| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/26 |
| 2003/2/12-7/5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27379 Activity:insanely high |
2/12 A sober reminder:
Which of these do you regard as the greatest threat to world peace?
United States 32%
N. Korea 26%
Iraq 25%
Israel 2%
Commercial Radio 6%
The scary part is that this poll is conducted by Britian, our
closest ally. http://csua.org/u/938
\_ ...and in other news 30% of software engineers see Cowboy Neal
as a major threat to world peace. polls are bullshit.
\_ This isn't a sober reminder of anything. This is a cheap troll and
I'm stunned several of you fell for it. A shitty cut n paste of an
old poll. Jesus F. Christ! You people are such suckers. I'm
going to leave all you "got trolled" fuckers up here so you can see
yourselves and be ashamed even if your names are unknown.
\_ Take yer meds and calm down.
\_ If the UK were attacked, wouldn't you think the poll would
be a little different?
\_ Iraq never attacked the US
\_ dodgin' da queshun eh
\_ Al Qaeda is in Iraq, no one disputes this now.
These fucking Euroweenies are dragging their
feet as part of a power play. Except they are
not in danger, it is the US who bears the brunt
of terrorist animosity. Fucking bastards.
France used to be a great country until the end
of the 19th century. The slide began when they got
their ass kicked by Mexico. Subsequently, they lost
all of their able bodied men in the Franco-Prussian war,
WWI, and WWII. The only men left to repopulate
the country were the queers, Communists and
other non-combatants who sipped coffee on the
Champs d'elysee rather than defend the country.
\_ last time I checked, this was a war against
Iraqi and Sadam; not Al Qaeda, per se. I'm
sure we would have alot more support if the
goal was declared as "chasing these damn
terrorists wherever they run... now into
iraq." That is not the case.
\_ It's not that they don't like the United States or
that they like Iraq. It's simply that they can't
answer "yes" to the question "Can you trust a very
powerful United States to act out of fairness
instead of for their own interest?". For the
world, the answer is "No". Of course, they would
hate an Iraq as powerful as the US, but it isn't.
\_ that is my point. I just want to remind those who
think US is the center of the universe
(I am not in the US right now) that most people
in the world see USA as a 800 pound guerrilla
who never reluctant to throw her weight around for
her self-interest. This continues act of unconstraint
has an interesting effect of building anti-American
setement world wide. -OP
\_ Your critique of US foreign policy seems to be somewhat
hindered by the fact that your post makes you seem like
a complete moron. I suggest you check your spelling
and grammar -- at least consult an english speaking
friend.
\_ This reminds me of the saying, "what does it mean
when someone speaks English with an accent? that
he speaks at least one more language than you."
Have you ever been outside of the U.S.? what the OP
said is nothing new, and it wouldn't surprise me if
the majority of the world feels this way, whether
admitted or not. Picking on his spelling and
grammar may make you feel like a big man, but it's
a pretty poor retort to what we all know the OP meant.
\_ Read this:
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_muller020702.asp
\_ More on this. Saddam had a multibillion nuclear
program with 20,000 workers. Had the Gulf War I
\_ More on this. Saddam's multibillion nuclear program
had 20,000+ workers. Had the Gulf War I
It doesn't cover whether it's right or wrong, or how
trustworthy the U.S. is, but it explains why the Bush
administration is attacking Iraq. It's also a year old
article.
\_ More on this. Saddam's multibillion nuclear
program had 20,000+ workers. Had the Gulf War I
\_ You can stop terror by shifting the balance of
power in the middle east. A bold initiative is
required, perpetuating the current paradigm will only
cause increasing instability. The question is not
what the Socialists in France, Germany, and Belgium
think of us, the question is what is right. None
of these countries will be attacked until the US
falls. Then its their turn. This is a war against
Islam, and Iraq is a battle in this war.
Changing the regime in Iraq will have profound
geopolitical consequences.
not taken place, the intelligence consensus is that
he would have been nuclear by 1993.
\_ Yes, but they still would have been US allies
so the situation would be akin to India and
Pakistan. Besides, Israel would have bombed a
nuke site if they had found it.
\_ You can't stop terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic,
just like "stragetic bombing" is a tactic. You can't
declare war on (nor winning against) tactics.
\_ yeah, but can you stop terror?
\_ By destroying everything that makes you afraid.
\_ You can stop terror by shifting the balance of power in the
middle east. A bold initiative is required, perpetuating
the current paradigm will only cause increasing instability.
The question is not what the Socialists in France, Germany,
and Belgium think of us, the question is what is right.
None of these countries will be attacked until the US falls.
Then its their turn. This is a war against Islam, and Iraq
is a battle in this war. Changing the regime in Iraq will
have profound geopolitical consequences.
\_ So it is a holy war. Ah, welcome back Crusaders 2k.
\_ well duh
\_ Do you recall who the fate of most Crusaders?
\_ The Crusades were a defensive measure,
doomed from the outset. Christendom
was on its way out, the West was lucky to
survive. How quickly we forget that
almost all Islamic lands apart from Asia
were once Christian.
\_ How very European of you. Nice spin try.
\_ Spin = historical facts?
\_ Garbage! Our esteemed president Bush
is a Christian warrior, and he is kicking
Islamic arse! |
| 5/26 |
|
| csua.org/u/938 -> www.channel4.co.uk/news/2003/02/week_2/11_poll.html The sample was draw from the 3,213 people who took part in the original message poll in early November. The raw data was weighted to represent the demographic profile of all adults throughout Great Britain. INTERNET LINKS 38 Full poll results Download the complete poll results (Microsoft Excel files). Submitted by Channel 4 News 39 submit a url Channel 4 is not responsible for the content of third party sites. Join the discussion in our forum EMAIL 42 News Email Email us your views The Propaganda War Iraq Published: 11-Feb-2003 By: Mark Easton Our new poll, similar to the research being done inside Downing Street, tells us what progress Tony Blair has made in building support for his policy on Iraq We've had 90-days of intense anti-Saddam propaganda since we last carried out our huge survey of British opinion over Iraq. Our new poll, similar to the research being done inside Downing Street, tells us what progress Tony Blair has made in building support for his policy on Iraq, but also what buttons he needs to press to get public backing for a war. Back in November we asked which country people regarded as the greatest threat to world peace. Now, though, Iraq has actually slipped down to third place. And the country Britons regard as the biggest threat today - the United States. On this evidence, Tony Blair is losing the Propaganda War. So after endless speeches, dossiers, blurry photos and crackly phone intercepts, how convincing is the case for war? We asked - true or false: Saddam has chemical and biological weapons. Only 33% think that's true - 34% say it's false the remainder said they didn't know. Last Wednesday US Secretary of State Colin Powell played America's propaganda trump card at the UN. But look at this: 21% of the public - thats one in five - thought his evidence was fabricated. What does the public really think is Tony Blair's motivation for possible war against Iraq? Did people think he was driven by a sense of morality and justice or political self-interest? A clear gender split on this question - among men, 41% think his motives are pure, 38% think its self interest. But among women only 30% said it was a moral issue, 46%, almost half are cynical about his motives. In fact women across the survey are more sceptical So what can Tony Blair do? This was the situaion last November - 13% said yes to military action, 9% no, 76% needed persuading. If Tony Blair had UN backing for war instantly his problem would be solved 82% would back military action. Without any UN support only 28% would back an attack alongside the Americans. But here's something very interesting - if Tony Blair got a majority of the Security Council to back military action - even if one or two countries vetoed a second resolution - 62% would go to war. MORE STORIES FROM OUR SEARCH 43 Short accuses Blair 01-Jun-2003 37% relevant 44 How is opinion shifting? |
| www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_muller020702.asp -> www.technologyreview.com/register/register.asp?w=a&jfdl=Sec&flbbp=articles/wo_muller020702.asp Periodically we will send you information offered by other organizations or offered jointly with Technology Review. |