bullshit I have come across in recent
years:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U55E215C3
> While I actively
> campaigned for Gore, and was very upset at the outcome of the last
election,
> and do not support bellicosity of any kind, I find myself thinking: I just
> don't have enough information.
Sure you do! Despite the billowing clouds of stinky, burning horseshit
spewing from the general direction of one Lee Harris, the author of that
pseudo-intellectual drivel, you have your common sense. That common sense
tells you that it's hard to make peace by making war. It tells you if we
had proof of Saddam's weapons, we would have told the inspectors where to
look. It tells you that American stands virtually without allies in attack
unsanctioned by a duly-constituted international authority we've spent
billions and shed American blood to put into place. It's fascinating that
Harris implores us abandon our common sense as useless right off the bat.
That's absolutely vital in getting us to swallow all the rest of the swill
that follows. It is a primary tool of the propagandist.
Has the tough, no-nonsense, take-no-prisoners approach of Israel to the
Palestinian problem brought peace? No, it's only brought more determination
to their enemy. An enemy now willing to die just to take along a few
Israeli school kids with them. What will the slaughter of thousands of
Iraqis civilians will beget? If someone from Country-X came over and killed
my brother with a bomb, would that make me embrace the X-ian way of doing
things? You can't make peace by starting a war. We couldn't do it in
Vietnam, whose lessons we apparently have completely forgotten, and we won't
be able to do it now despite the Whitehouse's doubletalk.
> Worse, I believe that I would have to leave
> my home and family, work and community, and devote myself to years to
> scholarship before I could have enough information.
Do you think that George Bush did that? Do you believe his education is so
much greater than yours? I don't think it is. And that means we have to
come to grips with this problem using the intellectual tools we have and NOT
by putting blind faith in our leaders. Why? Simple inspection tells us our
President is not (and could never be) a deep scholar of political history.
Or anything.
Harris is careful to characterize Bush as a "strong-willed, self-confident
leader." Notice that 'intelligent' is not in there. It can't be. It's not
in Bush. Hitler was strong-willed and self-confident. But he was, in the
end, an idiot and a madman who had a cadre of smarter people using him and
his evil charisma for their own nefarious political ends. Think of how
easily so many good Germans were duped by their leaders into carrying out
acts of terrible aggression against other countries. I would insist that
there *is* something to be learned from history, Mr. Harris, and it's that
political leaders often bamboozle their citizens into dreadful courses of
action by making enemies seem far more threatening than they are.
Now let's look at George. How hard do you think Cheney and Co. had to work
to convince him to act out their agenda? He *wants* to please those he
perceives as smart, hoping the smart smell will rub off on him. The bad
news for George is that you have to *work* to be smart. It doesn't come by
osmosis. For heaven's sake, he has his finger on the trigger of a bomb
who's name he can't even pronounce!!!
But my biggest beef with this bonehead, Harris, is his constant harping that
there's nothing to be learned from history. Doesn't every fiber of your
being tell you that's wrong? It screams it out to me as I slogged deeper
and deeper into the piece:
"Such world-historical innovations transcend the conceptual categories of
the old world, call into existence an entirely novel set of categories."
So, bombing a country against the wishes of an established body of world
governance is now an "innovation." These are strong clues that this is a
techie obscurist speaking, with just enough historical knowledge to be
dangerous. Another danger sign? The euphemism "world-historical
undertaking" instead of "making war."
> In the face of this impasse,
It's not really an impasse if you just apply the rules that have served you
all your life. Accusations require proof, aggression is only justified in
self-defense, killing people to save them makes no sense - the list goes on
and on. That's why this guy Harris has to take the tack he does - that
common citizens are too stupid to understand what is happening here so they
must trust in George. To believe any of the rest of his techno-political
drivel, you have to first throw out your common sense and quickly follow it
with the lessons of history and then trash the opinions of dozens of leaders
of democratic countries throughout the world. I'll need more of an argument
than the sad smokescreen Harris puts up to be willing to do that.
> I have decided to try to support the decisions of my government
> (because, for me, it leaves more room for useful action than attempting to
> disown it), but with open eyes. I found these two passages from the essay
> Patrick recommended especially helpful:
>
> But what happens when you a playing chess with someone who refuses to
accept
> the rules of the game? How do you respond if your opponent begins to jump
> his knight in all sorts of bizarre zigzag patterns, so that you cannot
> predict where he will land or what piece he will seize?
Oh God Oh God Oh God Oh God Oh God Oh God Oh God OH GOD!!!!
Making war costing billions of our tax dollars, costing God knows how many
lives AND the respect of the rest of our fellow world citizens IS NOT and
NEVER WILL BE a chess game. The metaphor breaks down instantly and then in
a million different ways under detailed analysis. We have a budding world
government in place - one that threatens politicians like Bush because it
seeks to limit *anyone* from making war. His war is not just on Iraq - and
this is a key point to remember - it is against the UN as well. If it were
only a chess game, I wouldn't give a stinky, wet bollus of diarrhea about
it. But I have friends in the military who may die as a result of this.
I live in a city (as you do) likely to bear the brunt of retalliation for
whatever comes of this war. This is personal, not abstract to me.
I'm going to stop now and let my blood pressure drop a bit. But I will come
back and rip the rest of Harris' farrago to the tiny shreds it deserves to
be ripped into. I will admit, it's rare you see such total BS piled so high
in one place. Not only that, to top it off he cheerfully adds completely
bogus references to historical figures like Marx and Hegel, placing them,
like cherries, on a pile of deep Bernese Mountain doggie do. Keep in mind
that he is quoting these historical figures while telling us history won't
help us here. Could anyone be more hypocritical?
This Harris guy needs an editor, a good dose of reality and a hot brain wax.
For a better view of what's happening try a reputable, professional
journalist:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/18/opinion/18TUE1.html
instead of this rather scary and seedy-looking Harris guy:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/images/bioharrislee.jpg
Pete - still loves Leslie dearly but would like her to reconsider the
article.
Petey Blue
> > I've been opposed to war on Iraq since 1991.
>
>
> I'm OPPOSED to it. I am not an American citizen, though.
The Canadians have been remarkably quiet on this one but I suspect that a
majority of our northern brothers don't agree with Bush on the need for
immediate war. The Guardian had this to say:
"Since George Bush came to power, the neurosis has begun to turn in the
direction of psychosis, because the current Washington orthodoxy is wholly
inimical to the Canadian political culture. Canadians care about the
environment (they have a lot of it). They are instinctively drawn to
multilateral bodies, such as the UN and the international criminal court,
which the Americans scorn. The idea of an inessential war against Iraq is
widely regarded as insane. The most startling recent poll showed 84% of
Canadians consider the US wholly (15%) or partly (69%) to blame for
September 11. It is a remarkable indication of fundamental antipathy."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,860663,00.html
Pete
Leslie
"Petey Blue" wrote
> Level-headed, Leslie, whom I *dearly* love, shocked me silly
That hasn't happened since the last time I dropped the sex toys in the hot
tub, has it? Was it good for you, too? : P
> Pete - still loves Leslie dearly but would like her to reconsider the
> article.
Well, I still love you dearly, and appreciate your concerned response. I
don't espouse the whole essay; I found some stuff useful. I keep an open
mind because I enjoy hearing the sound of the wind whistling thru.
Thanks for the links. Will work through these too. More info is a good
thing.
xxxxooooLL
Petey Blue
news:Dv%da.15$eh1....@news.abs.net...
>
> "Petey Blue" wrote
>
> > Level-headed, Leslie, whom I *dearly* love, shocked me silly
>
> That hasn't happened since the last time I dropped the sex toys in the hot
> tub, has it? Was it good for you, too? : P
Shockingly good.
> > Pete - still loves Leslie dearly but would like her to reconsider the
> > article.
>
> Well, I still love you dearly, and appreciate your concerned response. I
> don't espouse the whole essay; I found some stuff useful.
How did you ever find it in there? I got to thinking, if anyone's not
playing by the chess rules, it's Bush who is bypassing the entire UN while
Saddam appears to be allowing inspections and destroying banned missiles as
the UN resolutions (the rules) ask of him.
> I keep an open mind because I enjoy hearing the sound of the wind
whistling thru.
I have no problem with that. But once you read the NY Times piece I think
you will see the difference between good writing and mental masturbation on
paper.
> Thanks for the links. Will work through these too. More info is a good
> thing.
Good. My work is done here!
Pete
Leslie
"Petey Blue" wrote
> the difference between good writing and mental masturbation on
> paper.
Heh. Once, while I was attempting to massage an author's essay to a shape
that might resemble comprehensible English, he complained that it was not
always necessary for a text to be completely accessible to readers be
successful. I answered, "Well, look, masturbation is a heck of a lot of fun,
but I hope you can understand that I might not want to watch."
xoxoxoxoxL
Petey Blue
Or worse, yet, help. (-:
I've sent that Harris piece to a number of journalists who promise to
forward their written impressions. One asked, point blank: "What on earth
is he saying?"
Pete
Kayleigh19
>So, without getting on our own personal soap boxes (first time for
>everything,
>even at ath), just give a simple answer saying whether you support the
>impending invasion of Iraq or not.
My vote would be against.
Kayleigh
Kayleigh19
All of you know of my musical obsession with Fish -- this comment about "mental
masturbation" brought to mind a Piscean lyric which I think applies well to the
situation at hand:
"Verbal masturbation in the garden of beaurocratic works...."
That, essentially, is how I see Bush.
I'm not in favor of this "war", but I will support the men and women who have
been called from their normal lives to fight it. (Much my same position on the
Gulf Conflict that was instituted by the *other* war-mongering President Bush.)
I just don't feel the need for the US to be the world's policemen. It's what
got us to this standpoint in the first place.
Kayleigh
La Binsk
>
> With war seemingly looming heavily on the horizon, I've heard one poll after
> another saying either most Americans support the war, or it's about 50-50 in
> favor. I've yet to see any polls with the anti-war votes outnumbering pro-war
> votes (unless you count the UN).
>
> So, without getting on our own personal soap boxes (first time for
> everything, even at ath), just give a simple answer saying whether you
> support the impending invasion of Iraq or not. I really don't need to know
> why on either count -- I'm just curious as to how our numbers reflect the
> national average, even if it seems to vary day-to-day and poll-by-poll.
>
> Me? I'm against it.
>
Against. And very concerned about the consequences of taking such
action. But very supportive of our military men and women, of course.
La Binsk
La Reina
For me, that's pretty much a given. Humorless though we sociopaths may be,
we're not entirely heartless.
Reina De Paréntesis
La Binsk
Oh, yeah, I know. But, it's like, even though you know your family
loves you, it doesn't hurt to hear it said out loud from time to time.
La Binsk