http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061103/ts_nm/security_bush_poll_dc

Oh dear!!! :banghead:

That's pretty embarassing. :o

Still it is the Guardian!!!

Paul

While Bush is absurd, that poll is ridiculous. :hopeless:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061103/ts_nm/security_bush_poll_dc

Oh dear!!! :banghead:

That's pretty embarassing. :o

Still it is the Guardian!!!

Paul

Paul

Thats not actually what it says though is it?

Its questions being asked in isolation, then being put into a poll.

We arent as paranoid about N Korea as the Americans are, and most of us havent had "Team America" to help shape our views.

Maybe Mr Bush and the US Government should take a look at this poll and take a look at themselves.

Clearly Mr Bush doesnt want to be seen in this way, but you can see why people feel this way.

Are more or less people dying each day than before the Iraq/Afghanistan invasion?

Most people here didnt want the Iraq war, and our military have admitted that they are at breaking point. His pride is going to cost a lot of young Americans and British soldiers their lives. Not to mention the Iraqi's.

I certainly wouldn't be surprised. A lot of people in the UK feel like that.

I understand what you are saying Chuck, and the Yahoo headline sure put a spin on the results of the poll...

... but as for the basic premiss... I wonder back in 1938/1939 if people in the US saw guys like Churchill (when Chamberlein was still in power but Churchill was beating the warning war drums) as a threat to world peace? I wonder if guys in the US saw Churchill as a threat to world peace in Sept 1939 for sure? Certainly we know that Roosevelt was elected on a non interventionist policy and they did not join the war for several years.

My point is - is history repeating itself - are we in the west at the beginnings of a war with radical islam or not? Is Bush the visionary here that sees it coming and is trying to deal with it (after all its been with us in isolated incidences over many years now) or is it in all reality a storm in a tea cup? None of us know for 100% sure... but we each form our judgements based on what we see and infer and make the best decision we can.

Personally, I think Iraq is now a mess. But I am not sure who totally to blame. To me it's history repeating itself - look what happened when Tito died and Yugoslavia collapsed (another strong dictator holding ethnic groups together). I think the Bush admin did not have a good post war plan. I think the Europeans for the most part let them down. Do I think we should have gone in... probably yes on balance. Why? I don't have the intelligence but the thing that always swung it for me was Blair. Not that I think Blair is that great mind - but he was the only leader who went against his party and his people. Chirac stayed the line of his people - no. Bush went with the line of his people - yes. Blair went against popularity and his party for the most part. That is political suicide and I think Blair is nothing but a shrewd politician. So... I think he did what he thought was right based on the intelligence he had. Maybe the intelligence was flawed... or... maybe there were weapons and chemicals etc that habe been moved to Syria and Iran. Again, only time will tell.

I think the results of this poll say a lot more about our media and the gullibility of people who absorb the propoganda than they do about people and their critical thinking abilities and their knowledge of history.

Paul

It is My Religion to Help another Man be a Better Follower of His.

That's pretty embarassing. :o
Still it is the Guardian!!!
PaulAnd it was a pretty small sample - 1,000 people only.

Still, I wouldn't be surprised if it was accurate - you know the British, Paul - we are a nation of grumblers. If the Dali Lhama was running the world, a majority of Brits would say he was doing a lousy job!!

Interesting Paul.

I dont know whether many will see Bush and Churchill in the same picture.

The difference between the Nazi's, and "the rise of Islamic Radicalism" is that one was set in a specific place, and was clear about what it was doing.

Chamberlain didnt want a war, and I seriously doubt that Hitler wanted war with the British.

Maybe Bush is a visionairy, and Saddam Hussein was the problem that the world needing saving from. I doubt that very much.

The removal of Hussein by the USA seen as a slight by many Muslims, and they ask why the USA arent intervening in other countries with similar problems.

Has it increased, or decreased the threat of attacks against the West?

We've done the reasons behind the war to death on the other site, and I dont want to go through all the arguements again.

Suffice to say you are right that there was no "post war plan", and even if there was, there was no contingency when it went wrong.