Third Think Iraq war was right

#1
BBC News

Two points spring to mind - right in what context, that we prevented WMD proliferation and protected our nation's interests, or that we removed Sadam?

The other point; is this lowest 'approval' rate for a war that we have 'won' ever?
 
#2
green_slime said:
BBC News

Two points spring to mind - right in what context, that we prevented WMD proliferation and protected our nation's interests, or that we removed Sadam?

The other point; is this lowest 'approval' rate for a war that we have 'won' ever?
That third of people probably haven't cared enough to think things through.
Or maybe having made the error of giving their support to the war in the begining some of them are unable to face up to their error. Then there are those people who for a variety of reasons (peace at any price being one of them) will go along with the coventional view come what may.

It would be interesting to ask those third a series of other questions in order to find out how many types inside that third there are. The anti war people 'cared' more than a lot of people who supported it.
If for instance the Iraqi resistance had been able and so inclined to regularly perform raids of sabotage and terrorism in Britain over the past four years that one third support would have quickly dissapeared soon enough. Ask them how much they personally would be prepared to suffer and still support the war and you'd find their support quickly wavering.
That support I suspect is rather soft, offered more in a 'well its no skin off my nose' kind of way. I personally find it slightly distasteful people living comfortable war free lives supporting a war far away.
Of course there will be some not dishonourable people who will support the war because British troops are involved and therefore consider it their duty to do so for the duration.
 
#3
"It would be interesting to ask those third a series of other questions in order to find out how many types inside that third there are."

Ask away.
 
#6
Bert_Preast said:
"It would be interesting to ask those third a series of other questions in order to find out how many types inside that third there are."

Ask away.
Well you are not the whole third are you?
I would ask you why you supported the Iraq war on another thread but this thread is about a demographic so I wont.
 
#8
bobthedog said:
It would be factually more correct to say that the majority (two thirds) think it was wrong!

Typical BBC spin on a story!

Bob
I don't see this as BBC spin, the third supporting is the header because that's the bit they're surprised about. And the bit they assume everyone else will be surprised about.
 
#9
While 29% said taking military action against Iraq in 2003 was the right thing to do...
29%? So why a word 'third' was used?

'Third' - 33.3%
'Quarter' - 25%

From formal point of view a 'quarter' is a better approximation.
 
#11
bobthedog said:
It would be factually more correct to say that the majority (two thirds) think it was wrong!

Typical BBC spin on a story!

Bob
Incorrect, as there could be a 'no opinion' option.
 
#13
green_slime said:
Awol - that comment is neither accurate or appropriate.
I'm afraid that in certain cases it is very accurate and very appropriate.

Unless of course,you are qualified to speak for the entire anti-war movement? In which case I apologise.
 
#14
I was a serving member of the forces at the time of the conflict and was certianly not anti-war, but then neither was I particularly pro-war. I was provelidged to have access to the raw data for the dodgy dossier and was not impressed by the formal reasons for the conflict.

Then neither was I convinced that military action the most appropriate course when dealing with this type of state.

The plight of innocents must be considered, but the long term damage to the political, economic and legal structures on a global scale due to the pre-emptive use of military force has jeapordised more lives in the future.
 
#15
Awol said:
SLRboy said:
The anti war people 'cared' more than a lot of people who supported it.
Cared so much they were prepared to let millions more die under a despot.[/quote]

Come now caubeen, enough of this silly talk.
We went there ostensibly to eradicate WMD that were apparently a threat to our good selves. Of course this was just a false excuse.
It is now abundantly clear we the British went there as un paid assistants to help execute particular ambitions of those currently in power in America. To secure oil supply and through the Production Sharing Agreements being foisted on the Iraqis increase the profits for the oil companies. To also place permanent American bases in the country. And for the US to also ruthlessly privatise the country.
The well being of the people of Iraq played no part in the calculus. It only played a P.R. part in securing peoples support for the war.
A nation state anyway does not act out of altruism but always in self interest.

Except on this occasion the British State, has it seems acted out of pure altruism that leaves many of us puzzled and throughly alarmed. Rather than 'help' the poor Iraqis we have in fact been all along helping, out of the goodness of our hearts, the rich Americans get even richer.
 
#17
KGB_resident said:
While 29% said taking military action against Iraq in 2003 was the right thing to do...
29%? So why a word 'third' was used?

'Third' - 33.3%
'Quarter' - 25%

From formal point of view a 'quarter' is a better approximation.
Yes but you know how the BBC is with numbers and things, surely?

A third is the same as 30%, right?

What do you mean, 'It isn't'?

Oh dearie me. I'll just have to slip down to Make Up again...
 
#18
Oh dear Sven,

POTUS his own self said "regime change in Iraq was not on the table" I need to find the exact wording and supporting link, but I distinctly remember that.

Then the loose tying of Iraq to 9/11 started, in spite of the fact one of the first strong messages of condemation and condolence came from a Mr. S. Hussein.
 
#19
Sven said:
Oh dear SLRBoy

Secretary of State Powell brought up regime change in a speech to the House a whole year before the war.
Would that be the same Colin Powell who lied his backside off in uniform in public at the U.N. building and didn't even get done on a simple flashing charge then sven?
 
#20
The same Colin Powell who patently didn't believe a word of the briefing he was giving, and was faltering and inarticulate in his delivery?


The same Colin Powell of whom other diplomats remarked at the time, that he didn't believe what he was shovelling?

The same Colin Powell that did the decent and honourable thing, though personally, I think he should have stayed, as Condoleeza hasbeen nothing but a train wreck.

Though lately, she seems to have found some balls as regards certain ME 'allies'
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top