h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

LATEST US POLLS

Poll shows that the public, by a 58%-35% margin, opposes the prospect that the Supreme Court will overturn its Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. Overturning Roe is a central goal of the Republican Party's conservative base.

Survey shows a 49% plurality of Americans now disapprove of Mr. Bush's handling of the economy, while fully 61% doubt the administration's economic package will do much to stimulate economic growth.
.
Those results, combined with public wariness about war with Iraq and diminished support for Mr. Bush's foreign policy, underscore the big challenges facing the president as he prepares for next week's State of the Union address.

"He's got a lot of balls in the air, and none of them is going particularly well," observes Republican pollster Robert Teeter, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with his Democratic counterpart Peter Hart

Abbi, Polls are not always as accurate as the media would have you believe. Polls can be manipulated depending on the agenda of those giving them. Many variables come into play such as the wording of poll,who is asked to to respond and there backround {religious,socio-economic,education,political association} I am not implying anything of the poll you are refrencing. I am only mentioning my lack of confidence in polls in general even those that favor my views.

I know. Figure it was too off topic too. I thought both parties were represented as offering up this one or I would have not posted it, but maybe not.It just an example of things changing *some* as opposed to Americans not being awake and all being behind the administrations policies.

The requested detail on Mugabe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2688005.stm

Was just chatting to an American friend and realised something.. (apols if it's cropped up before in this thread, it's a long blog to read!)

When is the next US election?

If it were now, it's highly likely that George would lose, as his approval ratings overall are down. But it is a fact that a war ups the ratings of any president, so I figure he'll go to war before the next election, to ensure he gets re-elected.

So how long have we got?

Q

Zagreb: "Let's assume that 30,000 French troops are stationed in Iraq. Let's assume Bush liquidates the assets of the French companies (which he'd have to do if he wants their oil). France mobilises her army to "defend" those assets? What do you think the consequences would be for the US if it started fighting a ground-battle with French troops?

The presence of French troops would give France a large say in what happens. Without any troops present, France doesn't really get a say."


Zagreb, before France has a chance to station *any* troops in Iraq, the US will have obliterated (liquidated) any assets the French may have had with weeks and weeks of aeral bombing.

"When is the next US election?

If it were now, it's highly likely that George would lose, as his approval ratings overall are down. But it is a fact that a war ups the ratings of any president, so I figure he'll go to war before the next election, to ensure he gets re-elected.

So how long have we got?"


November 2004 in the US. Bush and Blair will not win the election without a war. That's what makes it scary.

When is the next federal election in Britain?

2005 I believe. I don't think Blair requires a war to win the next election. This action may indeed lose it for him.

"I don't think Blair requires a war to win the next election. This action may indeed lose it for him."


Huh?

I agree that I think Tony Blair will lose even if we do go to war. He's handled the whole thing very badly.

The last US elections were in 2000 weren't they? In which case November 2004 sounds right.

Ok folks, unless Saddam gives in and starts waving a white flag around and apologising to Bush Jr. for trying to kill his "daddy" (let's not forget that), then there will be a war within the next year and a half!


Q

Thanks for elaborating.

According to the Russians, it's mid February of this year. I would predict that Bush Jnr would want to be done with war and declare victory before the next election. The war will last at least 1 year (look at Afghanistan).


As a side idea: if the French, Russians and Chinese want to avoid war and if Iraq wants to avoid war, why not try this: why doesn't Iraq "invite" a small delegation of French, Chinese and Russian troops for "peace keeping" reasons? Tough to invade a country that's already invaded.

*As a side idea: if the French, Russians and Chinese want to avoid war and if Iraq wants to avoid war, why not try this: why doesn't Iraq "invite" a small delegation of French, Chinese and Russian troops for "peace keeping" reasons? Tough to invade a country that's already invaded.

Because the Russians are ecomomicly better off with the Americans. The Chineese can be more of a thorn in the side of the Americans with North Korea. While the French know the Americans would Target them First.

"Zagreb, before France has a chance to station *any* troops in Iraq, the US will have obliterated (liquidated) any assets the French may have had with weeks and weeks of aeral bombing."

I doubt that the US tactics are to bomb oil companies belonging to an allied power. I think they'll be concentrating on Iraqi military targets.

"As a side idea: if the French, Russians and Chinese want to avoid war and if Iraq wants to avoid war, why not try this: why doesn't Iraq "invite" a small delegation of French, Chinese and Russian troops for "peace keeping" reasons? Tough to invade a country that's already invaded."

The Russian's would probably consider it too expensive, ditto the Chinese. The French are anti-Saddam, they're just idiotic in the way they go about it.

Anyway, Saddam would never allow foreign troops into Iraq from any major powers. He wants to rule Iraq, remember.

"November 2004 in the US. Bush and Blair will not win the election without a war. That's what makes it scary.

When is the next federal election in Britain?"

The Iraq-war thing is not as popular with Americans as many think. Support for war is low in Britain, unsurprising as the British are loathe to get into a war that many here think is not in our interests and besides Blair has never bothered making a case for war to the people who he's supposed to serve. He hasn't even consulted Parliament.

Britain is not a federation, so we don't have federal elections (and if you were joking, sorry). The next General Election has to be held by 2006, so Blair has plenty of time to rebuild any support the war will lose him.

>>And remember, Hitchens is probably way to the Left of most of you here <<
I wouldn't have thought so, Zagreb, but then we've been over this before! (As with so many other things...(sigh))

Zagreb,you are right their are many in the United states that Question war in Iraq. There is currently much debate going on. There have also been a number of anti war marchs.

There is one thing that bothers me about the whole situation. Why is Blair so ready to go to war side by side with Bush. It serves no political purpose in fact it seems to be political suicide at best.
What is it that Bush has shared with him that would induce him to follow such a course that is obviously detrimental to his personal and political well being. To become PM he must be a fairly intelligent man and have strong survival instincts. Has anyone stopped to think on this one question?

I would have to go with Vegetius on this one.

"Que desiderat pacem praeparet bellum"

It does seem the smartest approach.

>>By falling into the sucking vortex of propperganda?<<
'The Meandering Maelstrom of mealy-mouthedness, the Whirlpool of Weasel-words'- LOL, App!

good to see you Della,long time no disagreement.