and the findings don't say much for the NC State/area population

http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/2006/oct/161.html

30%, a plurality, believe that we are there for oil. Where are these people getting their information from?

10/3/2006 3:06:36 PM

the soap box I guess

10/3/2006 3:07:30 PM

does anyone know who these professors are that made and conducted this poll?

10/3/2006 3:09:34 PM

i mean, in a sense though, that's ultimately why we're there. not directly, but as a tenent of our foriegn policy, protecting our significant national interests, which are, guess what? cheap oil till we find something better.

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 3:11 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2006 3:10:23 PM

Quote :

" 30%, a plurality, believe that we are there for oil. Where are these people getting their information from?"

It's not a stretch of any imagination to view this in the cynical view that the US is in it for the oil.

I like how you are upset with the findings, therefore you are questioning the credibility of the pollsters.

10/3/2006 3:16:01 PM

what i love about the whole iraq war debacle is that i was a senior in hs when the war started(hs had to be like 90 percent republican), and i was like the only one that hated bush then

man was i right or what

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2006 3:21:08 PM

it upsets me more that people actually think we are in this for oil. its an insult to those who are fighting over there.

10/3/2006 3:42:07 PM

Quote :

"it upsets me more that people actually think we are in this for oil. its an insult to those who are fighting over there."

It's not an insult to the troops. It's an insult to the people who sent them there. And don't try to pull the "support the troops" bullshit.

supporting the troops does not mean blindly supporting the administration. I support the troops by wanting to bring them home and hope they come home soon.

10/3/2006 3:46:23 PM

yeah i use to think cutting and running was a bad thing

but its kinda obvious its not going to get better, especially with the US there

10/3/2006 3:53:37 PM

you can by cynical of the motivations and justifications for war and still support the troops. troops sign up to serve this country and go where they are told. just because you dont agree with the people that are telling them where to go doesnt mean that you are insulting the people who are very honrably serving this country.

10/3/2006 3:59:31 PM

you are demeaning their mission by constantly pushing the lie that they are their for oil.

can ANYONE provide any substatial proof that we went to war for oil? none of the information that has been released has said ANYTHING about that. its these liberal misinformers in the media and beyond with their "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" crap that has brought this about, based on NO PROOF WHATSOEVER.

If you believe this and trust these people for information, please proceed to check out of college right now, you stupid sheep.

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 4:05 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2006 4:03:57 PM

i dont think anyone in here is saying it was for oil, we are just saying it wasnt for the bs the administration fed us

also im not quite clear what their mission is, nation building?

10/3/2006 4:06:08 PM

Quote :

"Even more troubling for the administration is the fact that 30 percent (a plurality) of respondents indicated that the United States is in Iraq to “ensure access to oil,” "

thats what the poll report says

10/3/2006 4:07:37 PM

Quote :

"you are demeaning their mission by constantly pushing the lie that they are their for oil. can ANYONE provide any substatial proof that we went to war for oil? none of the information that has been released has said ANYTHING about that. its these liberal misinformers in the media and beyond with their "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" crap that has brought this about, based on NO PROOF WHATSOEVER."

and telling them they went there to fight al-qaeda isn't demeaning their missions?

And I've already proven to you that the United States has in the past gone to war for oil. And will more than likely continue to do so. Why is it hard for you to believe that the US didn't go into this war for oil? Oh that's right, you are basing your assumptions on "information that has been released." Yup, that's really truthful. Like the Saddam - al-qaeda link, the Bioweapons Winnebagos, The terrorist training camps, WMDs, etc. Yup, I should really believe the released information.

10/3/2006 4:07:43 PM

http://www.goarmy.com/contact/how_to_join.jsp?hmref=cs

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 4:09 PM. Reason : ]

10/3/2006 4:09:17 PM

clearly we went to war because of:
wmd's
iraq supports al-queda
saddam
to stay the course

10/3/2006 4:12:06 PM

Quote :

"Yup, I should really believe the released information liberal media and activists and their information."

take your daily spoonfull of anti-war peacenik goodness and forget that saddam was a threat to the region and beyond, you sheep.

10/3/2006 4:14:01 PM

0<

10/3/2006 4:15:29 PM

Quote :

"take your daily spoonfull of anti-war peacenik goodness and forget that saddam was a threat to the region and beyond, you sheep."

How was saddam a threat exactly? I mean other than to his own people. That's really the only argument that can hold any water- that going into Iraq was the right thing to do because Saddam was a cruel despot.

But you don't really want to push that argument do you? That would make this a humanitarian venture; if we were to view the Iraq war as a humanitarian venture it would have to be accepted as an abject failure.

10/3/2006 4:20:15 PM

Quote :

"take your daily spoonfull of anti-war peacenik goodness and forget that saddam was a threat to the region and beyond, you sheep."

What did I post that isn't fact? And I've still yet to see how Saddam was a threat. He was a like a dog behind a fence. The only way you get bit is if you enter the fence with the dog.

10/3/2006 4:22:18 PM

if you dont get how saddam was and could have been an even greater threat to regional stability, i cant help you.

10/3/2006 4:33:09 PM

He was a like a dog behind a fence. The only way you get bit is if you enter the fence with the dog.

10/3/2006 4:42:36 PM

He totally trained like every terrorist ever.

I read it on Newsmax

10/3/2006 4:43:00 PM

^^^

Could have been/become a threat and was a threat are two different things. Since I'm a nuclear engineer, I could theoretically become a threat to national security. Does that mean I'm a threat right now? Obviously not. Does that mean I'm going to become a threat and warrant pre-emptive action? Only if you equate people who disagree with you with being a terrorist.

10/3/2006 4:52:58 PM

Quote :

"does anyone know who these professors are that made and conducted this poll?"

Dr. Michael Cobb
Dr. William Boettcher

I have Cobb for PS 411 and he's been talking about this nonstop since the semester started.

10/3/2006 5:00:50 PM

i bet he's a dirty liberal who'd rather lecture all class about his personal beliefs and how bush is evil than teach the curriculum, AMIRITE

10/3/2006 5:03:53 PM

Quote :

"if you dont get how saddam was and could have been an even greater threat to regional stability, i cant help you."

HES GONE

10/3/2006 5:06:09 PM

he's pretty liberal and his beliefs/understandings are pretty present throughout his lectures. but he does have some good points. he hangs out with dr. greene alot which adds about +10 points to the screaming liberal factor though.

10/3/2006 5:08:11 PM

Quote :

"When asked to provide “an acceptable number of U.S. military deaths” in Iraq, 61 percent of respondents said zero. A second version of the question asked about acceptable casualties to prevent “Iraq from sliding into a civil war”; again a large majority of respondents – 59 percent – indicated zero. When asked later in the survey how much more money the United States should “spend in order to complete the mission in Iraq,” 55 percent of respondents said no additional dollars should be spent. These views are undoubtedly related to the fact that 57 percent of respondents felt that the United States “should have stayed out” of Iraq and that respondents were split 50-50 on whether U.S. efforts in Iraq would succeed or fail. "

Sounds like a pretty crappily done survey to me.

How do they expect someone to pick a number of people that can die for something to be acceptable? It's a loaded question.

10/3/2006 5:23:27 PM

Quote :

"he's pretty liberal and his beliefs/understandings are pretty present throughout his lectures. but he does have some good points. he hangs out with dr. greene alot which adds about +10 points to the screaming liberal factor though."

figures, that Greene character is going to land himself on a watch list for Academic Freedom soon I do believe, if my sources are right.

10/3/2006 5:27:01 PM

If you are refering to David Greene he's pretty much retired. As for the academic freedom watch list, I'm sure he's quaking in his boots.

10/3/2006 5:32:19 PM

who cares? he's a screaming liberal, he needs all the reality checks he can get.

10/3/2006 5:37:01 PM

we supported Noriega against economic inefficiency until he became evil

we supported Sadamm against Iran until he became evil

we supported the guy who just died of typhoid against the big bad Soviets until he became evil

we supported a bunch of Latin American evil men

...we are currently supporting another dictator in Pakistan, who will soon, become evil

who is to pay what price for this sloppiness? civilians there (and as of 2001, civilians here), and our troops. the mad men of the world are not mad because they have nothing else better to do. they are mad because every great superpower has an hubris bigger than its own ass can cash--its "The Tragedy of the Superpowers"

10/3/2006 5:53:35 PM

*has had an hubris*

10/3/2006 5:54:41 PM

Quote :

"i mean, in a sense though, that's ultimately why we're there. not directly, but as a tenent of our foriegn policy, protecting our significant national interests, which are, guess what? cheap oil till we find something better."

if you cannot understand this, you need to work on your IQ. and don't go calling mootduff a liberal, because he is not one.

and for the sake of your own manhood, stop vomitting out everything that foxnews shoves in your colon.

furthermore, your use of the term "liberal" as slander is overdone and has become asinine. its not clever, certainly not original, and reveals how myopic you really are.

everyone mistakes their own ideology for reality. its part of being human. its as fundamental as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (i'll stop soon, i'm starting to sound pretentious).

but for Ganesh's sake, shut the fuck up sometimes, and gain some perspective.

10/3/2006 6:01:24 PM

Quote :

"If you are refering to David Greene he's pretty much retired. As for the academic freedom watch list, I'm sure he's quaking in his boots."

nah im talking about stephen greene

10/3/2006 6:04:34 PM

Quote :

"who cares? he's a screaming liberal, he needs all the reality checks he can get. "

I'd hold it as a badge or honor and not a reality check.

10/3/2006 6:11:56 PM

Quote :

" can ANYONE provide any substatial proof that we went to war for oil? "

can you provide proof of ANY reason at all why we went to war? and im not talking right-wing bullshit brainwashing from newsmax. No, you cant, so stop with the shit already.

Quote :

" figures, that Greene character is going to land himself on a watch list for Academic Freedom soon I do believe, if my sources are right. "

your sources? who are your sources? The Dick Cheney team for annihilating the opposition and turning america's educational institutions into the same state that it would have been in nazi germany? So what if he lands on some bullshit list thats basically trying to make liberals look like terrorist-lovers, if he lands on this list my respect for the man just increased 10x.

10/3/2006 6:13:54 PM

^good call

10/3/2006 6:18:36 PM

you're so cute ben!

10/3/2006 6:25:39 PM

why thank you nick

10/3/2006 6:26:58 PM

10/3/2006 10:46:17 PM

Quote :

"can ANYONE provide any substatial proof that we went to war for oil?"

1. they have oil

2. we need oil

3. we didnt need to kill sadam

4. we had no other reason to go to war

10/3/2006 10:59:46 PM

restart economy?

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 11:11 PM. Reason : by spending all our money?]

10/3/2006 11:10:59 PM

that needs oil

10/3/2006 11:11:18 PM

creating the illusion that we can still beat ass?

10/3/2006 11:12:07 PM

Quote :

"i mean, in a sense though, that's ultimately why we're there. not directly, but as a tenent of our foriegn policy, protecting our significant national interests, which are, guess what? cheap oil till we find something better."

That and having a troop presence on both sides of Iran.

10/3/2006 11:13:55 PM

people like randy believe that our leaders always try to do the right and moral thing for the good of the country and people abroad

the fact is that the current administration, like any United States presidential administration, is powerful, and 99 times out of 100 the powerful take advantage of their position by asserting themselves over those who have less power - American leaders have played a large part in overthrowing numerous governments just over the last century in the country's own interest

ideas that i'm sure have been rehashed

- our administration had no reason to care about the welfare of iraqi citizens before this started, no reason to play police state - but it sure provided a great justification for heading into iraq, along with the fabricated wmds - the rest of the world indeed calls our venture 'Operation Iraqi Oil'

- and all the while this administration has played the patriot card, saying that if you don't support our administration's decision to go to war, you don't support our troops - this part makes me absolutely furious... daily, more and more parents of our troops are learning they've outlived their children because of what this man has done

i used to always try and believe the best of our politicians, until i found out that was just naive, and being naive is how a big part of an entire nation has been played for too long - i'm sorry to say i voted for these people

10/4/2006 12:49:26 AM

Listen,

in 2003, the best intelligence we had told us that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. With a past that included genocide of his own people and the invasion of Kuwait, we could hardly afford to ignore a possible threat. we went with what we had, and when we came up emptyhanded (not to say there never were WMDs, but you people wont listen to anyone on that), we had to stay and do what we could to help fill the void in the region.

now show me proof why this was a war for oil. you have no proof. you people are sad leeches who prey on those you see as easy targets (outspoken conservatives) while NEVER PROVIDING CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE YOURSELF to support your claims (such as "war for oil"). My proof is in the intel we had in the leadup to the war, you all should remember that if you watched the news (im talking CBS and ABC, not Newsmax, you morons). what proof do you have for your stance, aside from your "well, we love oil and they have oill and they never had any proof of wmds even though all the intel said so, even if it was wrong, which we couldnt have known, durrrr" nonsense?

NOTHING.

As for pictures of stupid conservative protestors, youre right, its only the conservatives that have bad signs. liberals are so understanding...


yeah, right

i pray you people get out into the real world soon. thankfully, i wasnt subjected to the crap you people probably see in your history and political science classes at my undergrad school, i can only imagine what i might be like if i had been indoctrinated in a public university for my undergrad.

and before you say anything, i am here for my MBA while im working in Raleigh.

[Edited on October 4, 2006 at 1:28 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2006 1:21:23 AM

Quote :

"in 2003, the best intelligence we had told us that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction."

Wrong. It was our worst intelligence, and it was being cherry-picked to suit a political cause.

10/4/2006 2:47:26 AM