I hoped something would be found.
I was unsure.
I'm not unsure anymore.
(I don't think that was a poll option.)
Should be the one at the bottom.
It's really hard to write these darn poll questions....
So your unsurety is unchanged. ?
I was unsure before.
I'm sure now.
You need to add the option to the poll "What war?"
Interesting you should say that, SCoates.
I was just listening to a newscast here, where they referred to the "anniversary of the U.S-led invasion of Iraq". They've never got around to calling it a war on the CBC (or rarely refer to it that way).
pffffffffffffffffffffffffffft
I don't post a whole lot relative to some, so I was able to retrieve this from 3/17/2003 at 7:54 pm:
"Mr Bush and Mr Blair have made a decision that many, many oppose.
So be it. My prayers and best wishes now go out to the soldiers who, like I thirty years ago, have to execute the command to fight.
I fear the backlash. A lot of people in a lot of places are going to hate us a lot. I fear that we are going to pay for this action that Mr Bush is going to embark us on in about ten minutes."
The title of the thread was "The use of chemical and biological weapons." -rjb-
So said many of us, rjb, and we have yet to see where we are going and what will be the cost.
So no change for you, right?
Joe, I appreciate what you are trying to do in order to keep this thread from disintegrating into a shouting match.
No change for johnboy.
OUR WORST FEAR AND THE TERRORIST WE SHOULD BE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE ONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE.......SOMETIMES IN THE WHITE HOUSE......WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH SOME OF YOU.......WAKE UP!!!!!!
Iraq is a war for resources. OIL is King. What else does Iraq have that we could possibly want? Figs and dates? I supposed only the IRaqi people will benefit from getting the oil flowing again? Not their leaders, and certainly not us.
How naive to think we are setting up a new oil system to benefit the Iraqi people...It is to benefit us, and ooops, it was already supposed to be benefitting us, but gas is hitting $2.00 a gallon in this country all ready. So much for benefitting ANYONE...
Everything else is all hype designed to distract you from the real goal: black gold.
If you think otherwise, then you really are a fool. Wars are extremely dangerous politically, and without some giant prize at the end of it, most American leaders will not risk it. Too bad for Bush though. Everything he touches turns to turmoil, and the oil fields are no exception.
Iraq is just the beginning here. The real prize is to the west, those tantalyzingly close "world's largest oil fields".
A nation that calls itself a superpower, but is utterly dependent upon foreign oil sources to maintain that power is not a superpower. It runs the risk of making the supplier mightier than the buyer, and no superpower can tolerate that. So they go in and they TAKE the precious resource from the barbarians in control of it....to keep the barbarians low, and make the superpower totally in control of the situation. It's really downright simple economics. He who has the most gold rules. He who is selling the oil pulls all the strings.
This country would fall flat on its face in a month if all oil stopped coming into this country. EVERYTHING runs on it. EVERYTHING. Without it we are nothing. When it runs out, we will be nothing. If the terrorists blow it up we will be nothing.
That's what we get for putting all our eggs in one highly profitable basket. We should have been diversifying for a century now. But we haven't been, so watch out when the disruptions come. Factories, highways, supermarkets, heat and A/C, light,....all of it will come to a grinding halt.
Why do you think Bush put his neck on the line to jump at the chance to get the oil?
WE ALREADY ARE RUNNING OUT.
This is what I believed when I first heard Bush was going to invade Iraq. I haven't changed my opinion one jot, because the last year is only reinforcing the idea that oil is really the goal there, not liberation for a people oppressed. I also believed that Bush wouldn't be able to pull it off either. He's way too Johnson in his war strategies, and true to form, like everything else this idiot ever attempted, he's jonezing now.
Nothing but swift, total victory would have won Bush his oil fields in Iraq. Now he's totally on the defensive to even maintain a grip on them. And when push finally comes to shove with the terrorists, the first thing they are going to destroy are those oil fields. They KNOW Bush wants them badly, and if they go down in flames, the oil fields are going down with them.
And we'll all be catapulted back to the 19th century...
Noodnik37 sees it too.
Imperial forces terrorize the freedom-fighters struggling to get out from underneath the yoke of imperial oppression.
Didn't you see Star Wars?
In 6,000 years, nothing has changed in this corner of the galaxy either.
The imperial oppressor calls the freedom-fighters terrorists to convince people the good guys are the bad guys, but historically, it has always been the elite minority with autocratic powers that has been the bad guy. Bush is one of them. He isn't fighting for freedom, he is empire-building.
Bush is the modern Benedict Arnold.
So did you think that way before the attack on Iraq? I'm looking for stories of change. If you still feel the way you did before the war then that's not the subject of this thread. The way you feel is important but not what I am trying to study.
I want to know if your opinion changed, no matter which way, why it changed?
Okay..
oh and welcome to Noodnik37 on a very weird weekend..... Joe
Joe...An interesting exercise. I didn't fully appreciate what you were attempting to do.
One out of the 23 voters changed position. Obviously, the sample size is too small to be significant and the population on A2K is not representative of the country as a whole but it is a
concept that may well become a factor by November. -rjb-
I am surprised that there isn't more instance of shifting. There ought to more on such a volatile issue. It's curious.
Obviously, considering my own against then/against now position, I can be accused of looking for someone who disagrees with me so that I can do the usual 'rant at them till they see the truth' internet thing, but that's not my intent.
I'd like to know how people change their opinions on momentous events but in this case I've begun to think I've picked the wrong issue. The results show so far that hardly anyone is changing their opinion, despite the calls on the one side who proclaim the world safer and the equally loud cries from the other side that the attack on Iraq was a predetermined fraud.
Maybe it needs more time, I'm reminded of reading about Paul Harvey and the war in Viet Nam. He said, I'm paraphrasing here, that he woke up one morning after backing the war for years with the clear impression that for all those years he's been completely wrong. He said it was like waking up in bed with someone you don't really know.
(I've only ever done that twice
and it had nothing to do with politics.)
Joe
