Dubya

[flavio]

1/23-25/03 52 43 5

Yep, I'd call that fairly split. Certainly not a dominating majority.

 

[Ardsgaine]

Lowest Pre-war poll numbers were 52%

So basically, while the diplomatic process was ongoing the support hovered around the mid to high fifties. When it became obvious that the French were not going to support enforcing the compliance with the inspections process, support began to climb. The small post-war jump in numbers might be attributable to knee-jerk patriotism, or it might just be more people arriving at the same conclusion a little slower. Let's not forget that while about 72% support the war, only about 20% outright oppose it. There's a sizeable number who are sitting on the fence. Those have to be interpreted as people who aren't opposed in principle to the war, but aren't sure if it was a good idea, practically speaking.

i take more credence in the views in teh period immediately before the war and the situation was that around 15-20% didn't know, 30-35% were pro and 35-40% were opposed.

All I can say is that the Brits weren't the ones who were attacked on 9/11. If those planes had crashed into Buckingham Palace, I imagine the support would have been much higher. I just hope that the US would've stood by you guys as well as you've stood by us.

 

[Ardsgaine]

Don't start calling me a socialist.

Why does that bother you? Is there something wrong with being a socialist? :?

 

[flavio]

All I can say is that the Brits weren't the ones who were attacked on 9/11.

Iraq didn't attack us either.

flavio wrote:
Don't start calling me a socialist.



Why does that bother you? Is there something wrong with being a socialist?

Well, I'm not a socialist and it doesn't have anything to do with the conversation either. It's just the right-wing cliche of calling everyone socialists if they disagree with them on any subject.

 

[Ardsgaine]

Iraq didn't attack us either.

Yeah, and Germany didn't attack Britain when they rolled into Poland either.

You're just going in circles now. I've already given an exhaustive exposition on my reasons for invading Iraq, and I've explained in detail how it's related to the general war on terrorism. From now on, I'll just refer you to my earlier statements.

Well, I'm not a socialist and it doesn't have anything to do with the conversation either.

It's related to your attitude towards the public.

What term do you prefer? Statist? Leftist? Welfare-statist? Liberal? You pick the label, and if I agree that it describes your position, I'll use it. In the broadest terms, you are an advocate of using government force to control people's economic decisions and confiscate their property. What do you want to call that?

 

[flavio]

It's related to your attitude towards the public.

What term do you prefer? Statist? Leftist? Welfare-statist? Liberal? You pick the label, and if I agree that it describes your position, I'll use it. In the broadest terms, you are an advocate of using government force to control people's economic decisions and confiscate their property. What do you want to call that?

What a load of crap. Don't try to label me and claim to know any of my views on government force. Especially when it has nothing to do with the conversation. It's a weak attempt at debating the issue at hand.

I prefer the term flavio.

 

[flavio]

Yeah, and Germany didn't attack Britain when they rolled into Poland either.

So you're enforcing the comparison now right?

I've already given an exhaustive exposition on my reasons for invading Iraq

Your reasons for invading Iraq have nothing to do with the current conversation.

 

[Ardsgaine]

Your reasons for invading Iraq have nothing to do with the current conversation.

Untrue. You think that if you can ascribe a disreputable set of motives to Bush for the war, then you've proved that the war is wrong. Bullshit. Bush's reasons for invading Iraq are irrelevant to whether the war is right or wrong. If you want to prove to me that the war is wrong, then it's my arguments for it that you have to deal with.

 

[Ardsgaine]

Don't try to label me and claim to know any of my views on government force. Especially when it has nothing to do with the conversation.

This isn't the first conversation we've had, and I made the relevance clear.

 

[flavio]

If you want to prove to me that the war is wrong, then it's my arguments for it that you have to deal with.

Changing topics again? I thought we had been talking about marketing and propaganda lately.

flavio wrote:
Don't try to label me and claim to know any of my views on government force. Especially when it has nothing to do with the conversation.



This isn't the first conversation we've had, and I made the relevance clear.

Oh yeah? Where did you make the relevance clear?

No, this isn't the first conversation we've had, but you certainly have shown that you have no idea what my ideas on government force are, but you're certainly willing to make some up for me.

 

[outside looking in]

Can I make a suggestion for an appropriate label? Pretty please?