Thread

Vote

Vote Troubleshooting 33 posts Mar 21, 2003 — Mar 27, 2003

View original thread

#1 Fri, 21 Mar 2003 - 16:43

For War Anti War

#2 Fri, 21 Mar 2003 - 17:03

this could be a very interesting poll

#3 Fri, 21 Mar 2003 - 17:19

I'm for war.

#4 Fri, 21 Mar 2003 - 17:19

thin pizza.

cheese only.

didnt we discuss this already?

#5 Fri, 21 Mar 2003 - 17:23

oh. by the way.

its not the time for a discussion of "for the war" or "against the war". our sons and daughters are already dying over there.

we should be hoping for the quickest most peaceful conclusion to this.

#6 Fri, 21 Mar 2003 - 17:24

perhaps but my poll is a little different i want to see how many Americans support it and how many non americans dont. Im hoping i get around 100 votes

#7 Fri, 21 Mar 2003 - 17:46

ok. maybe i shouldnt have said "our sons and daughters".

how about good decent human beings are dying over there. now isnt the time for a pro/anti discussion. lets all hope for the quickest resolution.

#8 Fri, 21 Mar 2003 - 18:36

Here are some polls from major news outlets:

Gallup

ABC News

CBS News

CNN

MSNBC

...and that's all I have at the moment. Add links regarding polls from other sites!

Maury

#9 Mon, 24 Mar 2003 - 19:42

bump

#10 Mon, 24 Mar 2003 - 20:08

bump

You know, the last two categories really aren't necessary.

#11 Mon, 24 Mar 2003 - 20:10

You're for this?

#12 Mon, 24 Mar 2003 - 20:12

"Yes I'm for the war and America"
"No I'm against the war and Amercia"

These two sentances say the same thing. You need commas:

"Yes, I'm for the war and America."
"No, I'm against the war and America."

#13 Mon, 24 Mar 2003 - 20:14

Of course they are, it's about taking out Sadam Hussein using Shock and Awe. Those pictures are fake, no one really gets hurt in wars.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nicko:
You're for this?

#14 Mon, 24 Mar 2003 - 20:28

Quote:

Originally posted by olePigeon:
"Yes I'm for the war and America"
"No I'm against the war and Amercia"

These two sentances say the same thing. You need commas:

"Yes, I'm for the war and America."
"No, I'm against the war and America."

The way I understood this question is that it was asking if you were for or against the war and if you were or were not American.

#15 Mon, 24 Mar 2003 - 20:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Nicko:
You're for this?

You're against the immediate removal of the bastard that did this?

#16 Mon, 24 Mar 2003 - 21:24

You're equating two very different things. THIS was done very much as an accident. The US government doens't AIM for civilians. They indeed try their best to AVOID them. Unfortunately, a few will make the ultimate sacrifice. It is EXTREMELY sad and I absolutely hate the fact that it happens.

Quote:

[/B]

What I hate infinitely more is when a ruthless dictator is permitted to do THIS to his own people. He doesn't do this on accident. This is done very much on purpose to a BUNCH more people than US will inadvertantly hit.

Quote:

[/B]

If you are saying that a few very regretful, accidental casualties aren't worth the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of very purposeful casualties, then I simply disagree.

This worthless excuse for a human as well as all his cronies need to be eliminated.

#17 Mon, 24 Mar 2003 - 21:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Nicko:
You're for this?

Nobody's for that. Only a f*cking moron would think that anyone's for killing innocents. Only a f*cking moron would need to ask the question.

#18 Mon, 24 Mar 2003 - 22:58

No I'm Against War and not American

that's like saying...

Light beer
Low fat Mayonaise
Health Cigarettes
Alchohol Free Tequila
Clean Hobo
Nice Peidophile
Evil Baby
Bill Gates is the man

#19 Mon, 24 Mar 2003 - 23:16

No war! I don't support it or those involved.

This is a despicable act. It's not going to be over soon, and there will be tremendous losses on both sides.

It's Vietnam all over again, and it will solve nothing but bring more terrorism to the United States and its allies, and destabalize an already volatile region. How this is a good thing I'll never know.

And quit bringing up the side points. This isn't about removing Saddam - if that was the objective, it would have been done many years ago. It is 'supposedly' about WoMD, but it seems the US and UK have another agenda.

I hope it is over soon, with minimal losses on both the sides of the Iraqis, and the belligerents. I pray even more for the innocent people who have already been and are going to be killed.

Such a waste.

#20 Mon, 24 Mar 2003 - 23:29

Quote:

Originally posted by swsteckly:
I pray even more for the innocent people who have already been and are going to be killed.

Such a waste.

Indeed...Saddam MUST go.

#21 Mon, 24 Mar 2003 - 23:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Kitschy:
THIS was done very much as an accident. The US government doens't AIM for civilians. They indeed try their best to AVOID them. Unfortunately, a few will make the ultimate sacrifice.

Cluster bombs can't be aimed:

Because the fragments travel at high velocity, when they strike people they set up pressure waves within the body that do horrific damage to soft tissue and organs: even a single fragment hitting somewhere else in the body can rupture the spleen, or cause the intestines to explode. This is not an unfortunate, unintended side-effect; these bombs were designed to do this.
[...]
Because cluster bombs disperse widely and are difficult to target precisely, they are especially dangerous when used near civilian areas.

The image that Nicko posted is from Basrah, where such weapons have been deployed in the last days:

A surgical assistant at the Saddam hospital in Nassiriya, interviewed at a marine check point outside the city, said that on Sunday, half an hour after two dead marines were brought into the hospital, US aircraft dropped what he described as three or four cluster bombs on civilian areas, killing 10 and wounding 200.

#22 Mon, 24 Mar 2003 - 23:42

#23 Tue, 25 Mar 2003 - 00:09

Quote:

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Cluster bombs can't be aimed:

Because the fragments travel at high velocity, when they strike people they set up pressure waves within the body that do horrific damage to soft tissue and organs: even a single fragment hitting somewhere else in the body can rupture the spleen, or cause the intestines to explode. This is not an unfortunate, unintended side-effect; these bombs were designed to do this.
[...]
Because cluster bombs disperse widely and are difficult to target precisely, they are especially dangerous when used near civilian areas.

The image that Nicko posted is from Basrah, where such weapons have been deployed in the last days:

A surgical assistant at the Saddam hospital in Nassiriya, interviewed at a marine check point outside the city, said that on Sunday, half an hour after two dead marines were brought into the hospital, US aircraft dropped what he described as three or four cluster bombs on civilian areas, killing 10 and wounding 200.

Thanks for the info. I actually didn't know the exact source of the picture, only that it was recent. I received it from a friend in Pakistan, it was in turn forwarded from someone else. The thing is, these are the images that are being circulating and shown to people in the Arab and Islamic world right now. Of course both sides are slinging their propaganda back and forth right now, but one has to wonder just how the US is going to win over the goodwill of the people when stuff like this is going on.

#24 Tue, 25 Mar 2003 - 00:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Nicko:
...one has to wonder just how the US is going to win over the goodwill of the people when stuff like this is going on.

Statements like this boggle my mind. Why is the burden of proof on the US? It's SADDAM doing these horrific things to his OWN PEOPLE. Completely ignore the hundreds of thousands HE killed and focus on the comparatively miniscule casualties caused by the US ACCIDENTALLY. It doesn't make sense.

Seems like a lot of the world is just against us plain and simple. And they're willing to overlook the hundreds of thousands of deaths instigated by Saddam (as if it's expected) while putting a magnifying glass on the few casualties the US has caused.

You know, if chemical weapons are used against our troops...I wouldn't be surprised one bit for nations to look us in the eye and say "you asked for it." I hope I'm wrong...we'll see...

#25 Tue, 25 Mar 2003 - 02:21

Quote:

Originally posted by finboy:
bump

You know, the last two categories really aren't necessary.

I wanted to seperate world opinion from American opinion. this forum is pretty diverse

#26 Tue, 25 Mar 2003 - 03:20

Quote:

Originally posted by clod:
You're against the immediate removal of the bastard that did this?

Which bast*rd photographer did this?

#27 Tue, 25 Mar 2003 - 03:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Athens:
this could be a very interesting poll

No.

#28 Wed, 26 Mar 2003 - 01:11

Quote:

Originally posted by andreas_g4:
No.

YES!

#29 Wed, 26 Mar 2003 - 01:21

The War isn't about killing civilians and 8 year old girls. Its about killing a man who does. While collatoral damage will occure, it is naieve to assume things will be better off without this tragic conflict.

#30 Wed, 26 Mar 2003 - 01:22

Indeed interesting. Seems most that are against this, are also against the US..

Big surrpise.