PDA

View Full Version : Support for Libya strikes lowest of any modern war




TheState
03-24-2011, 10:43 AM
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ylyl-nkftegtay5fyfkzpq.gif


http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/mxnlfh1sy0g4zyuw9rgkzg.gif


Source (http://www.gallup.com/poll/146738/Americans-Approve-Military-Action-Against-Libya.aspx)

Aratus
03-24-2011, 10:46 AM
what about 'nam and korea?

TheState
03-24-2011, 10:49 AM
what about 'nam and korea?

True, should have said recent instead of modern.

doodle
03-24-2011, 10:51 AM
Depends on reason for war. Is it for oil really or something happened between Gaddafi and Sarkozy's Carla Bruni during his last visit with Sarkozy?

HOLLYWOOD
03-24-2011, 10:54 AM
I haven't seen one Corporate Propaganda station (Main Stream Media) reveal or speak about the classified WIKILEAKS communiques and deals between Libya and the United States.

If all that "DEALING" was made public, support to Bomb the hell out of Libya would drop dramatically.

How about all those pics of Heads of State with Qaddafi? Condi Rice, Shillary Clinton, all the EU hacks... it's a damn travesty happening today and the media has manipulated the public.

You don't hear too much about Germany/Italy pulling out and that the ARAB LEAGUE totally rejects the United States use of force and attacking Libya. It has been almost completely swept under the carpet by Western RICO media/states.

sailingaway
03-24-2011, 10:56 AM
Interesting. And the reason is the same, if you ask me. The ones with highest approval all at least argued they were in our defense. The ones with lowest approval had much more obviously strained national security ties.

The highest approval, Afghanistan, was after we were attacked and the country was sheltering the attackers.

We should have used the means Ron suggested, not outright war, but that is a pretty obvious difference from the existing situation with Libya.... or the CURRENT situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for that matter.

And turning it over to NATO is a strawman argument, since we lead NATO. We shouldn't be involved, at all.

NYgs23
03-24-2011, 01:53 PM
The most interesting thing is how independents are generally against it, while both Democrats and Republicans are generally for it.

Stary Hickory
03-24-2011, 02:19 PM
I say we bomb France!

Who is with me?

LETS DO IT!




really though this is getting out of hand. Yemen and Saudi Arabia are doing awful stuff we do nothing, North Korea is way worse than Libya we do nothing. Not that I want to do anything in any of those places, it's just such a load of krap that we have moral prerogatives over there when we do not consistently apply "them" everywhere else.

dean.engelhardt
03-24-2011, 02:20 PM
The most interesting thing is how independents are generally against it, while both Democrats and Republicans are generally for it.

This stat is incredible. Rep add.

nate895
03-24-2011, 02:35 PM
I say we bomb France!

Who is with me?

LETS DO IT!

Well, I saw on the news police using violence on protesters in Brussels over Belgium's austerity measures. So, I say, bomb Belgium!!

South Park Fan
03-24-2011, 04:16 PM
Is our nation that sadistic that the majority of people have never seen anything wrong with attacking countries that pose no threat to us?