why are we going to war?

[flavio]

I can't speak for the poll results that you saw, but I believe there is a good explanation. "In favor of military action" is a rather dubious question as it does not specify when, how, or under what conditions. I used to look up fresh results on MSNBC but have recently gotten lazy and am looking at the polls Gonz and PT are using which are at http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm.

I find the interesting stats to be:

"The United States JOINED TOGETHER with its major allies to attack Iraq, with the FULL SUPPORT of the United Nations Security Council"
2/6-7/03
Yes 85
No 12
Don't know 3

This is obviously the scenario you want with 85% approval

"The United States and ONE OR TWO of its major allies attacked Iraq, WITHOUT the support of the United Nations"
2/6-7/03

Yes 50
No 44
Don't know 6

A possible scenario, but with the nation pretty much split

"The United States ACTED ALONE in attacking Iraq, WITHOUT the support of the United Nations"
2/6-7/03

Yes 37
No 59
Don't Know 4

This is no good. Majority of US citizens definately opposed.

Now this one is very important too:

"Before deciding whether to attack Iraq, do you think the United States should or should not give United Nations inspectors a few more months to search for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons there?"

Should 59%
Should not 36%
Don't know 4%

 

[PT]

That last poll certainly is interesting, I guess I just don't see the point in continuing to look. He has obviously been lying to us, is still lying to us, and unless we had an inspection team that could sweep the entire country in a matter of hours, the chances of us finding what we are looking for is next to nil.

I think the majority of people have a really hard time believing that a person can be as bad as this guy is. We know he's keeping track of where the inspectors have been, and are going, we know the personnel at these sites have been told to not speak to the inspectors in private, there are just too many red flags up at this point to continue, IMO.

 

[flavio]

Well. I saw a bit on the news the other day with Blix reporting that Iraq has been more forthright as of late. We are now able to use spy planes as well.

Germany has suggested doubling or tripling the number of inspectors and giving them more power.

With a foot planted firmly on Hussein's neck, what then is the big rush for immediate action resulting in many deaths and whatever repurcussions then ensue?

With double or triple the number of inspectors, spy planes, and whatever else we have going on how can Iraq be viewed as an immediate threat?

 

[A.B.Normal]

Instead of asking "why" ,maybe we should be asking "what do we want to Achieve",overwhelmingly the asnwer is the removal of Sadam.I know the US has something against "assasination of a country's Leader",but if there is a coalition of countries then this may be workable.Even most Arab countries wouldn't complain too loudly and from what I saw on the News Osama ain't a fan of Sadam(something about his killing of Islamics in Iraq).I just doesn't make sense to be willing to kill thousands of people ,Iraqi and coalition , and if we get Sadam accidently that's okay,but if we target Him directly thats a no-no?( .By taking the stance of Attack first they may attack us ,the US is already going against accepted practice so why would Targeting a Countries Leader not be a possibility even without a coalition.

 

[A.B.Normal]

Grrr ,some how I missed this http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6530

 

[outside looking in]

I used to look up fresh results on MSNBC but have recently gotten lazy and am looking at the polls Gonz and PT are using which are at http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm.

I find the interesting stats to be:

Well, there were plenty of other interesting stats as well, but I'll comment on these that you picked.

"The United States JOINED TOGETHER with its major allies to attack Iraq, with the FULL SUPPORT of the United Nations Security Council"

This is obviously the scenario you want with 85% approval

"The United States and ONE OR TWO of its major allies attacked Iraq, WITHOUT the support of the United Nations"
2/6-7/03

A possible scenario, but with the nation pretty much split

"The United States ACTED ALONE in attacking Iraq, WITHOUT the support of the United Nations"
2/6-7/03

This is no good. Majority of US citizens definately opposed.

As you pointed out, properly structuring polls and interpreting results is notoriously difficult. I think your conclusions in this case are too simplistic an interpretation. The reason I believe this is that the three questions you picked were asked together as a group in a single polling effort. Despite the questions being listed separately, with the option of rating each one on your approval, many people will no doubt view the collective group as a sort of "multiple choice" question. In essence, if someone strongly feels that we should have UN support before taking action they may vote "yes" to the first question and "no" to the other two, even if they would ultimately support one of the other options if push came to shove.

These three questions, in the venue in which there were presented, are not independent of one another. Therefore the results are not either. To properly poll the US population and get an accurate assessment of sentiment on this subject, each of the three questions should have been asked in a different venue to a different sample (i.e., one question asked in Newsweek, another in the Wall Street Journal, and another in an online CNN poll).

Now this one is very important too:

"Before deciding whether to attack Iraq, do you think the United States should or should not give United Nations inspectors a few more months to search for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons there?"

Should 59%
Should not 36%
Don't know 4%

I think this type of poll is essentially meaningless, and I'm alluded to why in previous posts. A certain percentage of people will just about always think waiting longer is the proper thing to do. This opinion is supported by another poll question that you didn't quote which asks more or less how long we should give inspectors before committing military action. Over the dates the same poll was taken, nearly the same percentages were in favor of "a few weeks" and "a few months."

Were you to take the poll you quoted above in "a few more months" you'd still have roughly half the population voting to give inspectors "a few more months." A few months ago they felt the same way, and a few months from now they will still feel the same way. Meaningless poll IMO.

More relevant polls are ones directly asking whether the population feels military action, at some point, is appropriate. It is up to our leaders who have access to the pertinent information to make the informed decision of just "when" is the appropriate time. The general popluation will always wish (understandably so) that war could be postponed. Without all of the intelligence laying out just why that isn't practical, or a good idea, there is no compelling reason to feel otherwise. Hell, I myself wish that war could be postponed... but I trust that if those with access to the intelligence say that just isn't the smart thing to do, then I have no choice but to trust them. I don't have the necessary information to form my own opinion, neither do you, or the people being polled. We never have, and we never will.

 

[Jeslek]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=615&ncid=1276&e=5&u=/nm/20030211/pl_nm/iraq_usa_polls_dc

A majority of respondents, 57 percent, said they would support an allied attack against Iraq even over objections of the United Nations, a Washington Post/ABC News poll found.

 

[flavio]

but I trust that if those with access to the intelligence say that just isn't the smart thing to do, then I have no choice but to trust them.

You see, I do have that choice.

...and since you have decided to try to explain away the poll results I'm not sure on what basis the conversation can continue. I'm using the same source as other people here that are on the other side of the fence.

 

[outside looking in]

You see, I do have that choice.

OK, yes, we do have that choice. But on what rational basis? Because we want them to be wrong, because we believe they are wrong, or because we know they are wrong? It surely isn't the last case.

They have all of the information; you and I do not. If you don't believe the persons with the relevant information are capable of making the correct decision, then just who do you think is? Someone has to make the decision, and I'd sure as hell rather it be those who are informed than the ignorant masses.

Are you really saying that you don't feel the same way, or are you just making the popular assertion that we shouldn't explicitly trust the government without thinking about just what that means? The reality is that we should logically put more trust (even if not explicit and unconditional) in them than any other source.

I may not unconditionally trust my doctor's diagnoses, but I do trust it more than I would those of a coal miner.