Interesting CNN poll, What do you think?

[jenk]

http://www.cnn.com/

Do the latest terror acts in Baghdad increase your resolve to help rebuild Iraq?

Yes 39% 5411 votes

No 61% 8642 votes
Total: 14053 votes

[acmavm]

1. I think it means that people are becoming more sceptical (?) everyday

about throwing $87 billion to the Bush Administration for Iraq.

[papau]

2. "Today's Saddam "Shock and Awe" proof that Saddam is losing" -Bush

No kidding - Bush actually said today that the disasters in Iraq are evidence that those against us are desparate because we are winning.

Should we have 30 days of quiet in Iraq it will be evidence that we are losing?

Sorry, I forgot that our Media whores will endorse any spin put out by the Whitehouse without raising any questions. So quiet is good, and not quiet is good, and Bush's and the media's shit does not stink.

[reachout]

3. Strange phrasing of the question

Of course that's not unusual of CNN.

I voted no because for this administration "rebuilding of Iraq" is code for "occupy and rape Iraq of its natural resources while installing a friendly, tractable government." The attacks don't alter my opposition to this.

Now, if we remove the newsspeak, of course I think we should do all we can to help rebuild a nation we helped destroy. Of course we should be doing it through the UN. The terrorism doesn't alter my opinion of that either.


Peace

[fob]

6. Ah but they've already won. The question is about "terror" attacks

not attacks by "terrorists". They are getting you to buy into defense of Iraq against an occupation = terrorism.

The terrorism doesn't alter my opinion of that either

Is it terrorism or defense of homeland?

fob

[reachout]

7. Depends

The attacks against uniformed forces of the occupation are "resistance" and recognized as such by international law. I think it can be argued that attacks against domestic collaborators fall within the same realm. That being said, the bombing of civilian targets and international aid agencies I would classify as acts of "terrorism." That is, the deliberate targeting of non-combatants in pursuit of a particular political outcome.


Peace

[Zero Gravitas]

4. the attacks can't increase something

most people don't have.

The money to "rebuild" Iraq ought to come out of the pockets of Bush* campaign donors and not those of the American taxpayer.

[fob]

5. That's one fucked question!

If I say Yes, then the troops will remain and be attacked again, thereby necessitating another poll as to the "strength" of my resolve.

If I say No, then I don't want to take responsibility for the damage done and to hell with the consequences of our actions?

I think this is probush* regardless of how one answers.

fob

[QuidditchFan]

8. Agreed...the question is horrible.

In statement form, this question would be: The latest attacks in Baghdad increase resolve to rebuild Iraq.

What is the relation between the latest attacks and rebuilding Iraq?

Granted that the country wasn't doing so well originally, but did we not completely ruin it with our attacks? Since we f*cked it up, we are morally obligated to rebuild it.

A better question would be: Do the latest attacks in Baghdad increase your resolve to internationalize the effort and transfer control to the UN?

[LeahMira]

9. Not surprising...

... considering that an awful lot of Americans resent giving money to people that they feel don't "deserve help." If the Iraqis continue to attack our troops, clearly they don't deserve any assistance and certainly not from hardworking Americans who worked for that money and should get to keep it.

Yep. Sound to me like whether the $87 billion is opposed because we would rather spend it on our own homeland needs or because we don't want to give our money to "ingrates" this is one issue that we can agree on. Bush may be in real trouble over this one.