Fuck France and Germany - This Time I'm Serious

[Capitalist Imperial]

You all know why.

I would expect it from China and Russia

My how times have changed.

BTW, thanks Spain and Bulgaria, we'll remember who was in it to win it from the beginning.

[Dhul Fiqar]

ROFLMFAOLAMF

(Edited by Dhul Fiqar at 12:41 am on Mar. 12, 2003)

[RedRevolutionary87]

go eat a dick

*dumb thread deserves a dumb post*

[Politrickian]

My god, yes, how can they listen to the majority of their people?

"The masses are dumb and ignorant"
-Hitler

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Politrickian on 4:55 pm on Mar. 11, 2003
My god, yes, how can they listen to the majority of their people?

"The masses are dumb and ignorant"
-Hitler

Are you sure he said that, would he not have said it in german...

[Politrickian]

Yes, he said it in German, it's losely translated too.

Don't go into details. It's not worth it.

[bolshevik1917]

the French and German ruling class are not listening to their people, they just have alot of oil contracts in Iraq

[Politrickian]

Never knew that. Could you give me some sources please?

[Zelena Hracka]

I'm really ashamed for the decision my country has taken (Bulgaria). The good thing is, though, that by doing that we will say farwell to "our" dream of joining the EU.

It's a disgrace for a country such as Bulgaria (with all of its socialist history and background) to have turned into a ***** of the west. When the decision was made to back up the American view , I was ashemed to be a Bulgarian.

[Guardia Bolivariano]

Well It's nice to now that the fascist legacy of Franco is still strong in the spanish goverment.

[The Sniper]

"In it to win it"? WTF does that mean! And when u say the france and german ruling classes aint listening to the ppl u are talking crap mate, the population in France and Germany are against war and so are the British and American ppl. Its the governments of Britian and America that aint listening mate.

[Ymir]

Am I correct that France gave the statue of libery to the USA and military training during WW2?

[Zelena Hracka]

USA during the decades used, whenever there was need of "cash", to print dollars without having the equivalent balance in gold supply. Since the dollar was the "international" currency, the USA could always be in a state of advantage since they could just print the money and use them. Now that euro has taken over and a number of countries are using it as common means of currency, the US are facing a disadvantage. Iraq was one of the first countries to make oil deals using the Euro. Other countries followed that example. Countries like Germany, France etc, that use the Euro have no desire of changing this situation. The USA want to change that. Iraq is only the beggining. Venezuela (which we all know how rich is in oil supplies) has attemted to adopt the euro as the currency of oil exports. USA are trying to control that, by placing puppet governmets in these countries. That is their plan for Iraq as well.

And why do you think the UK has taken the USA's side? Remember that the UK has not adopted the Euro. They wait to see what kind of development the euro will have in international commercial level so as to decide whether the should keep the Sterling or shift to Euro as well. For the moment it seems that the euro is still behind (in terms of commercial value relative to the dollar so the UK decided to stick with the Yankees who have the most chances of winning this war of currency and oil).

[Tkinter1]

"military training during WW2?"

Why would the US need military training from the french during WWII? I think you're talking about the revolutionary war.

Am I correct that the US liberated France?


(Edited by Tkinter1 at 8:52 pm on Mar. 11, 2003)

[Palmares]

Fuck 'the coalition of the willing'!

'The Coalition of the Unwilling' is ever growing.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Zelena Hracka on 6:08 pm on Mar. 11, 2003
I'm really ashamed for the decision my country has taken (Bulgaria). The good thing is, though, that by doing that we will say farwell to "our" dream of joining the EU.

It's a disgrace for a country such as Bulgaria (with all of its socialist history and background) to have turned into a ***** of the west. When the decision was made to back up the American view , I was ashemed to be a Bulgarian.


This is the one time you should be proud to be Bulgarian. Your nation is actually relevant for once, and for the 1st time it is doing the right thing.

Your socialist history is a stain that must be cleansed by American influence. You should be excited about the dawn of a new age and all of the possiblilities and opportunities that capitalism and western culture offers.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from The Sniper on 6:54 pm on Mar. 11, 2003
"In it to win it"? WTF does that mean! And when u say the france and german ruling classes aint listening to the ppl u are talking crap mate, the population in France and Germany are against war and so are the British and American ppl. Its the governments of Britian and America that aint listening mate.


The majority of American people are not against war.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Ymir on 6:57 pm on Mar. 11, 2003
Am I correct that France gave the statue of libery to the USA and military training during WW2?


The statue, yes. Its nice. But we liberated them from the Nazis and rebuilt their nation after WW2, so, I would say we are at least even.

Military training? Not sure. Maybe some of the resistance did. However, considering our relative performance in WW2, I think the US shhould have been training the French.

The French are not exactly known for their fighting ability.

[synthesis]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 4:02 am on Mar. 12, 2003
The majority of American people are not against war.


Poll: Americans in No Rush for Iraq War
Saturday, 18-Jan-2003 11:50AM PST Story from The Associated Press
Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press (via ClariNet)
----------------------------------

Most Americans want the United States to take more time seeking a peaceful solution in Iraq rather than moving quickly into a military confrontation, a new poll says.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ClariNews – All the views of all the news!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By 60 percent to 35 percent, people in the Newsweek poll released Saturday they would prefer that the Bush administration allow more time to find an alternative to war.

Support for a military option would be strong, 81 percent, if the United States were to act with full allied support and the backing of the U.N. Security Council. A majority would be opposed should this country act without the support of the United Nations and had no more than one or two allies.

U.S. officials and their allies currently are discussing the appropriate timetable for military action against Iraq, which faces a U.N. demand that it abandon its weapons of mass destruction. Europeans are urging that President Bush give United Nations weapons inspectors more time.

The president's job approval was at 56 percent in the Newsweek poll and 53 percent in a CNN-Time poll released over the weekend. His approval rate was in the 60s in both polls in November. According to the CNN-Time poll, the decline comes as a result of slightly higher disapproval among Republicans, independents and Democrats.

Half in the CNN-Time poll, 50 percent, said they approve Bush's handling of foreign policy, while 42 percent disapprove. In July, before the administration began its public campaign about Iraq, 64 percent approved his handling of foreign policy.

People worry about the impact of the United States' taking military action against Iraq. More than half in the Newsweek poll, 54 percent, said they expect it would cause serious divisions with allies. And more than two-thirds thought it would cause serious problems throughout the Arab countries and would cause Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to use biological or chemical weapons against Israel.

The CNN-Time poll of 1,010 adults was taken Jan. 15-16, and the Newsweek poll of 1,002 adults was taken Jan. 16-17. Both have error margins of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[synthesis]

Most Unconvinced on Iraq War
Two-thirds believe Bush has failed to make the case an attack would be justified

by Maura Reynolds

WASHINGTON -- Despite a concerted effort by the Bush administration, more than two-thirds of Americans believe the president has failed to make the case that a war with Iraq is justified, according to a Los Angeles Times poll.

The overwhelming majority of respondents -- 90% -- said they do not doubt that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction. But in the absence of new evidence from U.N. inspectors, 72% of respondents, including 60% of Republicans, said the president has not provided enough evidence to justify starting a war with Iraq.

The results underscore the importance of the outcome of U.N. arms inspections underway in Iraq if the Bush administration expects to gain clear public support for an attack.

"I'm not against [war] if it is necessary," said 59-year-old Kramer Smith, a preacher, carpenter and registered Republican from Bloomfield, Iowa, one of a number of respondents who explained their views in follow-up interviews. "But I think we need to be pretty sure before we start pulling in the big guns. If they could put their hands on evidence of real production of weapons of mass destruction, then I would say go ahead and do it."

The poll also found that support for a possible war appears to be weakening, with 58% saying they support a ground attack on Iraq. In an August Times poll, 64% said they would support a ground attack. Last January, after President Bush first denounced Saddam Hussein in his State of the Union address, the Times and other polls found support for military action greater than 70%.

"Still, almost three-quarters of Americans approve of the way George W. Bush is handling the threat of terrorism in the country, and nearly three out of five also approve of his handling of the country's affairs," said Susan Pinkus, who directed The Times poll.

Traditionally, support is low before a president declares war, but increases after troops are in the field.

"If he actually does go to war, I suspect people will swing behind him as they did in the Gulf War," said John Mueller, an expert on war and public opinion at Ohio State University. "But right now, there isn't all that much enthusiasm for the war."

That lack of support may stem from the impression that the president has failed to present enough hard evidence to prove that Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction and is prepared to use them. The administration has spent much of the last three months trying to build a case for war -- internationally at the United Nations, and domestically during the president's frenetic campaigning in advance of midterm elections last month.

"How come they can show satellite photos of nuclear sites in Iran but they can't find the same in Iraq?" asked Nancy Carolan, 52, a jewelry artist on the Hawaiian island of Kauai. "I don't think they're justified, but they are just going to do it anyway."

The poll also indicates that Americans do not agree with the president's argument that any error or omission in the arms declaration Iraq sent to the United Nations earlier this month is adequate to justify war.

Instead, 63% of respondents said war would be justified only if the United Nations finds a pattern of serious violations by Iraq. Just 22% agreed with the administration's position; 6% said it would depend on the nature of the omissions; and 9% said they were not sure or declined to reply.

Almost six in 10 say it is unlikely that the U.N. inspectors will find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

"I don't doubt that they do" have weapons of mass destruction, said respondent Victoria Ellison, 57, a Democrat from Burbank. "But I want to see proof. "

If U.N. inspections fail to turn up evidence of Iraqi weapons programs, almost half of respondents said they would oppose war. Only 41% would favor war, and 10% said they don't know whether they would favor or oppose.

The Times poll also suggests Americans are more informed about the possibility of war with Iraq, with 84% saying they are following the news closely -- up from 76% in August. Sixty-three percent of respondents in the recent poll said they feel war is inevitable, 27% said war may or may not occur, and 4% said they believed war would not occur.

Respondents also expressed concern that the president may not be getting balanced information from his advisors. Fifty-one percent of respondents said they believe Bush's advisors favor going to war; 20% said the advisors present a balanced view; and 11% said the advisors are opposed to war. Roughly a fifth said they are not sure whether Bush's advisors favor or oppose war.

If the United States should launch an attack, 68% of Americans want it to be only with the support of the international community. Only 26% said they were willing to support war if the United States acted alone.

"I am not opposed to doing something, but it would have to be in the right circumstances," said Geoff George, a 20-year-old independent from Albany, Ore. "I would probably be a little more supportive if the U.N. and the rest of the world united and we all decided to do it together. But [if we act] as one nation, I don't think there would ever be enough evidence for me."

However, at least theoretically, Americans agree with the administration's argument that sometimes preemptive or preventive war is justified. Sixty-four percent of respondents, including 49% of Democrats, believe the United States should reserve the right to launch a preemptive attack against regimes that threaten the country. Only 25% said they opposed such a policy, and 11% said they did not have an opinion on the issue.

If the United States does go to war, the decision is likely to have serious ramifications at home and abroad, respondents said. Sixty-seven percent said war is likely to increase the threat of terrorist attacks in the United States; 51% said they feel it would destabilize the Middle East; and 45% said it will have a negative effect on the U.S. economy.

They are also concerned about the possibility of military casualties. Of those who initially said they support a ground attack against Iraq, 18% said they would do so only if no American soldiers are killed. However, support falls off gradually as the theoretical death toll is raised, but 29% said they would support war no matter what the cost in American lives.

Finally, in the wake of a war, the vast majority of Americans -- 70%, according to the poll -- feel the country has an obligation to stay and rebuild Iraq.

The Times poll was conducted Dec. 12 to 15 and interviewed 1,305 adults nationwide. Margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[synthesis]

Poll: Majority oppose unilateral action against Iraq
By MARTIN MERZER
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - With U.S. troops heading for the Persian Gulf, Americans say in overwhelming numbers that they oppose unilateral U.S. military action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, according to a national Knight Ridder poll.

A robust majority of Americans - 83 percent - would support going to war if the United Nations backed the action and it was carried out by a multinational coalition. But without U.N. approval and allies, only about a third of the public would support a war with Iraq.

The poll highlights the Bush administration's political and diplomatic quandary.

Unambiguous evidence that Iraq has nuclear, biological or chemical weapons is a key requirement for the broad international support that Americans crave. Yet a majority of poll respondents, while convinced that Iraq harbors such weapons, said they doubted U.N. inspectors would find them.

Many survey respondents said President Bush had not effectively explained why military action might be required. Nearly 1 in 5 said they still did not believe that Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States.

"We have been given no compelling reasons for going to war," said Bill Quarton, 52, of Ann Arbor, Mich., who was among the poll respondents who said they were opposed to unilateral U.S. action against Iraq.

"Our government acts as if it knows something terribly important and we should go ahead with this, but we haven't seen anything to substantiate it. The whole scenario makes me very uncomfortable."

The survey by Princeton Survey Research Associates questioned 1,204 American adults Jan. 3-6, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Among the survey's other findings:


Most Americans do not want to rush into war. Sixty-eight percent of the respondents said the United States should continue to work toward achieving its goals in Iraq without war. Only 27 percent favored quick military action.


Still, more than 60 percent of those surveyed would support an eventual war if it was the only way to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein or end the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.


Arguments against war are much less compelling to Americans than the arguments in favor of military action. In particular, the arguments that war with Iraq will hurt the economy, damage relations with our allies or divert attention and resources from the goal of tracking down those responsible for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, don't carry much weight.


Two-thirds of the respondents said they thought they had a good grasp of the issues surrounding the Iraqi crisis, but closer questioning revealed large gaps in that knowledge. For instance, half of those surveyed said one or more of the Sept. 11 terrorist hijackers were Iraqi citizens. In fact, none was.


The informed public is considerably less hawkish about war with Iraq than the public as a whole. Those who show themselves to be most knowledgeable about the Iraq situation are significantly less likely to support military action, either to remove Saddam from power or to disarm Iraq.


Asked to rank the various threats facing the United States, more than twice as many respondents (49 percent of the total) chose al-Qaida as the greatest peril as chose Iraq. A similar margin thinks that dealing with al-Qaida should be the nation's top foreign-policy priority.

Uncertainty, ambivalence

With war possibly only weeks away and another crisis brewing with North Korea, the survey found that Americans exhibit considerable uncertainty and ambivalence about world affairs.

Among other things, they are evenly divided about the president's effectiveness in explaining what's at stake in Iraq and why U.S. military force might be employed.

Forty-eight percent said he had not clearly explained his rationale for a war against Iraq; 46 percent think he has.

The result shows some slippage for the president since September, when other polls asked a similar question. Then, 52 percent thought the president had clearly explained his position; 37 percent disagreed.

"He's the best," said Jose Velez, 25, of Lehighton, Pa., near Allentown. "After Sept. 11, President Bush didn't take any chances, and this is part of that."

Dan Yeager, 24, of Grand Ledge, Mich., saw it differently.

"I think going after Iraq is just for Bush's own popularity and to finish off his father's work," Yeager said. "He's not clear about why he wants to go to war. I think he just wants to do it and he's just saying, `Back me.' "

Yeager and many other Americans also remain worried about the economy.

As a group, the survey's respondents were evenly split when asked whether foreign threats or the economy should be the administration's top priority.

"We're going to spend a lot of money sending all these troops to Iraq and right now we have a problem of our own with the economy," said Lydia Sepulveda, 41, of Weston, Fla., outside Miami. "A lot of people are without work."

Still, the 27 percent who think Iraq poses the most serious foreign threat are more likely than others to want the White House to devote most of its time to an overseas crisis rather than the economy. Fifty-two percent of those people feel that way.

Only 42 percent of those who think that al-Qaida or North Korea poses the most serious foreign threat want the White House to place those issues over the economy.

Little support for war against Korea

When it comes to North Korea, a majority thinks the United States is imperiled by that enigmatic, hard-line regime and that America should maintain or enhance its military presence in South Korea. But there is little support for U.S. military action against North Korea, a nation known to possess nuclear weapons.

Seventy-nine percent of those surveyed said the issue should be resolved diplomatically; only 15 percent said the United States should prepare to take immediate military action against North Korea.

"I'm a war veteran, and I don't believe in going to war over other people's problems," said Robert Wilkinson, 75, of Ojai, Calif., near Ventura. He is a veteran of World War II.

Returning to the Iraqi crisis, a commanding 91 percent of those surveyed believe that Saddam Hussein is concealing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Sixty-five percent think U.N. inspectors aren't likely to find those weapons.

If war proves necessary, Americans seem willing to tolerate a long military presence in Iraq. Sixty-six percent of those surveyed said they would support eventual military action even if it required U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for five years.

The survey also demonstrated that many Americans remain altruistic and idealistic. They worry that the Iraqi crisis could mark a fundamental shift in American attitudes toward war.

Two-thirds of the respondents said Saddam's record of using chemical or biological weapons against his own people provided a good reason for going to war, the same number that cited American self-defense against a terrorist attack.

Forty-six percent of those surveyed said the possibility of a high casualty rate among Iraqi civilians was a good reason not to go to war.

The nation is evenly divided over the Bush administration's advocacy of pre-emptive strikes, those that are launched before an enemy attacks U.S. interests at home or abroad. Forty-three percent say the policy violates American ideals and could establish a dangerous precedent.

"We should be the country that sets the standards," Quarton said. "This amounts to punishing the criminal before the crime is committed."

Forty-five percent support pre-emptive strikes.

"If somebody says he's going to kill me, am I going to wait until he does?" Velez said. "There have been a lot of threats. How many people have to die over here before we do what we have to do?"

Political differences

As one might expect, support for war among Democrats and independents is much more conditional than support among Republicans.

While Republicans widely endorse the policy of pre-emptive strikes and would support war with Iraq with less than the full support of our allies, Democrats and independents tend to see pre-emptive strikes as bad policy and make their support for war contingent on U.N. backing.

Many Americans are willing to support the use of nuclear weapons, if necessary, but an equal number remains extremely discomforted by that concept.

Forty-six percent would approve of a U.S. nuclear response if Iraq used chemical or biological weapons; 45 percent would not want the Pentagon to respond with nuclear bombs.

Asked if Israel would be justified in responding with nuclear devices to an Iraqi chemical or biological attack, Americans felt quite differently. Sixty percent said Israel would be justified; 30 percent disagreed.

"It would be a grave error," Quarton said about the use of nuclear devices under any circumstances. "Two wrongs do not make a right. It would poison a large part of the world. It would create hatreds that might take centuries to resolve."

The survey also suggested that the factual underpinnings of many of the nation's opinions are shaky.

Nearly 1 in 4 respondents thinks the Bush administration has publicly released evidence tying Iraq to the planning and funding of the Sept. 11 attacks, and more than 1 in 3 respondents didn't know or refused to answer.

No such evidence has been released.

[synthesis]

Poll shows widespread disquiet in US over Iraq war
By Barry Grey
8 October 2002

A New York Times/CBS News opinion poll published Sunday provides an indication of the widespread concern among Americans—ranging from suspicion and disquiet to outright opposition—to the Bush administration’s drive for war against Iraq.

The results of the poll, conducted by telephone from October 3 to October 5, reveal a high degree of resistance among masses of working people to the relentless propaganda from the government and the mass media in favor of an imminent US attack. With both the Republican and Democratic parties, as well as the media, lined up solidly behind the White House war campaign, the poll provides a striking barometer of the degree to which the concerns of the vast majority of the population are unable to find even a faint reflection within the political establishment.

In broad terms, the poll shows that a substantial majority of Americans, in contrast to the Bush administration, oppose any military attack before United Nations weapons inspectors have been given a chance to resume their monitoring of Iraqi installations. Most Americans, moreover, reject the White House’s policy of “pre-emptive war.”

By a wide margin, Americans are more concerned with the deterioration of the US economy and the growth of unemployment than they are with the ostensible threat from Iraq. The Times/CBS poll reflects deep-going anger and frustration over the failure of both the Bush White House and the Democrats to address the mounting social crisis within the US.

As with all such polls, the results of the Times/CBS survey cannot be accepted uncritically as a definitive measurement of mass sentiment. The way in which such polls are conducted and the manner in which the questions are framed inevitably evoke a distorted and fragmentary picture of the real mood of the population. If anything, the conduct of such polls is calculated to underestimate popular opposition and sentiments of a broadly left-wing character. All the more significant, therefore, are the indications that the current war drive lacks any solid and active base of mass support.

The Times reportage of its own poll is indicative of the concern within high places of the survey’s results. The page-one article on the poll in Monday’s edition omits any mention of the question on Bush’s “strike-first” war policy. In fact, the poll showed that only 33 percent of Americans believe that a country should be able to attack another because it thinks that country might attack first. A majority, 56 percent, thinks a country should not be allowed to attack another unless it is actually attacked first. When applied to the United States, a greater percentage of respondents still rejected the notion of “pre-emptive war” (44 percent) than those who supported it (43 percent).

A further indication of the limited character of the poll is the notable omission of any question regarding the role of Iraq’s oil resources in the US drive to topple Saddam Hussein. The absence of this question—which would likely tap into the general feeling that oil and the interests of US oil companies have an enormous bearing on the war drive—is indicative of the systematic effort of the media to block any discussion of the historical, geopolitical and economic driving forces behind the anti-Iraq campaign.

The broad mass of the American people are deprived of any objective information regarding US-Iraqi relations and the pre-history of the present confrontation. Instead they are bombarded by propaganda depicting Saddam Hussein as a modern-day Hitler. This makes all the more notable the reservoir of suspicion and unease over the Bush administration’s aims and intentions in the Persian Gulf.


On Bush’s war policy—skepticism and foreboding

While 67 percent of respondents in the Times/CBS poll said they supported the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein, this figure represents no increase over previous polls, and indicates that the Bush administration’s concentrated campaign since early September to whip up a war fever has failed to shift popular sentiment. Moreover, the support for military action drops precipitously when the issue is posed more concretely. For example, only 54 percent of respondents said they would back military action if it involved substantial US losses. Significantly, that figure dropped to 49 percent if the war involved substantial Iraqi civilian casualties, and again fell to 49 percent if an attack were to evolve into a prolonged war.

The percentage of respondents supporting military action “soon” actually dropped from that registered in a poll taken two weeks ago, falling from 36 percent to 30 percent. The sentiment for allowing UN inspectors time to resume monitoring before taking military action increased from 57 percent to 63 percent.

With 70 percent of respondents believing war with Iraq to be inevitable, it is a fair conclusion that much of the reported support for military action has the character of resignation, rather than wholehearted approval. Indeed, the Times/CBS poll indicated widely felt forebodings about the coming conflict. More than half of the respondents, 51 percent, said any military action would result in a long and costly involvement. 60 percent said they believed an attack on Iraq would lead to a broader conflict in the Middle East, and 50 percent said it would increase the threat of terrorist attacks within the US (a rise of 6 percent from a poll taken one month ago).

A majority of those polled expressed dissatisfaction with the role of Congress, saying it had not sufficiently questioned the administration on its war plans. More than half, 53 percent, questioned Bush’s motives, saying they believed he was more interested in removing Saddam Hussein than in removing weapons of mass destruction from Iraq.


The overriding concern—jobs and living standards

The poll reflected mounting anxiety over the growing assault on jobs and living standards, and exasperation at the failure of either party, especially the Democrats, to address the issue. The largest group of respondents (37 percent) felt a war would further weaken the economy. Seven in ten said they would rather hear candidates in next month’s congressional election speak about economic issues than about the war, and 57 percent said they would base their vote for a candidate on economic policy above foreign policy.

The poll reflected growing social opposition to Bush’s pro-business agenda. The number of Americans who approved of Bush’s handling of the economy—41 percent—was the lowest of his presidency. Nearly half of the respondents felt Bush was more interested in protecting corporations than in protecting ordinary Americans.

According to the Times article on the poll: “Again and again, in questions and in follow-up interviews, respondents talked more about the economy than Baghdad and expressed concern that leaders in Washington were not paying enough attention to the issues that mattered to them.”

“No one is talking about how to solve the economic downfall,” said one respondent. Another gave vent to the widely held view that Bush is manipulating the war question to divert attention from the social crisis, saying, “He thinks keeping us fearful about going to war will distract us from how bad the economy is.”

The publication of the Times/CBS poll coincided with anti-war demonstrations held in cities across the country and involving tens of thousands of protesters. While the protests were barely reported in the media, they indicate growing opposition to the impending war.

But anti-war sentiment and social opposition in the working class to the government-corporate attack on jobs and living standards find no expression in any section of the political establishment. Later this week both houses of Congress will pass resolutions giving Bush a virtual blank check to wage war against Iraq and other countries the US government targets as “rogue states.” These resolutions will undoubtedly pass by large, if not overwhelming, margins, with the Democrats lining up en masse behind the White House.

Never in modern history has the chasm separating the American people and the political representatives of American capitalism been so stark, and the need for the working class to build its own political alternative to the parties of war, repression and social privilege been so urgent.

[synthesis]

African Americans cold on Iraq war
Poll showed blacks support lowest of any group surveyed
By Chaka Ferguson
ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK, Feb. 25 — President Bush’s push toward war with Iraq has found less support among blacks than among whites and Hispanics, reflecting what some say are economic fears and long-standing resentments over past mistreatment.

“The black community realizes that war is not good for us — not good for our economic situation now, and not good for the many of us who are going to be in the war,” said Nicholas Wiggins, 21, a college student from East Stroudsburg, Pa.
A Pew Research Center poll found 44 percent of blacks support a war with Iraq, the lowest level of any group surveyed. Overall, 66 percent of Americans favored military force, with support at 73 percent among whites and 67 percent among Hispanics. The February survey of 1,254 adults had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, and slightly larger for the subgroups.

WHO OPPOSES THE WAR?
Democrats, women and college-educated Americans are also less likely to support a war than the overall population, according to the Feb. 20 poll.
The lagging support among blacks found in the survey and in earlier polls is coupled with strong opposition to war from organizations such as the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP.
NAACP President Kweisi Mfume said many blacks believe the conflict can be resolved short of war, and they worry that war could sour the nation’s already sagging economy.
“What some communities might feel as a mild cold during war time, will really be pneumonia in black and brown communities economically,” he said.
Mfume said blacks’ stance against the war should not be viewed as unpatriotic. “We have fought in every war and defended a democracy that we never fully enjoyed and to protect liberties that were often not afforded to ourselves,” he said.
Analysts said blacks’ support for war in Iraq reflects a partisan view of Bush, who drew only 9 percent of the black vote in the 2000 election.
They also cited the role the black church has played in previous anti-war movements, such as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s stand against the Vietnam War, and mistreatment of black veterans after previous wars.
“We believe it is anti-American to go to war prematurely,” said Democratic presidential hopeful Rev. Al Sharpton, who is among the most vocal opponents of military action against Iraq.

PREACHING NONVIOLENCE
“I’m a disciple of the Rev. Martin Luther King,” said Faye Williams, a lawyer from Washington who opposes the war. Williams noted a decades-long tradition among black ministers of preaching nonviolence, and said, “There are a lot of people today, too, who are listening to these ministers.”


Blacks are also less likely to perceive Saddam Hussein as the same type of direct threat as al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden, said Joseph Jordan, director of the Sonya Haynes Stone Center for Black Culture and History at the University of North Carolina. He said many blacks believe the drive toward war has come at the expense of domestic concerns.
“They draw some relationship between retreats on domestic issues like affirmative action and assistance programs for the poor and the escalation of these hostilities,” he said.
Conservative commentator Armstrong Williams, who supports military action against Iraq, said blacks’ views are shaped as much by historical and economic concerns as they are by partisan issues.
“They have seen how we were treated in World War II and how black veterans were treated,” Williams said. “It’s just something that has been passed down from their grandparents and parents.”

[peaccenicked]

Bolshevik1917, while it is true that France and Germany are bourgeois democracies like the US (except for Florida) and Britain.ie Shams controlled by the rich and their lackeys, who control the flow of information.
The question is not merely about oil but the balance of imperialist power in the world.
In this the US is operating like a reckless world bully unsurpassed in its military might and imperialist ambition.
The realpolitik demands that socialists fall behind Old Europe, in our weakness as a class, it is the tactic the situation demands. Europe seeks to tame the US beast,
so do we.
It was Lenin who said to the early CPGB, that they should support the labour party like a rope supports a hanged man. A party he defined as a bourgeios workers
party which exists to systematically dupe the working class......he could have added 'to support imperialism'.
It is clear that old european powers are opposing a real bloody disaster in the Middle east. To cloak this fact in the fight against constitutional illusions is absolutely churlish and while the battle against constitutional illusions is not the immediate priority of the movement. It can only be seen as sectarian stupidity that distances the anti-war movement from its momentarily objective allies.

[Guest1]

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/libertyforall.gif

(Edited by Che y Marijuana at 1:46 am on Mar. 12, 2003)

[Old Friend]

Your polling data seems to be a little old, don't you think? Here is a more recent poll from the New York Times and CBS. Looks like people are sick of the namby pamby liberal approach.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

New York, Mar 11, 2003 (EFE via COMTEX) -- Americans are losing patience with the United Nations and most support military action in Iraq - even without the approval of the Security Council, a poll published Tuesday by The New York Times revealed.
The New York Times/CBS News Poll showed that 58 percent of those interviewed said the U.N. was "doing a poor job" on the Iraq crisis.

Of the 1,010 adults polled, 55 percent said they would back "a U.S. invasion of Iraq, even if it was in defiance of a vote of the Security Council."

At the same time, the poll reflected Americans' uncertainty over the military preparations President George W. Bush has initiated, with 52 percent of those polled saying more time was needed for U.S. inspectors to search for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in Iraq.

The number of Americans who accept that inspections need more time "has dropped over the past month, and there has been an increase in the number of Americans who say the United States has done enough to find a diplomatic solution in Iraq," the paper wrote.

Of those interviewed, 45 percent said foreign leaders respected Bush, while an equal number said they did not.

A similar poll conducted a year ago showed that 66 percent of those interviewed said that other world leaders respected the U.S. president.

Meanwhile, 44 percent of respondents said their main interest in the Iraq crisis is toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, while 41 percent said their top priority was keeping Iraq from manufacturing weapons of mass destruction.

As for Bush's goals, 45 percent said his principal aim was deposing Hussein, 25 percent said it was keeping Iraq from having banned weapons, and 19 percent said Bush was mostly concerned with protecting oil supplies.

The poll revealed that the number of respondents who said that Bush is failing to heed the growing conflict with North Korea as he should, in light of that country's nuclear program, has increased from 25 to 35 percent over the past month.

Similarly, the poll found that more than 35 percent of Americans consider the economy the country's most pressing problem, while 23 percent consider the conflict with Iraq the most urgent issue facing the nation.

The poll found that 56 percent of Americans continue to approve of Bush's performance, while the number of those who believe the U.S. should launch an attack on Iraq soon has risen from 36 percent to 44 percent.

source: http://host.wallstreetcity.com/wsc2/Comtex...3&nocache=83056 (http://host.wallstreetcity.com/wsc2/Comtex_Community_Stories.html?Button=Get+Story&headline=217259023&nocache=83056)

[Zelena Hracka]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 4:01 am on Mar. 12, 2003

Quote: from Zelena Hracka on 6:08 pm on Mar. 11, 2003
I'm really ashamed for the decision my country has taken (Bulgaria). The good thing is, though, that by doing that we will say farwell to "our" dream of joining the EU.

It's a disgrace for a country such as Bulgaria (with all of its socialist history and background) to have turned into a ***** of the west. When the decision was made to back up the American view , I was ashemed to be a Bulgarian.


This is the one time you should be proud to be Bulgarian. Your nation is actually relevant for once, and for the 1st time it is doing the right thing.

Your socialist history is a stain that must be cleansed by American influence. You should be excited about the dawn of a new age and all of the possiblilities and opportunities that capitalism and western culture offers.



I guess you haven't been in Bulgaria recently to see what kind of a shithole it has turned into....since 1989-90.

I live in the consequenses if that change. I saw, I compared and I came to the conclusion that the pre -90's era was preferrable to the current one. So do millions of my compatriots.


(Edited by Zelena Hracka at 3:48 pm on Mar. 12, 2003)

[Vzdorujuci]

Only fuckin' capitalist can write shit such like this... My country agreed to that american *****es too... Only government, not tha people... In Spain too, in Poland too, Czech Republic too...

[Kapitan Andrey]

Capitalist Imperial...Shut up, you dirt pig!!!

Don't you understand, that you are lucky to post even here in OP !!!
So shut your, stupid yankee's, mouth!!!

Bulgarian government didn't asked the nation:' What to do with Iraq" No! They just want to have a hope to get money from u.s.a...People are against that!!!

Zelena Hracka and Vzdorujuci !!!
Hello, brothers/sisters-Slavs!!!
Unite against those damn yankee!!! Slavs forever!!!

Che y Marijuana...funny slide!

Guardia Bolivariano...yea! ;)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Dyermaker, here is a poll from just this week:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81023,00.html

[Sirion]

...From FoxNews

Nothing else to expect from them...

[Pete]

I've read more neutral polls that support CI on this one....The American people are proving their ignorance and the manipulative power of corporate media....Wasn't it an America who said "War is the most unnatural thing for a democracy'??

[Larissa]

Quote: from Sirion on 5:11 am on Mar. 17, 2003
...From FoxNews

Nothing else to expect from them...
Biased media, as usual.
BTW, CI don't you realized the majority in the whole world is gainst this bloddy war?

[synthesis]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 6:54 am on Mar. 17, 2003
Dyermaker, here is a poll from just this week:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81023,00.html


That doesn't surprise me. We are, after all, discussing a public which possesses a near-majority of people have never even heard of Jacques Chirac, Rudy Giuliani, or Gerhard Schroeder. Morons.

You'll notice, of course, that the poll arbitrarily omits poll anwers and their corresponding percentages. Look at number fifteen; it goes straight from number one to number five without skipping a beat.

[Geddan]

At least some countries have some respect and intelligence left... And I ain't talking about the US. If George W Bush ain't pleased with the electric chair, he'd better go find some medical help instead of bombing Iraq.

[Grauniad]

I have often sat and wondered why it is that with all of its so called smart weaponrary and special forces and cia black ops etc, the USA has not been able to remove Sadaam without the need to bomb a poor country back into the stone age. Could the reason for the mass bombing really be just to make money for the failing US economy ? I'm also puzzled by the arguement that Sadaam is in breach of UN resolutions, by that arguement the USA should also be waging war on Israel..........
I wonder if we will ever know the truth

[Grauniad]

Quote: CI
The statue, yes. Its nice. But we liberated them from the Nazis and rebuilt their nation after WW2, so, I would say we are at least even.

Military training? Not sure. Maybe some of the resistance did. However, considering our relative performance in WW2, I think the US shhould have been training the French.

The French are not exactly known for their fighting ability.


Of course the US won WW2 single handed weren't they the only ones actually fighting, I mean the brits french, indians, aussies, kiwis, gurkhas. french, poles etc were all sat on their asses while brave Amerika made the world a safe place..........................................

One might also consider that last point.... Do the words French Foreign Legion mean anything to you ? You may want to enquire why the pride and joy of the US special forces failed miserably in their attempt to complet the FFL training course........................................

not forgetting of course that the revolutionary war would not have been won without massive french support, after all it was started by a bunch of rich englush guys who wanted to keep slaves and not pay taxes......Hmmmmmmm do we have a parallel here with Dubya and his coalition of rich texan xenophobes.......
Enquiring minds want to know

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Grauniad on 10:14 am on Mar. 18, 2003
One might also consider that last point.... Do the words French Foreign Legion mean anything to you ? You may want to enquire why the pride and joy of the US special forces failed miserably in their attempt to complet the FFL training course........................................



I would like to see the documentation and circumstances under which our special forces failed the FFL course. Because I can tell you right now, those FFL softies could never do what Navy SEAL's do, bottom line.

SEALS are much more highly capable.

[Pete]

The fact is that the French, German, Russian, and Canadians are not cowards because we have been able to push away American blackmail and pressures and stand against the sole superpower. We may be weak at arms, but we are much stronger at heart.

[Pete]

Oh yes comrades, although CI picked a bias source for his polls, I have read the same thing in the Toronto Star and at the CBC. At the same time I have read that over 50% of Americans do not know the difference between Saddam Hussien and Osama Bin Ladin...which proves the nations sucebtablility to propaganda. (spelling errors everywhere)

[deadpool 52]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 9:06 am on Mar. 12, 2003

The French are not exactly known for their fighting ability.


Yeah, I know. Just look at Napoleon, the four-hundred A.D. Anglo-Saxon invasion of the British Isles, and Charles the Great.
Bunch of fuckin' pussies.
But then again, the Americans are not exactly known for their History ability.

Well, might as well fuck the whole world while we are at it.


Oh, except Spain and Bulgaria. How could I forget them?


(Edited by deadpool 52 at 1:40 am on Mar. 19, 2003)


(Edited by deadpool 52 at 1:42 am on Mar. 19, 2003)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from deadpool 52 on 7:16 pm on Mar. 18, 2003

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 9:06 am on Mar. 12, 2003

The French are not exactly known for their fighting ability.


Yeah, I know. Just look at Napoleon, the four-hundred A.D. Anglo-Saxon invasion of the British Isles, and Charles the Great.
Bunch of fuckin' pussies.
But then again, the Americans are not exactly known for their History ability.

Well, might as well fuck the whole world while we are at it.


Oh, except Spain and Bulgaria. How could I forget them?


(Edited by deadpool 52 at 1:40 am on Mar. 19, 2003)


(Edited by deadpool 52 at 1:42 am on Mar. 19, 2003)


No, I agree, they used to be legit, but somewhere in the 20th century they just lost it.

Sorry

[notyetacommie]

While the US is only on their way to losing. Good luck on the road!

Are you really ready to fight the whole world? (with the exception of some governments in certain countries, OF COURSE!)

Are you ready to stand by your imperialistic principles in the face of complete isolation?

Pacifists of the world, UNITE!

Talking about post-1989 Bulgaria, you have the same problems as my country, Russia. Funnily enough, more and more people in more and more countries start realising that building their economies in the US way (on the advise of, say, Harvard economists in Russia) they face immence financial problems as well as social injustice. I think this is inherent in the American values, which are being imposed on every nation in the world.
It's time to stop this war machine.
Bulgarian government will undergo what is now happening to France, i.e. public insults from their "ally" right after they show a sign of different thinking on ANY question in the future.

This is democracy American style, with one opinion relevant- the one with more nukes to support. This is what they have been fighting for for the past 200 years.

Freedom only matters for them if it is their freedom to do whatever it takes to insult the rest of the world.

CI is a very good example of US chauvinism.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from notyetacommie on 6:18 am on Mar. 19, 2003
While the US is only on their way to losing. Good luck on the road!




keep dreaming there, tiger

[Pete]

C.I. all empires fall. When Rome was on the down wards road they tried to appease the people through entertainment. Today what is the most prevalant form of distraction (other then looking at external problems instead of enternal ones)??? Television. You are masked from your downfall by a government who refuses to believe it possible.