Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LTK007 who wrote (68019)	1/24/2003 11:19:26 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Bush's Backing, Though Still Strong, Shows Steady Decline nytimes.com [ just for the record, some other poll results. ] Although Mr. Bush has signaled that he is prepared to lead a war against Iraq without the support of the Security Council, nearly two-thirds of Americans said they wanted him to try to find a diplomatic solution to the Iraq situation, while 31 percent said the United States should resort to military force. Even so, 64 percent said they approved of the United States taking military action to oust Saddam Hussein, while 30 percent said they disapproved. [ The NYT, liberal biased commie rag that it is, of course links the actual poll questions and results. As the above clip indicates, the questions are interesting in their somewhat contradictory results. From nytimes.com ] SPLIT HALF - ASK EITHER QUESTION 58 OR 59. 58. On January 27, the United Nations weapons inspectors will report on whether or not they have found any evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If the United Nations inspectors have not found any weapons of mass destruction by that date, do you think the United States should decide to start military actions against Iraq, or should the United States wait longer to give the weapons inspectors more time to look? Start military actions 17 Wait longer 77 DK/NA 6 59. On January 27th, the United Nations weapons inspectors will report on whether or not they have found any evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If Iraq cannot prove that it has shut down its weapons program by then, do you think the United States should decide to start military actions against Iraq, or should the United States wait longer to give Iraq more time to comply? Start military actions 47 Wait longer 47 DK/NA 7 [ Well, there's the wedge that the current war marketing plan is playing to the hilt. Explained in gory detain in nytimes.com, To U.S., Onus Is on Hussein. I wouldn't bet against it working either, though I don't think it's particularly honest. Rumsfeld decided he wanted a war on Iraq on 9/11, and odds are he'll get his way . As to why, well, the first casualty is truth, and the marketing plan has been pounding nails in that coffin for quite some time. ]