Iraq war seen as boosting terrorism: Poll

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Iraq war seen as boosting terrorism: Poll

Mar. 1, 2006.
OLIVIA WARD
STAFF REPORTER

U.S. President George W. Bush said he went to war in Iraq to make the world safe from international terrorism. Most people believe he's failed.

According to a BBC survey done by the Canadian-headed international polling firm GlobeScan and the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, more than half the people in 33 of 35 countries surveyed believe the war in Iraq has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks.

"The world has come to judgment on the war in Iraq and the threat of terrorism," says GlobeScan's vice-president Chris Coulter of the company's Toronto office. "People in most countries feel the world is less safe now, and only a very few countries feel otherwise."

Such a high degree of agreement among so many nations is unusual in international polling, Stephen Krull of University of Maryland told the BBC. On average, 60 per cent of those who responded felt more vulnerable to terrorist attack since the war, while 12 per cent believed the invasion decreased the likelihood of attacks.

Meanwhile, more people than not in 20 of 35 countries think the U.S.-led forces should pull out of Iraq in the next few months. On average, 50 per cent want to see an early withdrawal of troops, while little more than one-third, 35 per cent, favour remaining until the situation has stabilized.

A global majority, too, believe it was a mistake to oust Saddam Hussein: in 21 countries more than 50 per cent view the move negatively, and a majority in only 11 countries think it was correct.

Canada, which refused to join the Iraq war, is highly skeptical about its deterrence of international terrorism: 69 per cent of those polled believe it has increased, and only 5 per cent think it decreased, the likelihood of a terrorist attack. Overall, 44 per cent of Canadians favour a U.S. troop withdrawal, while 47 per cent believe forces should stay until the situation is more stable.

The most negative view of the war's effect on terrorism was in China, South Korea, Egypt, Finland, Italy and Germany, where 80 per cent of people surveyed believed the threat had escalated. The most favourable views were in Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana and Tanzania, where about 30 per cent believed the Iraq war has lessened the threat.

The survey polled some 42,000 people between October 2005 and early February 2006, before Iraq's recent surge of violence and increasing threat of civil war. The margin of error per country ranges from 2.5 to 4 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

url

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,253 • Replies: 21

No top replies

As the Russians said in the Soviet era--there's no truth in the news, and there's no news in the truth.

0 Replies

He did not, however, say that he invaded Iraq for the purpose of making the world safe from terrorism. He stated repeatedly before the invasion that his motive for invading Iraq was to achieve certainty that Hussein did not possess WMD or WMD development programs.

0 Replies

Okay, so if most of the people poled today felt like the sky was green with purple polka dots, that would be true?

0 Replies

All GWB achieved by invading Iraq, was that terrorist acts would more than likely be carried out somewhere other than American soil for the time being.

So that's alright then.

0 Replies

AliceInWonderland

Quote:

Okay, so if most of the people poled today felt like the sky was green with purple polka dots, that would be true?

Ofcourse not, who the "~'/$%£ cares what people around the world thinks ?

Quote:

The Strategic Task Force on Education Abroad, headed by former education secretary Richard Riley and former US senator Paul Simon, reports that, "'We strongly believe that the events of Sept. 11 constituted a wake-up call, a warning that America's ignorance of the world is now a national liability." Also, Americans suffer from a "pervasive lack of knowledge" about the world.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

All GWB achieved by invading Iraq, was that terrorist acts would more than likely be carried out somewhere other than American soil for the time being.

So that's alright then.

He also achieved absolute certainty that a few years down the road, Hussein would not have a stockpile of nuclear and biological weapons with which to terrorize the world.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Lord Ellpus wrote:
All GWB achieved by invading Iraq, was that terrorist acts would more than likely be carried out somewhere other than American soil for the time being.

So that's alright then.

He also achieved absolute certainty that a few years down the road, Hussein would not have a stockpile of nuclear and biological weapons with which to terrorize the world.

That's absolutely right. The democratically elected, Iran-leaning theocracy that might be in place a few years down the road might obtain a stockpile of nuclear and biological weapons with which to terrorize the world, but definitely not Hussein.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Lord Ellpus wrote:
All GWB achieved by invading Iraq, was that terrorist acts would more than likely be carried out somewhere other than American soil for the time being.

So that's alright then.

He also achieved absolute certainty that a few years down the road, Hussein would not have a stockpile of nuclear and biological weapons with which to terrorize the world.

That's absolutely right. The democratically elected, Iran-leaning theocracy that might be in place a few years down the road might obtain a stockpile of nuclear and biological weapons with which to terrorize the world, but definitely not Hussein.

What rotten logic. You have to deal with a grave danger facing you now, even if it might result in another grave danger in the future. If someone draws a gun on you and looks like he's about to shoot, you have to draw your gun and fire first, even if his brother might come seeking revenge later.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Lord Ellpus wrote:
All GWB achieved by invading Iraq, was that terrorist acts would more than likely be carried out somewhere other than American soil for the time being.

So that's alright then.

He also achieved absolute certainty that a few years down the road, Hussein would not have a stockpile of nuclear and biological weapons with which to terrorize the world.

That's absolutely right. The democratically elected, Iran-leaning theocracy that might be in place a few years down the road might obtain a stockpile of nuclear and biological weapons with which to terrorize the world, but definitely not Hussein.

What rotten logic. You have to deal with a grave danger facing you now, even if it might result in another grave danger in the future. If someone draws a gun on you and looks like he's about to shoot, you have to draw your gun and fire first, even if his brother might come seeking revenge later.

Bad analogy, because there was no drawn gun involved. But let's not bother with bad analogies and instead look at your argument.

You are comparing a past course of action with a future outcome. And you are assessing that the past course of action was right because the future outcome is desirable.

So your justification for past actions is the desirable future outcome.

So if what happens in the future is undesirable, but a direct result to a past course of action, you'll have to account for that undesirable outcome as well.

At least when you maintain a position of "it was necessary" because of "a few years down the road".

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Lord Ellpus wrote:
All GWB achieved by invading Iraq, was that terrorist acts would more than likely be carried out somewhere other than American soil for the time being.

So that's alright then.

He also achieved absolute certainty that a few years down the road, Hussein would not have a stockpile of nuclear and biological weapons with which to terrorize the world.

That's absolutely right. The democratically elected, Iran-leaning theocracy that might be in place a few years down the road might obtain a stockpile of nuclear and biological weapons with which to terrorize the world, but definitely not Hussein.

What rotten logic. You have to deal with a grave danger facing you now, even if it might result in another grave danger in the future. If someone draws a gun on you and looks like he's about to shoot, you have to draw your gun and fire first, even if his brother might come seeking revenge later.

Bad analogy, because there was no drawn gun involved.

I neither said nor implied that there was. The analogy was only given to illustrate that a present grave danger must be dealt with, even if it might result in a future grave danger. No analogy was made between the two situations beyond that. You liberals always make the infantile assumption that if I am comparing any aspect of two situations, I must be declaring them identical in all respects. It becomes tiresome.

old europe wrote:

But let's not bother with bad analogies and instead look at your argument.

You are comparing a past course of action with a future outcome. And you are assessing that the past course of action was right because the future outcome is desirable.

So your justification for past actions is the desirable future outcome.

So if what happens in the future is undesirable, but a direct result to a past course of action, you'll have to account for that undesirable outcome as well.

At least when you maintain a position of "it was necessary" because of "a few years down the road".

It's perfectly rational to take steps to prevent a terrible, terrible danger from forming. Doing so is only common sense.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:
But let's not bother with bad analogies and instead look at your argument.

You are comparing a past course of action with a future outcome. And you are assessing that the past course of action was right because the future outcome is desirable.

So your justification for past actions is the desirable future outcome.

So if what happens in the future is undesirable, but a direct result to a past course of action, you'll have to account for that undesirable outcome as well.

At least when you maintain a position of "it was necessary" because of "a few years down the road".

It's perfectly rational to take steps to prevent a terrible, terrible danger from forming. Doing so is only common sense.

Okay. So tell me a bit about the steps that have been taken to prevent the terrible, terrible danger of an unstable Iraq where terrorists roam freely and that is, after three years of occupation, on the verge of open civil war...

Or are you implying that the way the invasion and the aftermath have been planned for were unrational?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

He did not, however, say that he invaded Iraq for the purpose of making the world safe from terrorism. He stated repeatedly before the invasion that his motive for invading Iraq was to achieve certainty that Hussein did not possess WMD or WMD development programs.

This is a knowing lie on your part. He stated that he knew Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, he made no comment and did not contradict Blair when he told Parliament that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which he could deploy within 45 minutes. Finally, the Shrub used Cheney's speaking dates before the war to send a message to a gullible American public that Hussein was involved in the September 11th attack. Since that time, the Shrub has implied that we fight terrorists in Iraq rather than fighting them here--absent any evidence that this is the case.

It is highly amusing, however, to see you attempt to put words into the Shrub's mouth--words which represent your personal talking points on the invasion as you evolved them under pressure at this site. To contend, however, that what you wrote is what the Shrub said is merely a knowing lie on your part.

0 Replies

Are all the accounts from various KNOWN sources that WMDs were moved to Syria just ignored?

Can you quote an administration official as having said Saddam had ties with 9/11?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Are all the accounts from various KNOWN sources that WMDs were moved to Syria just ignored?

Of course, since they are complete bullshit.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Can you quote an administration official as having said Saddam had ties with 9/11?

Are you trying to make the outrageous claim that the admin DID NOT attempt to link 9/11 and Saddam?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Are all the accounts from various KNOWN sources that WMDs were moved to Syria just ignored?

The problem is that people still remember all the KNOWN sources that said that the WMD where right there in Bagdhad. And South and West of it. And East. And in the North.

On the other hand, if the WMD are in Syria, what is the coalition of the willing doing in Iraq? I mean, is the Bush admin not concerned?

McGentrix wrote:

Can you quote an administration official as having said Saddam had ties with 9/11?

Well, probably not. They usually said something like

"On 9/11, this country was attacked by terrorists. And Saddam Hussein has supported terrorists. And we all know he has been using WMD. And that's why we must invade Iraq."

That's the subtle difference between misleading and lying...

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Are all the accounts from various KNOWN sources that WMDs were moved to Syria just ignored?

The problem is that people still remember all the KNOWN sources that said that the WMD where right there in Bagdhad. And South and West of it. And East. And in the North.

On the other hand, if the WMD are in Syria, what is the coalition of the willing doing in Iraq? I mean, is the Bush admin not concerned?

And then they were moved as the US moved it's military might into the region while France and Russia stalled in the UN. Can you say with 100% honesty that you know WMD's were not secreted to Syria or other areas in the region? No. You can't. There is a preponderance of evidence (most has been presented here on A2K in one form or another) that suggests this has happened. To completely deny the possiblity would be doing yourself a disservice.

Quote:

McGentrix wrote:
Can you quote an administration official as having said Saddam had ties with 9/11?

Well, probably not. They usually said something like

"On 9/11, this country was attacked by terrorists. And Saddam Hussein has supported terrorists. And we all know he has been using WMD. And that's why we must invade Iraq."

That's the subtle difference between misleading and lying...

[/quote]

Kind of what the Dems are now doing with the port deal, huh?

0 Replies

Quote:

There is a preponderance of evidence (most has been presented here on A2K in one form or another) that suggests this has happened.

A preponderance of evidence? Really?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

old europe wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Are all the accounts from various KNOWN sources that WMDs were moved to Syria just ignored?

The problem is that people still remember all the KNOWN sources that said that the WMD where right there in Bagdhad. And South and West of it. And East. And in the North.

On the other hand, if the WMD are in Syria, what is the coalition of the willing doing in Iraq? I mean, is the Bush admin not concerned?

And then they were moved as the US moved it's military might into the region while France and Russia stalled in the UN. Can you say with 100% honesty that you know WMD's were not secreted to Syria or other areas in the region? No. You can't. There is a preponderance of evidence (most has been presented here on A2K in one form or another) that suggests this has happened. To completely deny the possiblity would be doing yourself a disservice.

I don't completely deny the possibility. However, there was also a preponderance of evidence that suggested that the WMD were in Iraq. Everywhere. I've heard a lot of Bush admin officials saying so. So if people now don't give a **** about the Syria allegations, I would say that one reason is the way the WMD issue re Iraq was handled by the Bush admin.

McGentrix wrote:

old europe wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Can you quote an administration official as having said Saddam had ties with 9/11?

Well, probably not. They usually said something like

"On 9/11, this country was attacked by terrorists. And Saddam Hussein has supported terrorists. And we all know he has been using WMD. And that's why we must invade Iraq."

That's the subtle difference between misleading and lying...

Kind of what the Dems are now doing with the port deal, huh?

I absolutely fail to understand that last sentence. Plus I don't think that there are observable party lines re the port deal (Do you really think there are? I mean, are you on Hillary's side, or on Carter's?)

0 Replies

Iraq war seen as boosting terrorism: Poll

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know