Poll: Most Americans feel war not justified

[nycflasher]

The Associated Press
Updated: 9:03 a.m. ET June 11, 2004

LOS ANGELES - A majority of American registered voters polled from across the nation now say conditions in Iraq did not merit war, but most are reluctant to abandon efforts there, according to a new Los Angeles Times poll.

Voters are increasingly concerned that Iraq is a quagmire America cannot escape, and they are doubtful that a democratic government will be established there, according to the poll published in Friday editions of the Times.

Fifty-three percent of respondents said the situation in Iraq did not merit war, while 43 percent said war was justified. When the same question was asked for Times polls in March and November, the numbers were precisely reversed.

But less than 20 percent said America should withdraw its troops within weeks, and 25 percent said the U.S. should set a deadline for pulling out.

“I never thought we should go to war in Iraq,” said Anne Wardwell, a retired museum curator in Cleveland. “But I think we have to see it through, because if we don’t, it is going to be a disaster in the region.”

Voters’ mounting worries about the war have damaged their confidence in President Bush, the poll showed. Forty-four percent said they approved of Bush’s handling of the war, compared to 51 percent in March.

The poll, which was conducted from Saturday to Tuesday, surveyed 1,230 registered voters nationwide. It had a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Forty-one percent approved of Bush’s handling of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, while 37 percent disapproved of his performance.

A majority of voters said presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry has done little to help: The poll found that 34 percent said Kerry has not offered a clear plan to handle the war, while 15 percent said he has. The other voters said they didn’t know.

© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thoughts? Not that we haven't discussed this ad nauseum.

 

[DKSuddeth]

probably 75% of that 41 supporting bush and the war are the diehard bush supporters that would tell you 'bush was just doing what he had to do' if he sacrificed condi rice to baphomet.

 

[Shazbot]

I can understand how many can feel the war was not justified, now that we have neither found wmd's nor any smoking guns. In my opinion the end never justifies the means. However, also in my opinion, the present "means" will be justified with time, as I feel that these wmd's and smoking guns are yet to be found.

At the same time, I think the war was necessary, albeit justified under different terms. Saddam was asking for a conflict ever since 1991, what with all the oppresion of his own people, the no-fly-zone violations, the shooting at our aircraft, the expulsion/lack of cooperation with the weapons inspectors, etc. We tried the appeasement route. Unfortunately, as Britain and France learned the hard way from their appeasement with Germany, post-WWI, it just plain doesn't work. Not to make the same mistakes as in the past, we decided to stop taking chances.

I guess what happened here (however bad an analogy), is we performed surgery on a man with a bad liver, under the pretense of removing his appendix...we haven't yet removed the appendix, but atleast we got the guy a liver transplant. Now let's just hope his body doesn't reject the new liver.

-Douglas

 

[Annie]

Actually Flasher I think we need to get past 6/30, probably for a month or two before any such poll will hold any water. Not only that, how many of those people questioned do YOU believe have any clue of what's going on? Heck, most probably still couldn't tell you on a ME map, where Iraq and Afghanistan are, much less their neighbors.

Polls like this always make be leary, how was it phrased and what were the choices?

Just MHO

 

[insein]

Actually flasher, it was later revelaed that the polester also kept track of politcal affiliations of those that were polled and found that of those polled, there were 13% more democrats than republicans.

Even if it were even down the middle, the minds of 1200 people do not speak for the millions that live here. Thats why polls arent very helpful to decide things.

 

[5stringJeff]

Any poll marker "LA Times" can be immediately shifted 5 points to the political Right, as can any poll labeled "CBS/Newsweek" or "New York Times." And just so you know, I shift Fox News polls 3% to the Left.

So that puts the poll at 48% for, 48% against. Dead even in my eyes.

 

[Merlin1047]

Seems to me we have developed a case of ADD on a national level. Why is it that we are unable to commit to seeing a course of action through to its conclusion?

No matter if you agree or disagree with our actions in Iraq, the indisputable fact is that we undertook this task. The absolute WORST thing we could do is leave before the job is done. That is a slap in the face to every member of the military who risked his or her life in this endeavor. It would be a travesty for the memory of those who will not return.

Second, I don't believe that all the protests I'm hearing are genuine. I think that much of what is said in the public debate is simply a cover for those who are so self-involved that they see any this as a threat to their lifestyles.

Finally, could it be that the crescendo of bitching that has arisen recently is motivated by the fact that the left sees Pres. Bush's policies coming close to succeeding? The 30th of June is less than three weeks away. If the transition in Iraq succeeds, what WILL jacque francois kerrie whine about?

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
Seems to me we have developed a case of ADD on a national level. Why is it that we are unable to commit to seeing a course of action through to its conclusion?

No matter if you agree or disagree with our actions in Iraq, the indisputable fact is that we undertook this task. The absolute WORST thing we could do is leave before the job is done. That is a slap in the face to every member of the military who risked his or her life in this endeavor. It would be a travesty for the memory of those who will not return.

Second, I don't believe that all the protests I'm hearing are genuine. I think that much of what is said in the public debate is simply a cover for those who are so self-involved that they see any this as a threat to their lifestyles.

Finally, could it be that the crescendo of bitching that has arisen recently is motivated by the fact that the left sees Pres. Bush's policies coming close to succeeding? The 30th of June is less than three weeks away. If the transition in Iraq succeeds, what WILL jacque francois kerrie whine about?

TV has created a instant gratification society where "if it aint giving it to me right now, i aint giving a shit about it."

As for the left. Ive given up trying to understand them. I know the proverb "Know thy enemy" but the left are mysterious in their motives. They say they want to stop the killing of innocents but they support abortion. They say they want world peace but they refuse to stop evil when it strikes. They say they want everyone to have a job but most of them don't even know what a job really is.

IT is a mystery. I'd be scared to think like they do.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

I'm glad to see that there are so many Americans that agree with my position from the start. Bottom line though, its still too early for polls to matter.

 

[Xenimus]

Originally posted by insein
TV has created a instant gratification society where "if it aint giving it to me right now, i aint giving a shit about it."

As for the left. Ive given up trying to understand them. I know the proverb "Know thy enemy" but the left are mysterious in their motives. They say they want to stop the killing of innocents but they support abortion. They say they want world peace but they refuse to stop evil when it strikes. They say they want everyone to have a job but most of them don't even know what a job really is.

IT is a mystery. I'd be scared to think like they do.

This is silly, you could say the same thing about republicans 2X.
They say they want to stop killing innocents, but they support the death penalty, and let hundreds of hungry children die in america every year. They say they want world peace, but wage war that kill thousands of people, support brutal dictatorships and communists, all in the name of 'peace'. They say they want everyone to have a job, but don't care if they become the working poor, while saying its their fault for not trying hard enough. Then they give corporations massive welfare, that dwarfs what poor familys get.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by Xenimus
This is silly, you could say the same thing about republicans 2X.
They say they want to stop killing innocents, but they support the death penalty,

libs support abortion

and let hundreds of hungry children die in america every year.

Got some proof to back this one up, or Did you receive this from the radio signals in your molar?

They say they want world peace, but wage war that kill thousands of people, support brutal dictatorships and communists, all in the name of 'peace'.

War is a necessary evil. Kill or be killed

They say they want everyone to have a job, but don't care if they become the working poor, while saying its their fault for not trying hard enough.

Truth is truth

Then they give corporations massive welfare, that dwarfs what poor familys get.

Yawn. Lets look at President Reagan for instance. Born an average guy from an average family. Buried with a full state funeral. Your life is what you make it.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Xenimus
This is silly, you could say the same thing about republicans 2X.
They say they want to stop killing innocents, but they support the death penalty,

Perhaps you dont understand the definition of innocent.

...let hundreds of hungry children die in america every year.

What has any Liberal done for them other than cry about it?

They say they want world peace, but wage war that kill thousands of people, support brutal dictatorships and communists, all in the name of 'peace'.

Where have republicans EVER supported communists and when havent we cleaned up our messes with past dealings of dictators? Also, how is peace achieved when you offer out your hand and the other side wants to bite it off?

They say they want everyone to have a job, but don't care if they become the working poor, while saying its their fault for not trying hard enough.

Well, goto school. Get a better job and stop making excuses. Be self-reliant and don't have children you can't support.

Then they give corporations massive welfare, that dwarfs what poor familys get.

Don't remember that one? Republicans give coporate welfare? If im not mistaken thats any politician that wants money from said corporations, Dem or Rep.

Ive never seen such an ignorant fool. You must have thought you were clever with your intial post. Ignorance is bliss i suppose. you seem to be as happy as a pig in slop.

 

[americanexpo]

on the supporting of oppressive governments, there is truth to that.

right now we support and give military aid to turkemenstan and uzebkistan, two of the world's worst oppressive governments. at the same time, we support oppressive governments in egypt and saudi arabia as well. pakistan is not very keen on the whole human rights and democracy thing either, but i won't count them because they're more a danger to india and the US than they are to themselves.

and right now, there is a horrific ethnic cleansing campaign happening in the darfur region of sudan. everyone's talking, but no one is doing anything about it. does anyone in congress or at the white house remember operation provide comfort, when we saved the kurds from saddam and helped them become independent and self-sufficent? why shouldn't we do this for the darfur muslims who are being slaughtered just because they happen to be on prospective oil and other mineral resource fields?

 

[Xenimus]

Nice job dissecting my post

Your definition of PEACE, is really scary. McCarthy is your founding father now, gj.

Yes Cons support brutal communist regimes like China, while giving legit democracys like Taiwan the finger, and evil torturous dictators like uzbekistans', I bet were giving them WMDs right now.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by Xenimus
Nice job dissecting my post

Your welcome

Your definition of PEACE, is really scary. McCarthy is your founding father now, gj.

Takes 2 to tango. Can't have peace when 1 side won't rest till you are are dead

Yes Cons support brutal communist regimes like China, while giving legit democracys like Taiwan the finger,

the US is probably the only thing stopping China from reclaiming Taiwan by force.

and evil torturous dictators like uzbekistans', I bet were giving them WMDs right now.

You love throwing crap out like this to get a reaction.....

 

[Xenimus]

Your supreme leader supports the 'one china' which means they don't support Taiwan being a soveriegn nation. obviously you dont know this.

So you don't support evil torturous dictatorships like uzbekistan? Maybe you shouldnt vote for Cheney. Because he does, its official.

 

[Xenimus]

Can't deny it, can you?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Xenimus
Your supreme leader supports the 'one china' which means they don't support Taiwan being a soveriegn nation. obviously you dont know this.

So you don't support evil torturous dictatorships like uzbekistan? Maybe you shouldnt vote for Cheney. Because he does, its official.

It's been US policy to accept the 'One China' for several administrations now, while letting it be known that Taiwan may not be invaded.

What would you have the US do? Get it on with China? What would happen to Taiwan then?

 

[Xenimus]

If you support the one china, you don't support Taiwan, simple as that. If Clinton Didnt support Taiwan, shame on him, but I remember him doing so.

What would I have US do? How bout stop giving china our vital technology, they make our missile guidance systems, we can't even make them in our own country now, thats a security risk.
This is what happens when you put private corporations in the position of providing defense. Just like Bush Sr's dad sold valuable technology to the Nazis and running their aushwitz camp. Don't worry though, he was convicted.

There is no excuse for supporting murderous dictorial regimes. whats your excuse for uzbekistan, pakistan, and terkementan?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Xenimus
Your supreme leader supports the 'one china' which means they don't support Taiwan being a soveriegn nation. obviously you dont know this.

You remember wrong: http://216.109.117.135/search/cache...n+one+china&d=0300544641&c=482&yc=53819&icp=1

On July 9, 1999, questions about the “one China” policy arose again after LeeTeng-hui, then-President of Taiwan, characterized cross-strait relations as “specialstate-to-state ties.” The Clinton Administration responded that Lee’s statement wasnot helpful and reaffirmed the “one China” policy and opposition to “two Chinas.”Beijing, in February 2000, issued its second White Paper on Taiwan, reaffirming its“peaceful unification” policy but with new warnings about the risk of conflict. Therealso have been questions about whether and how President Chen Shui-bian,inaugurated in May 2000, might adjust Taiwan’s policy toward the Mainland.