CNN Poll: Americans mostly agree with Obama on Afghanistan, 63% say war "morally justified"

[jefferson_dem]

CNN Poll: Americans mostly agree with Obama on Afghanistan
Posted: December 6th, 2009 08:51 AM ET

Washington (CNN) - Americans agree with the Afghanistan policy Barack Obama announced on Tuesday night at West Point in large measure because they agree with the arguments the president made in that speech, according to a new national poll.

In his prime time address at the U.S. Military Academy, where Obama spelled out his decision to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to the war, the president stressed that America's safety and security are at stake in Afghanistan. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national survey released Sunday morning indicates 64 percent of Americans agree with the president, with one in three saying the country's safety and security is not at stake in Afghanistan. According to the poll, 63 percent of people questioned also agree with Obama that the U.S. action in Afghanistan is morally justified.

"That's one major way that Afghanistan is different from Iraq in the public's mind," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "At the time of the Iraq surge in 2007, most Americans questioned whether that war was justified."

The president met with military and civilian advisers for three months before announcing his Afghanistan decision. Obama said he needed that time to review the options available. Did he take too long to decide? Fifty-six percent say no, with 43 percent feeling three months was not necessary.

<SNIP>

Forty-two percent of people questioned in the poll say they watched the president's Tuesday night address on Afghanistan. Of those who viewed the speech, 34 percent say it makes them more likely to support Obama's polices on Afghanistan, 16 percent said the address makes them less likely to back Obama's strategy, and 50 percent said it had no effect.

<SNIP>

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/06/cnn-poll-americans-mostly-agree-with-obama-on-afghanistan/

[ipaint]

1. Gallup has one too.

PRINCETON, N.J., Dec. 4 (UPI) -- U.S. residents are split over whether the country can achieve its goals in Afghanistan, a Gallup poll reported Friday.

Almost three-quarters of those surveyed, 73 percent, said they fear spending in Afghanistan will interfere with domestic goals, Gallup said.

Just over half, 51 percent, said they support the president's strategy, while 48 percent said they oppose it.


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/12/04/Gallup-US-split-on-Afghanistan/UPI-75311259971774/

[pokercat999]

2. CNN conducts rigged "poll" to continue MIC raping of the

American treasury.

Way to go Obama, what kind of man are you? So willing to spend billions to kill brown people world wide but unwilling to risk your re-election to secure health care for the American people? What kind of country is this? What kind of people are we to allow this?

[jefferson_dem]

5. "Rigged" = "Result I don't agree with".

Please be serious. While you may not agree with the President's policy, there's zero evidence that this poll does not reflect the sentiments of the general public.

[JohnnyLib2]

8. Agreed.

Having been a lefty Dem since the 60s, I'm not expecting to be in the majority most of the time.

Let's check back on the poll numbers in late 2011, though.

[mcablue]

9. Do you also agree with the same poll indicating that Obama's overall approval is 48%?

Or do you agree with parts of the polls only.

[HughMoran]

11. Ohhh, playing the emotional attachment card

nice one :rofl:

[Cha]

51. Yeah, that poster spends

a lot of time trying to bust Obama supporters on their reactions to the polls.

[jefferson_dem]

12. Sure.

Unless you can point to a particular flaw in their methodology, I believe that result.

[mcablue]

13. Nope. I see no flaw n/t

[HughMoran]

16. Nice

[Bjorn Against]

66. What about the poll cited in the first response...

Which shows only 51% support for Obama's decision and 48% opposition. It is certainly a far different result from the poll you posted, why should we believe the CNN poll over the Gallup poll?

[pokercat999]

73. Actually I could care less what the people of

this mentally challenged country think. I distrust anything brought to us by the corporate owned media. My opinion is of course irrelevant also, as I am powerless to change anything except my own unique and immediate circumstances and then often times, only in small increments.

Do I believe CNN could and would bring the predetermined results they desire or were ordered to deliver?.......you betcha.

Do you, for an instant, think the producers, managers and pollsters at CNN wouldn't take orders and deliver the expected and proper poll numbers if "suggested"?

[paulsby]

74. more american exceptionalism

we are a "mentally challenged country"

if somebody said that about france, england, mexico, canada, etc. there would be a shitstorm. but remember, there is one form of american exceptionalism that passes muster...

[mkultra]

76. whats the frequency kenneth

[mkultra]

75. +1 owned

[izquierdista]

6. Stupid people

In a declining country. This war is just going to drain the treasury further, and there will be no victory parade.

[polichick]

7. No kidding - dumbshit Americans don't even get that Congress...

...allocates their tax money for war profiteers, banks and other bullshit - leaving none for the public good.

[arcadian]

14. And this is going on under a Democratic administration.

Yet so many cheer it on here.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hansel]

45. Or the cult of people who just simply don't agree with you.

I know it's hard to believe, but some people just don't agree with you and it is as simple as that. Your analysis that somehow these people can't think for themselves doesn't make you look smarter. Your name calling makes you look as though you are unable to acknowledge that everyone doesn't see everything exactly as you do.

There are thinking people who see facts and research, and come to different conclusions than you. People that don't call you a cult of personality trance because you've chosen to listen to other people who you believe. Although a comparable case could be made.

[arcadian]

52. Difference between us and them or should I say us and you?

We hold the moral high ground.

[SIMPLYB1980]

70. LOL!

:spray: :rofl:

[mkultra]

78. yes you do, but im still on the other side.

i wish i didn't feel this way but i do. I wish i could feel like walking away from OBL and AQ would leave us at peace but i don't. I wish war never solved anything, but it does. Sometimes, it solves the fuck out of things.

[grytpype]

23. No one is cheering. I'm furious that the wars are still raging.

But if Obama thinks this is necessary to get us out of the nightmare Bush created I'm not going to second-guess him and attack him like the leftbaggers here are doing.

[AndrewP]

71. Exactly, I DO believe the poll numbers.

Doesn't make it right. But I do believe a lot of people have the thirst for war.

[cliffordu]

41. Blah de blah de blah.....

We got it, on to the next, please...

:hurts:

[Garam_Masala]

44. Race has nothing to do with it

If the Scandinavians were strapping bombs to themselves
or flying into tall buildings or shooting unarmed soldiers
in the name of Jesus, we would have to invade Scandinavia also.

[moodforaday]

47. Then the question is

I doubt you are serious ("unarmed soldiers"?), but in case you are - the question to ask would be why Scandinavians don't do what you have described.

People don't just wake up one day and decide to become suicide bombers.

[Garam_Masala]

49. I was responding to his post about targeting "brown" people

The biggest mass of brown people on earth is in India,
and we have sent not a single soldier there to kill
"brown" people. So the poster's POV holds no water.

[Imajika]

3. Yup, he has the public on his side on this one...

The speech was a sorta sober "were giving this one last chance, and were going to try to do it right this time" type deal.

I think the majority of the public is with Obama on Afghanistan and with him on foreign policy overall.

[JohnnyLib2]

10. At this time (of course)

I think in terms of the administration having bought a year or so of time/support/dampened opposition on this matter.

[fasttense]

4. I seem to recall that most Americans were in favor of bombing and attacking

Iraq too. And look where that got us.

Just because most of the population can't see through the manipulation of the news, and information they are getting from the corporate media, doesn't make it right.

[HughMoran]

17. It's been 8 years and a lot of sobering has occured since initial Afghanistan & Iraq

I don't think this plan is going to succeed (I don't think anybody thinks it will), but I do think Americans are going to give their new President the benefit of the doubt for the time being - it's the American sense of fairness here, not American obliviousness.

[debbierlus]

58. It is really sad that DU isn't united in protest of war

And, if the majority of American people favor it...when is it ever wrong?

[mkultra]

79. so, did you stand against war right after 911?

Im just curious how you felt we should have reacted.

[glowing]

18. "Morally Justified" is a lot different than do you support being there.

Many do feel we are morally justified in being in Afghanistan... However many within that margin think its time to throw in the towel and get out.. Spend the money here on a broken country.

[chill_wind]

19. So which one to believe? Gallup or CNN? n/t

[Robb]

20. Believe whoever you wish

This seems to be the new "truth" on DU.

[ClarkUSA]

21. They're both right: a majority of Americans approve of Pres. Obama's decision.

:)

[zulchzulu]

22. I would suggest that those who find the war "morally justified" have no idea who Karzai is

I would also suggest they probably couldn't even identify where Afghanistan is on a map.

I'm for Obama setting a strict timeline and withdrawing by 2011. If that fails, I will be greatly and deeply disappointed.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

24. Some other poll numbers in recent history

The United States public’s opinion of the invasion of Iraq has changed significantly since the years preceding the incursion. For various reasons, mostly related to the unexpected consequences of the invasion, the US public’s perspective on its government’s choice to initiate an offensive is increasingly negative. A USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken prior to the invasion in March 2003, indicated that 75% of US citizens felt the invasion was not a mistake. However, according to the same poll retaken in April 2007, 58% of the participants stated that the initial attack was a mistake.<1> In May, 2007, the New York Times and CBS News released similar results of a poll in which 61% of participants believed the U.S. "should have stayed out" of Iraq.<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq

A poll taken by Rasmussen Reports just after the RNC in the first week of September found that Palin was temporarily slightly more popular than either Barack Obama or John McCain;<7> however, this perception was reversed later.<8> At the same time, Palin became more popular among Republicans than McCain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin

Cheney and Pelosi Have Poor Ratings in Common
Pelosi’s ratings down, while Cheney’s improved from record low
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Dick Cheney have little in common politically, but they receive almost identical image ratings from the American public. According to a May 29-31 Gallup Poll, 37% of Americans have a favorable view of Cheney and 34% have a favorable view of Pelosi. Both Cheney and Pelosi are viewed unfavorably by at least half of Americans.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120761/cheney-pelosi-poor-ratings-common.aspx

A Closer Look at Bush's Positive Poll Numbers
He's popular and likeable. Still many of his policies are controversial, and nearly half the country questions his legitimacy

Two months after becoming the 43rd President, George W. Bush is riding high in the polls. His job-approval rating hovers near 60%, and some two-thirds of Americans like him personally. His Cabinet gets very high marks. A large majority favors his tax cut. And former President Bill Clinton's plummeting poll numbers only seem to underscore Bush's popularity even more.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2001/nf20010319_106.htm

Just because poll number support something doesnt mean it's correct.

[jefferson_dem]

26. Graph speaks for itself.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

42. So are you going to predict where the Afghanistan polls

are going to be on a similar graph 5 years from now?

[treestar]

25. I remember getting hit with the 80% at the beginning of it

Just like Gulf War I. Resistance was futile.

So 8 years later, 17% have sobered up.

[ShortnFiery]

27. M$M is manufacturing consent ... these polls are filled with disinformation.

Killing and Dying through the use of the MIC's "pretty weapons" nets the M$M's Parent corporations Billions upon Billions.

NOTHING, and they mean "not a thing" will ruin the WAR BUZZ that they're enjoying. :grr:

Wake UP American Citizen, you're working for the "corporate masters" within Wall Street and the MIC.

[PBS Poll-435]

29. So they are basically just lying about polling data?

Can you prove it?


And you need to update your cute little picture... Enron, obviously, is out of business. Sprint has merged with Nextel. Chrysler has gone Italian,. Chevron has merged with Texaco. (Pretty long ago...just how old is that picture?) AT&T has bought back most of the Bells (or split them with GTE(Verizon). Intel was just forced to pay 1.25B to my favorite corporate citizen.

[ShortnFiery]

30. Given that a trillion of our tax dollars are now being funneled to the MIC for endless WAR ...

can YOU prove that they are NOT skewing the polling data? Asking LOADED questions (Morality) in order to "manufacture consent?"

FOLLOW THE MONEY - it explains everything underlying Governments LYING to their people due to the endless well of corruption and greed. :evilgrin:

[PBS Poll-435]

36. Your argument is that they ARE lying.

But you can't back it up. You provided a reasonable motive, but that just isn't enough.




And your little pictures are childish and simplistic.



Have a great day! :-)

[ShortnFiery]

37. BILLIONS to war mongering private corporations ====> MOTIVE. eom

[PBS Poll-435]

38. From where, for what

Your not a very good prosecutor. :(



But have a GREAT Sunday! :-)

[jefferson_dem]

32. "Can you prove it?"

Ha.

Some of our friends live in a perpetual state of "truthiness"... Like Colbert says, they feel shit in their gut. No need for fact-based reality.

[ShortnFiery]

34. Whoa! That's quite some "Spin" you've got there.

Governments LIE. We all know plenty of MODERN examples. Unfortunately our fellow "Authoritarian-loving" Conservative Democrats want DADDY Obama to keep us little people safe.

You want to believe EVERY damn thing authority tells you as long as the person spewing the lies has "a D" behind his/her name.

That's just plain sad and goes against what I view as DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES.

We, the people, must keep our politicians honest.

[mkultra]

80. im guessing you dont then

we don't have to trust everything that comes from them, but claiming that everything they say is a lie is just as bad as believing it all. Sometimes the news and politicians tell the truth. If you don't believe that, then you shouldn't even be talking about politics.

[jefferson_dem]

31. You need to update your propaganda...

None of those anchors work for the nets any longer. Actually, Jennings is dead. Plus Viacom doesn't own CBS anymore.

[ShortnFiery]

35. But their political CLONES are the same: WARFARE is a continuation of American Crusade 2001+

;)

[Oregone]

28. Then Americans deserves their fate

[ShortnFiery]

33. No, once again the M$M and the Pentagon are working together to DUPE the average American

Citizen.

It's going to get REAL INTERESTING when the average American finally figures out that only "the upper 1%" will ESCAPE the impending DEPRESSION. :wow: :(

[FrenchieCat]

40. Yep. It was real obvious the way David Gregory kissed

Obama ass via the Clinton and Gates Interview throughout this morning! :sarcasm:

In truth, if David Gregory would have been anymore hostile, he could have been tried in New York with the rest of the assholes who terrorized America!

And don't get me started on the MSM being sure to have whomever speaks in opposition to Obama's Afghanistan policy. Feingold and Kucinich have been getting plenty of airtime since the President's speech. More opposition voices shown in the last week, than we could have found for the entire time that the senate was debating whether to invade Iraq back in 2002.


In 2002, MSM to the Public: "Shock and Awe! How Neato! We are going into Iraq because of 9/11!"

In 2009, MSM to the Public: "Afghanistan is just like Vietnam; Obama's plan will fail! What's 9/11?"

So as I see it, the MSM sound very much more like you,
and If there is PR rally for Obama's plan, and if there is,
it ain't being televised, and you are the only one to have seen it.

[ShortnFiery]

67. The M$M is all for WAR because WAR = Profits for their parent company. Duh!

They just don't want Obama to run the war. They're thrilled that he kept Bush's boys (Gates, Petraeus and McCrystal).

Please try to keep up while we FOLLOW THE MONEY? ;)

[Forkboy]

39. I believe it. The majority thought Iraq was a swell idea too.

[FrenchieCat]

43. The difference is vast, in that the PR campaign to get us to support

the War in Iraq was neverending for months...which is why the Iraq war protests forgot to be televised.

Right now, I see Feingold, Kucinich and anyone else that would oppose Obama's plan
shown on television prominently.

Al Gore wasn't invited onto the television talk shows back in the fall of 2002....
he was only shown as a near-radical on the Internet....

so there is a big difference on how the American people are coming to their conclusions on these
two different actions.

[Cha]

53. The corporate media thinks

it's more important to bring PO down than to beat the drum for a war like they did on Iraq.

How ironic since Afghanistan was actually sanctioned by Congress 420-1 and the Senate 98-0 and then abandoned for bombing Iraq which PO was against as evidenced in his Oct 2002 speech in Illinois.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

<snip>

"What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?"

<much more>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x341541

[Forkboy]

55. I can't really argue with that.

I still feel like I've seen this play before, but your points have merit, though I'm shaky on the last one. The means of delivery for the message is still pretty much the same, and relies on many of the same emotions and tactics. You're very wise in the ways of the media, so you know how that machine can be used in a wide array of circumstances, including this one. I'm not sure Americans in general really are coming to their conclusions in any real meaningfully different way.

As for who is on tv, I can't say. I don't have cable so the news I get is the news I look for (which is a wide variety of good, bad and in-between sources). DK and Feingold are de-facto faces of the Left, so the fact that they're featured more prominently isn't surprising as they can stand for what they believe and the Right can latch on just to cause friction without even agreeing with the overall ideal, so it works out for both anti-war people and an opportunistic Right. The nature of the beast, for good or ill.

What you say about Gore is true, and that's also what happens to DK and Russ and many on the Left buy right into the theme. Not sure what to say about it overall to be honest as I haven't seen what they're saying or not saying. I'll be honest in that I tend to accept what DK and Feingold would say a little more easily than most, but I don't accept just anything from anyone no matter how much I like them, so I'd like to hear or read what they're saying before commenting on anything specific.

[mkultra]

81. the reason it feels the same is because it is the same

Essentially, Bush used all the reasons that justified a war with Afghanistan to invade Iraq. He presented real reasons but pulled a bait and switch. The reasons to go into Afghanistan still exist.

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. Call me a 37%er then.

[and-justice-for-all]

48. I do not buy it...nt

[Hydra]

50. You know they said the majority of the American People supported TARP too

But I'm ok with them calling this a "moral" war. After all, we're there helping them, right? We don't need that sort of help in the US right now, right?

:sarcasm:

[FrenchieCat]

56. The people probably did support TARP, when it was unknown that their livelyhood

was on the line.

After the shit didn't hit the fan in their face directly,
precisely because of the TARP program,
they had a change of heart....especially those some
who had supported the prior administration who was all for free markets,
and then some!
Yep...took to the street with their hypocritical protest marches.
Should we count you in those numbers?

[chill_wind]

68. Actually they didn't, but it just didn't frikken matter.

L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll: Only 31% favor bailout

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2008/09/la-timesbloombe.html

I'm sure the numbers went up and down a little from poll to poll and week to week, but what I remember was about 2/3 of Americans opposed it generally.

[CrawlingChaos]

54. Not buying it either

CNN is selling the war, just like they always do.

What did I hear on Democracy Now last week... on CNN, pro-war voices outnumber anti-war voices 10-to-1. It's a sales job.

[debbierlus]

57. And, most Americans would bomb Hiroshima, if we had to do it again

These people don't even understand what they are supporting...

[FrenchieCat]

60. And you know of this approval to bomb Hiroshima, because.....?

Did they run opinion polls right before doing that?
Do you know?

If you are going back that far,
than go back further,
because then I'm sure if they would have polled whether
to have a Civil War or keep slavery intact,
guess the American people would have done what, in your opinion exactly?
And what would you have voted for via the time machine,
since you are anti-War....

Ridiculous, I know....
but since you seem to have gone back to 1945,
why stop there? :shrug:

[spoony]

88. Here you go

Since the post was
not about
feelings in 1945 but rather those of Americans
now, there have been polls to ascertain support for the bombing

and here are the results!
"Sixty-one percent of those polled said they believed the bomb was the right thing. Twenty-two percent called it wrong. Sixteen percent were undecided." http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/hiroshima-poll-atomic-bomb-.html

You see popularity is not a good measure
of right and wrong
right and wrong
right and wrong are determined by reason(s),
not by volume of support.

[mkultra]

83. i wouldnt

i would prefer to cede control of Hawaii and the western united states to the Empire of Japan. Maybe they could make me a Samurai.

[Bjorn Against]

59. Most people agreed with Bush on Iraq as well

The majority was wrong then and the majority is wrong now.

[FrenchieCat]

61. Not the same.....

as the PR machine is not attempting to sell us this 8 year old war,
like they did the Iraq war....for months and months.

[brentspeak]

63. Funny how you, of all posters, use the expression "PR machine"

[Bjorn Against]

64. This war has been going on for eight years with little airplay...

As people have heard more about this war in recent months it has become far more unpopular than it was when it first started, and it will continue to become more unpopular once people realize that there is no exit strategy. Obama said in his speech that they were going to "begin withdrawal in eighteen months", many people assumed that meant they were going to begin a complete withdrawal. Today Gates made it clear that withdrawal only amounted to a "small handful" of troops which means that Obama's words in the speech were empty words. Wait until July 2011 comes and there is still no end in sight to this unjust war, the polls will look very different then.

[FrenchieCat]

69. and that is exactly the PR maneuver that I have been talking about.....

To date in 2009, the PR machine, aka, the Corporate Media have focused on this war to sell it as bad and have done all that they could via omission to mention anything to do with 9/11,
meanwhile, they sold the Iraq War to get us into it and linked it to 9/11 as often as possible.

That negates the point that some believe that the MSM are somehow propping Obama's decision up, when they aren't.

As for a handful, I heard Gates say that, but I also heard him give a final drawdown in 2 to 3 years....and I heard Obama, who is in fact the CIC, say that we cannot stay in this war open ended. So the point is that this war isn't open ended and never-ending and that withdrawal will commence (but not end) in July of 2011. It seems to all pretty much be what I understood in the first place, after Obama's speech.

[Bjorn Against]

72. Now that is just a bunch of crap

The media has not omitted references to 9/11 when talking about Afghanistan, they mention 9/11 a lot but they virtually never mention that not a single one of the 9/11 hijackers were actually from Afghanistan. You would have a hard time finding a single person in this country that has never heard 9/11 mentioned in relation to the Afghanistan War, it has been the main selling point of the war from the very beginning and it is absurd to suggest that the media has not used 9/11 to sell this war.

And Gates never said anything about having all our troops out in 2 to 3 years, he did say that only a "small number" would be leaving in 2001 and he does not "consider this an exit strategy".

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/world/asia/07policy.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

[tekisui]

90. Yes, they are.

Reports of OBL, passports of 9/11 hijackers, Taliban, al-qaeda. It is all over the place. Instability in Pakistan, NUKES!, the President's 2 month long deliberations, and a prime time sells pitch to expand the war.

The PR machine is in overdrive selling us on expanding a war that the American people have turned sour on.

[Hippo_Tron]

77. That may be, but in a democracy the majority rules

This is what Churchill was talking about when he said democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the others. Having a bunch of uninformed apathetic and easily manipulated people collectively deciding policy is seriously problematic. Unfortunately nobody has ever come up with a better idea.

[Bjorn Against]

82. Democracy is about a balance between majority rule and minority rights

You can not have a real democracy without minority rights, even if those rights go against the will of the majority. The Bill of Rights exists mainly to protect the rights of the minority, it protects unpopular speech, it protects accused criminals, and it protects people of religions outside the mainstream from having the beliefs of the majority imposed on them by government. Majority rule alone does not make for a democracy, minority rights are extremely important and war always has a negative impact on minority rights.

[Hippo_Tron]

84. It's pretty established that decisions like going to war are made by the majority (indirectly)

I don't see how the system could work any other way. Certainly the minority should have the right not to fight if they object to the war.

[Bjorn Against]

85. Well there has never even been a declaration of war since WWII

According to the Constitution only Congress can declare war, but they have been ignoring the Constitution for more than a half century now which is clearly not very democratic.

[Hippo_Tron]

86. The Constitution doesn't say that a declaration of war is needed to use force

We've been fighting undeclared "wars" since the late 1700's. Additionally, nations don't really declare war at all anymore (post 1945). That's not exclusive to the United States. I don't know exactly why that is, but that is the case.

[brentspeak]

62. Which means that 63% of the people CNN polled are pretty damn dumb

and are not representative of the actual American people as a whole.

[ClarkUSA]

65. Speaking of "pretty" and "damn dumb" how's Johnny "Hedge Fund" Edwards doing these days?

Has he admitted paternity to Rielle's kid yet?

[smalll]

87. An enlightening thread. After denying the poll (because they don't like its results)

the leftbaggers then resort to anti-Obama and anti-electorate (dumb, stupid, etc. etc.) insults.

Yeah, keep that up. You're sure to bump off Obama in 2012 with that kind of rhetoric -- "Vote for Kucinich, you stupid dummy warmongers!"

Dennis 2012 - Because We Know Better Than You, You Evil-Enabling Fuck-Ups.

[Jennicut]

89. I believe the poll though I disagree with the President.

Not all polls are wrong.