Old Skool wrote:
Opposed,
You said "I wasn't a big supporter of Kosovo, but that seemed much less stupid than what we're about to do".
What kind of f***ing statement is that? So you're OK with the hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent civilians who were killed in that Clinton-supported war. So, if I understand you, there are varying levels of stupidity. Kosovo seems less stupid to you because you and your liberal buddies at college don't know anything about it. But since we have a Republican President who only has 30 countries supporting him in this action against Iraq, you don't like it. Have some historical perspective before you bring your argument and your horseshit polls to the table.
I'll admit that Kosovo statement wasn't well thought out. Looking back at my post a few hours later, I realize that "less stupid" was a poor choice of words. Thanks for calling me on it.
However, I haven't been in college for a long time, and the college I did attend many years ago was extremely conservative. Very few of my friends from college could be called "liberal," and a few of them will oppose and ridicule anything supported by Democrats. Making assumptions about people's ages and friends, and even whether or not people are OK with innocent civilians getting killed, contributes nothing to the discussion.
Tangent: Gallup Polls (although I called it a CNN poll in my previous post, it was a Gallup poll, link below) are generally done with a high degree of sampling accuracy, and should not be referred to as "horseshit." Random samples of about 1500-2000 people can provide a reasonably accurate picture of the American public. If any of you have ever taken a course in statistics, then you know about sampling strategies, probability, confidence intervals, etc. There is a big difference between Gallup Polls (not horseshit) and, for example, a poll posted for readers of a random website (horseshit). The accuracy of national polls, however, is a completely different argument...
That said, some of you are correct in asserting that most Americans support military action in Iraq. The point of the polls I cited in my earlier post (and linked below) is that the support drops when you add certain conditions. People are less likely to support a war without the backing of the U.N., and are even less likely to support a war without a vote on a new U.N. resolution. Since we are not voting on a new U.N. resolution, fewer people will be in support of war than they would otherwise. That's all I was trying to say, and the reason I posted in the first place.
As for the Kosovo-Iraq comparison... With Kosovo, Clinton acted through an existing international organization, NATO, to stop what was recognized by many as genocide. Bush has rejected existing international organizations, instead relying on a "coalition of the willing," alienating many of our usual allies, and weakening existing international alliences and organizations (NATO and the U.N.). Personally, I don't like Bush's approach, and think it will have future negative consequences.
So, my opposition to the Iraq war is due to the lack of international support, and that I haven't been convinced by any reasons given by Bush and co. that military action is *necessary*, especially the "shock and awe" strategy we're going to use, and that there is a great sense of urgency to do it right away. My opposition has nothing to do with the fact that our president is a Republican.