I think you're right to some extent or another. I believe (but could be wrong) that a treaty was signed by Western powers mandating the gradual dismantling of nuclear weapons permanently. Also, as far as I know, the only signee to adhere has been the UK. But I could be wrong. Nevertheless, as soon as a government (read: the US) begins a concerted effort to eliminate their "WMD", then they have some right to take them from other people. Otherwise, they are hypocrites.
Originally posted by britt2001bGod forbid?
... or if it is determined that Korea is haboring terrorists, or God forbid, supplying terrorists with weapons of mass destruction, YES, they would have to face the U.S. military. [/b]
Rumsfeld has gone on the record as saying that he believes there is a serious threat of North Korea selling nuclear material to terrorists.
It has been mentioned in many postings that polls show that the majority of U.S. citizens aren't backing the military action that is now (yes, it has started, targets have already been destroyed by guided missiles outside of Bagdhad as of yesterday) under way. I can assure you that these are false polls. I've seen other polls that show just the opposite. But, I live here, and I can assure you the majority of the people are backing Bush. Here's an excerpt from a letter to the editor from a local newspaper that expresses the belief of the majority. Keep in mind it doesn't speak for all, but no doubt a majority. Hopefully it will give you some insight of how we view the terrorist leaders and those leaders who lay in bed with them:
"Of course, Saddam and bin Laden are two very different men - the former a secular ruler who cares only for himself, the latter a religious zealot with a perverse, extermist interpretation of Islam. However, they both share similar views of the world. They hate FREEDOM. They hate DEMOCRACY. They have no tolerance for those with whom they disagree. They kill without hesitation or delineation between combatants and innocent civilians. They want to destroy America, and every FREE society which does not share their view. To accomplish this they need nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The only thing standing between Saddam, Usama and their horrific scheme is the principled stance of nations like the UNITED STATES, BRITAIN and a growing host of countries which have condemned Saddam Hussein and his clearly UNRIGHTEOUS regime."
Now to those who want to compare the United States' might with the above mentioned scheme - you are highly misinformed.
Originally posted by britt2001bWell, you happen to live in one of the most conservative regions of the country. (Mississippi went 58% to 41% for Bush in 2000).
But, I live here, and I can assure you the majority of the people are backing Bush.
So I don't think that your perceptions of the attitudes of those around you tells us that much about the general mood of the nation, do you?
The idea that just by living in this country you have some sort of exclusive insight on public opinion doesn't hold water in my book. Polls aren't perfect, but they're a lot more informative than that.
Originally posted by jgvaccaroHere's a current polling result from Zogby, a well-respected polling service. I can assure you that he doesn't come to Mississippi for his polling results.
Well, you happen to live in one of the most conservative regions of the country. (Mississippi went 58% to 41% for Bush in 2000).
So I don't think that your perceptions of the attitudes of those around you tells us that much about th ...[text shortened]... rfect, but they're a lot more informative than that.
(Utica, NY) President Bush’s job performance rating jumped to 62% in Zogby America weekend polling, an increase of 5 points from his recent low of 57% in late January. More than a third ( 37% ) of the 1,002 likely voters polled February 6-8 rated his performance as fair or poor. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 3.2%.
Two-thirds ( 67% ) said they saw or heard Secretary of State Colin Powell’s presentation last Wednesday to the United Nations Security Council, and nearly three out of four ( 72% ) said Powell made a convincing case for war with Iraq.
More than four in ten ( 44% ) likely voters surveyed said Powell’s speech made them more likely to support a war in Iraq. Just under 5% said it made them less likely to support a war, and nearly half ( 48% ) said it made no difference.
Nearly six in ten ( 58% ) respondents said they now strongly ( 34% ) or somewhat ( 24% ) support a war against Iraq, an 11 point increase since polling released by Zogby International on January 27th, two weeks ago. Opposition to a war declined from 49% to 37% in the same time.
In the above posting. I did not insert the smiley faces. They seemed to appear all on their own. Anyway, I tried to edit them out with no results.
The posting was copied and pasted directly from the Zogby site. It appears a smiley face was substituted for a pecent sign. No irreverence was intended. Just replace the smiley with a percent sign.
Originally posted by britt2001bits because that % ) with out the space in betwen makes this 😵 just put a space in betwen them and the will go away
In the above posting. I did not insert the smiley faces. They seemed to appear all on their own. Anyway, I tried to edit them out with no results.
The posting was copied and pasted directly from the Zogby site. It appears a smiley face was substituted for a pecent sign. No irreverence was intended. Just replace the smiley with a percent sign.
Originally posted by britt2001bDid you read the rest of the poll? Even among those same people who claim to be supporting a war with Iraq, 54% said that they were opposed to any military action against Iraq without UN support, vs. 41% who felt that the US should invade Iraq regardless of UN approval. That's in the United States! Don't you think that maybe the administration should listen to the people on this matter?
Here's a current polling result from Zogby, a well-respected polling service. I can assure you that he doesn't come to Mississippi for his polling results.
(Utica, NY) President Bush’s job performance rating jumped to 62% in Zogby America weekend polling, an increase of 5 points from his recent low of 57% in late January. More than a third ...[text shortened]... January 27th, two weeks ago. Opposition to a war declined from 49% to 37% in the same time.
-mike
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by britt2001bHere are some counter stats from polls in Britain, these may go some way to showing why 2 million marched in London:
Here's a current polling result from Zogby, a well-respected polling service. I can assure you that he doesn't come to Mississippi for his polling results.
(Utica, NY) President Bush’s job performance rating jumped to 62% i ...[text shortened]... Opposition to a war declined from 49% to 37% in the same time.
*Fewer than one out of every 10 Britons believe it would be right for the country to take part in a war against Iraq without the UN passing a new resolution in favour of it.
*45% of people polled said the UK should play no part in a war on Iraq - whatever the UN decides.
*on Tony Blair...the ICM poll of 1,000 people suggests - more then half of them say he would do anything US President George W Bush asks.
*on "the case for war"...Three out of every five Britons think the UK and US Governments have failed to prove their case that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, the research indicates.
*on "whats it all about?"...When the survey asked why Britain and America wanted to attack Iraq, the most popular response was: "To secure oil supplies." Fewer than one out of every four said it was to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. And just one out of every five thought it was to prevent another act of international terrorism "like 11 September".
*on "making a safer UK"...Almost three out of every four Britons believe a war against Saddam would damage relations with Muslims in the UK
*on "making a safer eorld"...nearly as many (64% ) think it would fail to deter other countries from developing weapons of mass destruction
Tony Balir may be one of the most popular men in the US at the moment but unless any way is over quickly and there is minimal bloodshed it will cost him his job in the UK.
Andrew
Originally posted by britt2001bThey don't hate freedom or democracy, they hate the United States. Throw a terrorist in jail and see if he likes it. Of course he doesn't, because he actually likes freedom. To say that terrorists commit acts of terror because they hate freedom and democracy is nonsense. What they hate is U.S. foreign policy, what they and the rest of the world see (and we so blithely ignore) is the blood on our own hands. Just because their cruelty is inhuman doesn't mean they act for no reason.
It has been mentioned in many postings that polls show that the majority of U.S. citizens aren't backing the military action that is now (yes, it has started, targets have already been destroyed by guided missiles outside of Bagdhad as of yesterday) under way. I can assure you that these are false polls. I've seen other polls that show just the opposite ...[text shortened]... mpare the United States' might with the above mentioned scheme - you are highly misinformed.
Originally posted by rwingettGood point. Even if 100% of the American and British populations backed a war, that alone would not justify the war. Both the US and the UK are members of the UN (in fact, these countries were instrumental in founding the UN), and have signed the UN Charter.
This just in: 100% of people polled think polls are innacurate and worthless.
The main point of the UN Charter is to prevent member states from resorting to the use of force without approval from the security council. The reason that everyone agreed to this in the first place was that, after WWII, everyone realized that WWIII, should it come to pass, would be something that noone could afford.
Now, there are some arguments that could be made to characterize the proposed invasion of Iraq as "pre-emptive self-defence", and therefore not subject to the prohibition on the use of force. However, if the proposed invasion of Iraq takes place without approval from the security council, these two permanent members would be setting a dangerous precedent.
From bbarr:
"what they and the rest of the world see (and we so blithely ignore) is the blood on our own hands. "
Yes, you can say we have blood on our own hands. It's still as fresh as the blood shed in Bosnia under the Clinton administration. Now, answer me honestly did you refuse to support that action or did you protest it as vigorously as you have in your above postings? I'm sure you'll ask me the same question and I don't mind answering. Even though I had very little respect for Clinton, I still supported the troops and was very happy to see a maniacle leader bite the dust. I did not refuse support because of my lack of respect of Clinton.