This poll is pure BS from beginning to end. The above poll results for example. Before these people (the 88%) were asked if military action in Iraq would lead to higher prices did anybody bother to tell them that in Desert Storm our attack on Iraq lead to the GREATLY lower oil prices?
Greater instability in the Middle East? Will someone tell me what is wrong with greater instability in the Middle East? Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Jordan, the Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Egypt had all better be aware that government as they know it is about to come to an end.
But nearly half (49%) say that action would lead to a long and costly war before the U.S. could claim victory. One in seven (15%) believe the U.S. would eventually have to withdraw from Iraq without a victory.
This is more BS. What would make anyone think that a far weaker Iraqi military than the one we faced in Desert Storm would be able to sustain a long and costly war against an American Military that is technologically far more lethal then it was in Desert Storm.
I heard Sam Donaldson on ABC radio this morning with the same bodybag BS he was spouting in 1991. Sam went on and on about Americans being unwillingly to accept the high casualty rate that fighting urban warfare in Baghdad would inflict upon the US. Excuse me Sam but who died and left you a Five Star General.
There isn't going to be urban warfare in Baghdad or any other city in Iraq. Maybe Sam should take out the WW II films of the Germans building grandstands outside of Warsaw and then watching the Luffwaffe obliterate the city from the air. Baghdad would be erased from the map in less than a week.
Come to think of it I like the idea of grandstands outside of Baghdad. Build them and fill them with military representatives from the rest of the Middle East. Talk about "Reality Shows".
I think I would like to have a show in which I can spout off MY opinion. I am just as well-informed. Bah!