Poll: Is the world better off since the US attack Iraq?

[goddess40]

http://www.senate.gov/~src/home/index.cfm

It is quite interesting to see the results. I got the link from my Weight Watchers forum. I went and voted of course that the world is worse off and found that many on the poll think the same way.

I have to run and pick up kids from school or I would write more, would someone cut and paste the results for me.

[Sagan]

1. OMG! Look how it's worded!

Talk about a slanted poll.. Holy crap.

[wryter2000]

2. No kidding

There is no good answer there.

[LeahMira]

11. I agree...

That part about "Saddam should still be in power because the U.S. acted rashly" really does skew the results, IMO.

But, it brings up questions... what should the U.S. do when it becomes apparent that a dictator is abusing his people and violating human rights? Does the U.S. intervene only when our own interests, i.e. oil, military bases, etc., are involved, or do we consistently take action even when there's nothing in it for us?

I realize that the U.S. is seriously responsible for the fact that Saddam was able to gain power, and I guess you could say that we put him in and we can (should?) take him out when he "misbehaves." But what about Rwanda? What about East Timor? What about some of the dictators in Central America that we currently support?

I'd be for taking concerns to the United Nations, but honestly... sometimes they don't do much either. Maybe there are reasons why they don't, and I hate it that the rest of the world seems to be afraid to stand up to the big ol' United States. But what should we do? Recalling that we didn't do much to stop Hitler until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and recalling that we sell weapons and instruments of torture to nations around the world even now.

Anyone?

[afraid_of_the_dark]

3. You think they're trying to get a certain type of response?

Geez, I just feel dirty having logged my opinion.

[Wickerman]

4. So poorly worded, on a pubbie sight and

they still aren't getting the results they want:

Quick Poll
Is the world better off now that the U.S. has captured Saddam Hussein, or would it be better had the U.S. never invaded Iraq?
Better off now that the U.S. is upholding U.N. resolutions and holding Saddam accountable for his actions.:

47%
The world is actually in worse condition, and Saddam should still be in power because the U.S. acted rashly.:

47%
The condition of the world is the same now as it was before the war in Iraq.:

6%

849 total votes

[Don Claybrook]

5. Even with the push-poll nature of the thing

More than half the respondents on this Senate Republican website say that the world is either no better off (6%) or worse off (48%).

46% bought the propaganda and claim to think we're better off.

[ZenLefty]

6. The possible responses are what's really interesting

If you think the world is worse off, you're automatically a Saddam-supporter. :eyes: Leave it to the asshole senate republican conferenct to spin it this way.

[Killarney]

8. Exactly

It's a bullshit poll so they can say the majority of the country feels we're better off.

[mike_c]

7. I support the rule of law and the Geneva Conventions....

If that makes me a de facto Saddam supporter, so be it. That's the way I responded to the poll.

[lovedems]

9. It is now 51% america acted harshly and Saddam should still be in power

to 43% for the other mumbo jumbo. I like how they are trying to skew the poll with their rhetoric, nice try.

[JasonDeter]

10. Because the WMD's haven't been found how can the world be better off?

After all that is the reason bush* said we needed to attack Iraq isn't it? To rid the world of Iraq's wmds? WHERE ARE THEY GEORGE*?

[Cat Atomic]

12. They can't even win by rigging system .

Let's hope that's still true in November.

[Bucky]

13. BREAKING NEWS!! 52% of Americans think "Saddam should still be in power"

How silly! Now the whole world knows who really would've won Indecision 2000...

The world is actually in worse condition, and Saddam should still be in power because the U.S. acted rashly.

Why vote for Bush? He's just Saddam Hussein-lite!