Were 33% of people against the Iraq war before the invasion?

[jsamuel]

Just wondering if the same 33% don't support Israel's invasion of Lebanon.



Invading/blowing up a country does not stop terrorism

[ComerPerro]

1. What I think is interesting is that so many people here

hate what the US is doing in Iraq, but are fine with Israel doing the same things in Lebanon.

[jsamuel]

2. I question that as well.

???

[Redstone]

3. Hezbollah attacked Israel. Iraq did not attack the US.

Pretty big difference.

Redstone

[ComerPerro]

6. Oh, but it did

Terrorists attacked us on 9/11.

Saddam is a terrorist, and he supports terrorists.

We are in a war against terrorists.

Therefore, we are in a war with Saddam.



That's the "logic"

[manic expression]

7. Just who 'attacked' Israel?

That's right, it WASN'T Lebanon. Just who is being flattened and bombed into oblivion? That's right, LEBANON.

And since when did a kidnapping warrant such a disgusting act of aggression and injustice?

Get a grip.

[Redstone]

11. Thousands of rockets over the course of six years. That's what the

Israelis sat there and took.

Got to the point where they couldn't take any more.

Oh, and also, there were nine Israeli soldiers killed as well.

So, when is it that crossing an international border and killing soldiers is not an overt act of war?

Redstone

[manic expression]

16. First,

you forget that Israel had occupied that region for how many years?

Next, I would like to ask you how firing artillary is "sitting there and taking it".

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47513

Nice try, but your portrayal of the situation is dishonest and incorrect.

Finally, oh, I don't know, when an organization crosses a border, it's not exactly the country declaring war.

Hezbollah does not = Lebanon

Is that clear? I doubt it.

[Redstone]

22. Hezbollah DOES equal Lebanon, when the Lebanese cede half of

their country to Hezbollah's control.

Let's say the Mexican government allowed some organization or other to occupy a big slice of Mexico just over the border from San Diego, and that organization fired rockets into San Diego for six years.

Would we be justified in holding the Mexican government responsible?

I think we would be.

Redstone

[manic expression]

26. No, it doesn't

Hezbollah is an organization, it doesn't begin to represent the country or the government of that country. The Lebanese government does not control Hezbollah, so you can scarcely hold a country responsible for the actions of an organization (right or wrong).

Furthermore, provide actual support for your assertions.

Finally, I like how you decided to NOT respond to the majority of my post. Dodging points doesn't get you anywhere.

[jsamuel]

28. I agree. 2 seats does not a government make.

[blonndee]

4. It's mind-boggling.

I just hope it doesn't take the same level of death and destruction, and three more years for them to finally wake up.

[Hippo_Tron]

5. What Israel is doing in Lebanon is closer to Afghanistan than Iraq

Iraq did absolutely nothing to us. The difference with Afghanistan and Israel is that the Taliban killed 3000 of our people. Hezbollah only killed 8 and kidnapped 2 of theirs and they were soldiers not civillians.

[ComerPerro]

8. I thought that as well, but if you really listen to the rhetoric

we went into Iraq for the same reason we went into Afghanistan:

Because it harbors and supports terrorists.

I'm not saying its true, but that is the official reasoning.

[Bretttido]

21. Actually that was reason #5 or #6, we originally went in to take away all

those nuke-u-lear weapons.

[jsamuel]

17. "the Taliban killed 3000 of our people" ??????

Got any support for that claim?


However, I do think this is more like Afghanistan than Iraq. I opposed that as well. same reason

[Hippo_Tron]

19. Whoops meant Al Quaeda

Who were being harbored by the Taliban. Too late to edit unfortunately. Come to think of it, it's actually a bit different. The government of Afghanistan (The Taliban) was harboring Al Quaeda when they had the choice not to. The government of Lebanon doesn't really have a say in the matter of harboring Hezbollah because Hezbollah is more powerful than the government. However, it seems that Lebanon is sharing the same kind of carnage that Afghanistan did.

[napi21]

9. I think Israel is over-reacting too, but their situation is very different

from what we did in Iraq!

No matter who you think is right or wrong, Hezbola did fire bombs into Israel, and they also captured 2 Israel soldiers. They're also right next to each other so the threat is very real.

Iraq had NO possibility of firing anything that could have hit the US, hadn't captured any of our soldiers, and they're sure as heel not next door!

[ComerPerro]

10. But we hit them because they were a threat. That's the official line

[napi21]

25. The Official line is BS! n/t

[Clarkie1]

14. My God, that is such a naive statement. nt

[manic expression]

29. Not really

If you actually think about it.

[The_Casual_Observer]

12. How long before they let us know that they plan to occupy

Lebanon?

[Jane Austin]

13. If I recall correctly, it was more like 50% opposed to the Iraq invasion -

in spite of the "patriotic" drumbeat coming from the television.

The only three television personalities I can remember who spoke out against invading were Wesley Clark, Pat Buchanan (maybe. Not sure about him) and, gasp, Chris Matthews. He didn't come out completely against it, but he sure did express reservations at the time.

[Stevepol]

18. I think the figure was like 62% opposed before the drumbeat.

After the lying and the propagandizing, it went to around 50% and then maybe a little less than that. At some point, then, maybe after the invasion and the initial successes of shock and awe, it might have been at the 33% level but I don't think it remained there very long. I could be wrong.

It's certainly not 33% now.

[Davis_X_Machina]

15. The contemporary data...

...is located here.

[Peace Patriot]

20. FIFTY-SIX PERCENT opposed to the invasion of Iraq, Feb. '03! I'll never

forget it! Never!

Across the board, in all polls.

I was amazed. The American people were not buying it! They opposed this war FROM THE BEGINNING, after Colin Powell's speech to the UN, before the invasion. They were resisting the 24/7 propaganda.

Of that 56%, about half were opposed to the war outright. The other half opposed unilateral action by Bush--they would be for it if it was a UN peacekeeping mission (international consensus).

That number dipped only once--in the few weeks of the invasion, with U.S. troops at great risk--then went right back to nearly 60% where it stayed throughout the '04 election. It's over 70% today--with EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT opposing any U.S. participation in a widened Mideast war.

Another stat I'll never forget is 63% of the American people opposed to torturing prisoners "under any circumstances." UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES! Boy, was I proud of the American people, sticking to their sense of justice and ethics, despite relentless propaganda. And I have never lost faith in them since. Their will has been thwarted--by stolen elections, and by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies.

---------

Note: The polls cited above are not pre-war. They are post-war, starting about Sept. '03. (The 56% pre-war opposition was Feb. '03. The invasion was in March '03.) But the latter polls are entirely consistent with that majority opposition. Most concern the Bush junta's huge war spending bills. Huge opposition to it, all that year. Tell me the '04 election wasn't stolen!

[jsamuel]

23. thanks for that data

[Guaranteed]

24. That's not how I remember it, at all. nt

[Peace Patriot]

27. Here are some of the polls...

TORTURE

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Polls/torture_poll_040527.html

Terror Suspect Treatment
Most Americans Oppose Torture Techniques

Analysis
By David Morris and Gary Langer

May 27, 2004— Americans by nearly 2-to-1 oppose torturing terrorism suspects — but half believe the U.S. government, as a matter of policy, is doing it anyway. And even more think the government is employing physical abuse that falls short of torture in some cases.

Given pro and con arguments, 63 percent in an ABC News/Washington Post poll say torture is never acceptable, even when other methods fail and authorities believe the suspect has information that could prevent terrorist attacks. Thirty-five percent say torture is acceptable in some such cases.

-------

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x488825

December 17, 2002;

Poll: Bush hasn't made case for Iraq war

More than two-thirds of Americans believe the Bush administration has failed to make its case that a war against Iraq is justified...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-17-iraq-poll_x.htm

January 13, 2003

Poll: Majority of Americans oppose unilateral action against Iraq

A robust majority of Americans - 83 percent - would support going to war if the United Nations backed the action and it was carried out by a multinational coalition. But without U.N. approval and allies, only about a third of the public would support a war with Iraq.
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/001415.html

Knoxville News Sentinel, January 24, 2003

Bush Hasn't Made Case for War in Iraq
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0124-04.htm

Attack on Iraq rejected by 2 in 3 voters
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/12/npoll12.xml
How come the US "media" never point this FACT out?

----------

IRAQ WAR

"A full 57 percent disapprove of his handling of Iraq, a number that is seven percentage points higher than a poll taken in September."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14266-2004Dec20.html

56 Percent in Survey Say Iraq War Was a Mistake

Poll Also Finds Slight Majority Favoring Rumsfeld's Exit

By John F. Harris and Christopher Muste
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, December 21, 2004; Page A04

President Bush heads into his second term amid deep and growing public skepticism about the Iraq war, with a solid majority saying for the first time that the war was a mistake and most people believing that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld should lose his job, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

While a slight majority believe the Iraq war contributed to the long-term security of the United States, 70 percent of Americans think these gains have come at an "unacceptable" cost in military casualties. This led 56 percent to conclude that, given the cost, the conflict there was "not worth fighting" -- an eight-point increase from when the same question was asked this summer, and the first time a decisive majority of people have reached this conclusion.
-------

http://207.44.245.159/article7523.htm

Poll: Most Americans Think Iraq War Not Worth Fighting

Over Half Think Rumsfeld Should be Replaced

By Christopher Muste

12/20/04 "Washington Post" -- Most Americans now believe the war with Iraq was not worth fighting and more than half want to fire embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the chief architect of that conflict, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey found that 56 percent of the country now believes that the cost of the conflict in Iraq outweighs the benefits, while 42 percent disagreed. It marked the first time since the war began that a clear majority of Americans have judged the war to have been a mistake.