Iraq Poll

[jt1]

I voted for the 'really dim' choice. Though the poll is for me and not for the benefit of the forum. My favorite poll ever on this forum is one one that asked how many people could conceivably change their minds about the Iraq war given new info and how many could never even conceive of the possibility. Fully half of the people said they would never change their mind. That poll was a sort of an epiphany for me. I'm kind of trying to duplicate that effect.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't implying anything. I voted in your poll first. I was expressing glee. Lighten up.
[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry. Having a sarcastic inclination myself, I often assume the same of others.

[ QUOTE ]

Sorry. Having a sarcastic inclination myself, I often assume the same of others.

[/ QUOTE ]
And frequently, when referring to me, you'd be right. Just not in this case. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
That poll was a sort of an epiphany for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should it have been? Don't you realize that the majority of people here actually do feel the way I stated in my first post to Nut4dawgs?

The people here either have all the facts and are able to correctly analyze them to come to the correct opinion on an issue, or they are unwilling or unable to do so in which case they will never change their views on anything, especially when their opinions are based on emotion and the way they would like things to be rather than on reason and the way things are.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That poll was a sort of an epiphany for me.


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



Why should it have been? Don't you realize that the majority of people here actually do feel the way I stated in my first post to Nut4dawgs?

The people here either have all the facts and are able to correctly analyze them to come to the correct opinion on an issue, or they are unwilling or unable to do so in which case they will never change their views on anything, especially when their opinions are based on emotion and the way they would like things to be rather than on reason and the way things are.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess, I disagree with you. 1) I don't think that anyone can have all the facts. There is almost always something that is either overlooked or unknown. 2)Even if all the facts were available, no one ever can examine them with 100% objectivity. There is almost always at least one flaw in the examiners logic.

I pride myself in being able to 1)admit new evidence when it is presented 2) admit a flaw in logic when it is pointed out to me. Often this allows me to change my conclusions.

I shouldn't be, but nonthless, I am disspointed that others aren't even willing to try to do the same.

[Cyrus]

Although I voted Yes to all the questions in the first part of your poll, may I suggest something as regards minimizing bias in the questions' wording?

In the first part of your poll, you provided 3 choices of Bush lying, i.e. "Bush lied about X", "Bush lied about Y" "Bush lied about Z" and one last choice of "Bush did not lie". That's 3 in 4 choices where Bush lies! This is a biased questionnaire.

What you want is to have 4 separate choices, e.g.
CHOICE 1
--Bush lied about X
--Bush did not lie about X
etc

Watch it, otherwise Mason Malmuth will come to the thread and make a joke at your expense.

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[evil_twin]

[ QUOTE ]
The people here either have all the facts and are able to correctly analyze them to come to the correct opinion on an issue, or they are unwilling or unable to do so in which case they will never change their views on anything, especially when their opinions are based on emotion and the way they would like things to be rather than on reason and the way things are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh the irony.

[Beer and Pizza]

[jt1]

I guess this guy thinks everyone who feels that Bush probably lied wants an immediate withdrawl from Iraq. Uh, not everyone buddy. Certainly not me.


PS: sorry about the bias. I didn't consider that. For the record, I think there are 3 or 4 pieces of evidence that suggest either Rummy or Cheney or both knew that the Nigerian documents were false before the State of the Union address. And there were also CIA reports circulating within the administration at about the same time arguing that Al Qaida and Saddam were not alligned in any way. For those reasons, I voted for options 2 & 3 in poll one.

As for poll 2, I think that Iran was the more logical choice. I don't completely disagree with war per se. In battle, aggressivity also defeats passivity. If we wanted to be aggressive militarily then we had more to gain in Iran then in Iraq. Having said that, I believe in finishing the job in Iraq, and at home, exposing Cheney and Rummy for the arrogant, incompetent frauds that the evidence suggests they are.

I also believe it's possible that the administration honestly believed in its onw rhetoric regarding Saddam & Al Qaida and Saddam and Nukes. Our leaders are just slightly more intelligent then the people who vote for them. It's not like their genius's or anything. And even if they were genius's.....Even Einstein philosophically could never accept Quantam Mechanics, despite all the evidence for it.

[Gunny Highway]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush knowingly lied about a 9/11 - Iraq connection

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not even sure what this refers to. Did Bush imply that Sadaam backed Al Qaeda? That would be bizarre. Sadaam & Al Qaeda were never friendly at all.

However, I can tell you from first hand knowledge that Sadaam backed terrorist training camps operating in Iraq prior to Desert Storm. I can also tell you from second hand knowledge (from a very close personal friend) that they were still operating shortly before the invasion of Iraq. In my mind, following 9/11 this was reason enough to invade Iraq.