Poll: 60 percent of Americans oppose Iraq war (1 Viewer)

[KidRocks]

Fabulous how things are falling into place with Joe Lieberman losing and President Bush's approval polls being pathetic and now this...










http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sixty percent of Americans oppose the U.S. war in Iraq, the highest number since polling on the subject began with the commencement of the war in March 2003, according to poll results and trends released Wednesday.

And a majority of poll respondents said they would support the withdrawal of at least some U.S. troops by the end of the year, according to results from the Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted last week on behalf of CNN. The corporation polled 1,047 adult Americans by telephone.

According to trends, the number of poll respondents who said they did not support the Iraq war has steadily risen as the war stretched into a second and then a third year. In the most recent poll, 36 percent said they were in favor of the war -- half of the peak of 72 percent who said they were in favor of the war as it began...

 

[danarhea]

Fabulous how things are falling into place with Joe Lieberman losing and President Bush's approval polls being pathetic and now this...










http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sixty percent of Americans oppose the U.S. war in Iraq, the highest number since polling on the subject began with the commencement of the war in March 2003, according to poll results and trends released Wednesday.

And a majority of poll respondents said they would support the withdrawal of at least some U.S. troops by the end of the year, according to results from the Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted last week on behalf of CNN. The corporation polled 1,047 adult Americans by telephone.

According to trends, the number of poll respondents who said they did not support the Iraq war has steadily risen as the war stretched into a second and then a third year. In the most recent poll, 36 percent said they were in favor of the war -- half of the peak of 72 percent who said they were in favor of the war as it began...

You know, you cant lay the whole Iraq mess at Bush's feet. It takes 2 to tango, and the Democrats have been excellent partners. Sure, they complain about the war, but they have voted every funding bill for it that has come down the pike. Very hypocritical. If the Dems were honest, they would submit bills to pull the funding for the war. That is how Vietnam ended. Congress refused to fund it any longer, and Nixon was forced to pull the troops out. True, the Dems, at this time, dont have the numbers to pull the funding for Iraq, but if they were honest, they would at least show which side of the fence they are really on instead of always testing the political winds.

About Lieberman - I dont agree with many of his stances, but I do give him the credit to choose a side, and put his political career on the line to defend that position. That is something you dont see most Democrats doing, because most Dems are cowards. Despite the fact that Lieberman is on the other side of the fence from me in regard to the Iraq war, he has my complete admiration.

 

[faithful_servant]

The problem with polls is that they depend on people being willing to particpate. Liberals are more predisposed to vocalize their opions than conservatives are. Conservatives are generally the types to tell pollsters to mind their own business and hang up, while liberals are more than happy to express thier opinions. This is not just a weakness in the polling system, but a weakness in conservatives. We need to start being more willing to make our voices heard away from the ballot box.

This is just my personal theory as to why polls seem to be so far off so often, so you can take it or leave it.

 

[Iriemon]

You know, you cant lay the whole Iraq mess at Bush's feet. It takes 2 to tango, and the Democrats have been excellent partners. Sure, they complain about the war, but they have voted every funding bill for it that has come down the pike. Very hypocritical. If the Dems were honest, they would submit bills to pull the funding for the war. That is how Vietnam ended. Congress refused to fund it any longer, and Nixon was forced to pull the troops out. True, the Dems, at this time, dont have the numbers to pull the funding for Iraq, but if they were honest, they would at least show which side of the fence they are really on instead of always testing the political winds.

About Lieberman - I dont agree with many of his stances, but I do give him the credit to choose a side, and put his political career on the line to defend that position. That is something you dont see most Democrats doing, because most Dems are cowards. Despite the fact that Lieberman is on the other side of the fence from me in regard to the Iraq war, he has my complete admiration.

I half agree with you -- clearly the Dems are half sitting on the fence on the issue. On the other hand, Bush and the neocons got us into this mess. If the Dems all said pull out and we did, the Bushies would blame them for the ramifications. It's Bush's & Co's mess; let them deal with it. I don't know why the Dems should provide them with an excuse or an out.

 

[Iriemon]

You know, you cant lay the whole Iraq mess at Bush's feet. It takes 2 to tango, and the Democrats have been excellent partners. Sure, they complain about the war, but they have voted every funding bill for it that has come down the pike. Very hypocritical. If the Dems were honest, they would submit bills to pull the funding for the war. That is how Vietnam ended. Congress refused to fund it any longer, and Nixon was forced to pull the troops out. True, the Dems, at this time, dont have the numbers to pull the funding for Iraq, but if they were honest, they would at least show which side of the fence they are really on instead of always testing the political winds.

About Lieberman - I dont agree with many of his stances, but I do give him the credit to choose a side, and put his political career on the line to defend that position. That is something you dont see most Democrats doing, because most Dems are cowards. Despite the fact that Lieberman is on the other side of the fence from me in regard to the Iraq war, he has my complete admiration.

I half agree with you -- clearly the Dems are half sitting on the fence on the issue. On the other hand, Bush and the neocons got us into this mess. If the Dems all said pull out and we did, the Bushies would blame them for the ramifications. It's Bush's & Co's mess; let them deal with it. I can understand why the Dems aren't eager to provide them with an excuse or an out.

 

[Deegan]

I half agree with you -- clearly the Dems are half sitting on the fence on the issue. On the other hand, Bush and the neocons got us into this mess. If the Dems all said pull out and we did, the Bushies would blame them for the ramifications. It's Bush's & Co's mess; let them deal with it. I can understand why the Dems aren't eager to provide them with an excuse or an out.

Wow, that sounds like the kind of responsible government I want!:roll:

Saddam got us in to this mess, terrorists got us in to this mess, the U.N got us in to this mess, and the entire congress, save a few, got us in to this mess. You can be anti-war, you can be for diplomacy, but you can't be untruthful, I'll call that everytime. Of course people are not for this war now, it's gone on too long, and Americans have the attention span of a insect. That said, everytime something good happens, these numbers will change, or God forbid a terrorist attack happens, these numbers will sky rocket. There is a larger picture here, it's Iran.

 

[DeeJayH]

all i have to say is

too freaking bad

we are in it, we have to win it
the alternative would be even worse for all involved, except the terrorists

 

[Iriemon]

Wow, that sounds like the kind of responsible government I want!:roll:

Saddam got us in to this mess, terrorists got us in to this mess, the U.N got us in to this mess, and the entire congress, save a few, got us in to this mess. You can be anti-war, you can be for diplomacy, but you can't be untruthful, I'll call that everytime.

Sure, it's everyone's fault except Bush's.

Of course people are not for this war now, it's gone on too long, and Americans have the attention span of a insect. That said, everytime something good happens, these numbers will change, or God forbid a terrorist attack happens, these numbers will sky rocket. There is a larger picture here, it's Iran.

It sounds like you know something about BushCo's strategy that the rest of us don't! :shock:

 

[Deegan]

Sure, it's everyone's fault except Bush's.



It sounds like you know something about BushCo's strategy that the rest of us don't! :shock:

No, Bush takes the most responsibility, he is the president, but you can't start a war with out the congress.

I do know something that some don't seem to know, that Iraq is only the first step in this war, and on Aug 22nd Iran is planning something terrible!:shock:

 

[aps]

The problem with polls is that they depend on people being willing to particpate. Liberals are more predisposed to vocalize their opions than conservatives are. Conservatives are generally the types to tell pollsters to mind their own business and hang up, while liberals are more than happy to express thier opinions. This is not just a weakness in the polling system, but a weakness in conservatives. We need to start being more willing to make our voices heard away from the ballot box.

This is just my personal theory as to why polls seem to be so far off so often, so you can take it or leave it.

Polls showed that Bush and Kerry were neck and neck. You don't think that's the way the election turned out? It was quesitonable as to whom Ohio would go to based on polls, and lo and behold, Ohio barely went to Bush. Yeah, these polls are bogus alright.

 

[Gill]

Fabulous how things are falling into place with Joe Lieberman losing and President Bush's approval polls being pathetic and now this...

The poll also says that only 26% favor an immediate pull-out of troops.

 

[faithful_servant]

Polls showed that Bush and Kerry were neck and neck. You don't think that's the way the election turned out? It was quesitonable as to whom Ohio would go to based on polls, and lo and behold, Ohio barely went to Bush. Yeah, these polls are bogus alright.

Election year polls are a different animal. People are in the mood for telling other people what they think. I believe that this makes election year polls a little more accurate than non-election year polls.

Do you disagree with my logic in my analysis? Do you see that liberals tend to be more vocal than conservatives? There are exceptions on both sides, but if look at your average liberal, they are more willing to have their opinions heard than your average conservative is. IMO, it's one the left's greatest strengths and the right's greatest weaknesses. The left has always been willing to make sure that issues are exposed and discussed, while the right seems willing to remain silent on issues that need to be discussed. I believe that this has an effect on the accuracy of polls where a politically oriented choice is offered. Do you disagree? If so, could you explain why...

 

[KidRocks]

The poll also says that only 26% favor an immediate pull-out of troops.

So? What's your point? I don't exactly favor an immediate pull out either.

 

[Gill]

So? What's your point? I don't exactly favor an immediate pull out either.

The point is obvious... the vast majority of Americans do not favor an immediate pull-out like your buddy Murtha and your new hero, Lamont.

 

[aps]

Election year polls are a different animal. People are in the mood for telling other people what they think. I believe that this makes election year polls a little more accurate than non-election year polls.

Do you disagree with my logic in my analysis? Do you see that liberals tend to be more vocal than conservatives? There are exceptions on both sides, but if look at your average liberal, they are more willing to have their opinions heard than your average conservative is. IMO, it's one the left's greatest strengths and the right's greatest weaknesses. The left has always been willing to make sure that issues are exposed and discussed, while the right seems willing to remain silent on issues that need to be discussed. I believe that this has an effect on the accuracy of polls where a politically oriented choice is offered. Do you disagree? If so, could you explain why...

Those are interesting observations. I hadn't really thought of it that way (about the difference between libs and cons in being open about their opinions) and how that could impact a poll. I pay attention to polls when the issue matters to me. They have been saying that the majority of Americans are against the war for some time now, so, to me, this poll isn't telling me anything I don't already believe. Thus, I don't question its findings, if that makes sense. If the poll was that 60% of dems support Hillary to run for president, I would say, "WHAT THE HELL IS THAT? WHO ARE THOSE STUPID DEMS?" So in that instance, I would have to look into what kind of questions were asked.

So, faithful_servant, you may be onto something. I can't say that I disagree with you because I don't, but I am not sure I can say I agree with you, if that makes any sense.

 

[KidRocks]

The point is obvious... the vast majority of Americans do not favor an immediate pull-out like your buddy Murtha and your new hero, Lamont.

Good for them!

The vast majority of Americans do not favor President Bush and the Republicans also, like you do.

 

[Gill]

Good for them!

The vast majority of Americans do not favor President Bush and the Republicans also, like you do.

t
Bush's poll numbers are improving steadily but you just had to throw in an off topic partisan comment didn't you?

 

[faithful_servant]

Those are interesting observations. I hadn't really thought of it that way (about the difference between libs and cons in being open about their opinions) and how that could impact a poll. I pay attention to polls when the issue matters to me. They have been saying that the majority of Americans are against the war for some time now, so, to me, this poll isn't telling me anything I don't already believe. Thus, I don't question its findings, if that makes sense. If the poll was that 60% of dems support Hillary to run for president, I would say, "WHAT THE HELL IS THAT? WHO ARE THOSE STUPID DEMS?" So in that instance, I would have to look into what kind of questions were asked.

So, faithful_servant, you may be onto something. I can't say that I disagree with you because I don't, but I am not sure I can say I agree with you, if that makes any sense.

It does actually. The theory I'm proposing is one that's actually been around for some time. It's similar to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Basically, the idea is that some kinds of studies, by their very nature, will result in an outcome that is weighted towards a particular outcome. Polls are an excellent example of this, they will always be influenced by the fact certain people are more likely to respond than others and those people will have a greater impact than others. It's a pretty difficult concept and one that isn't widely discussed because it's brings a measure of doubt to some fields of research and that's not something that the scientific community is comfortable with.