----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 4:40 PM Subject: Re: Re: France's influence
> > -------Original Message------- > From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I was talking about the opinion of people. In a January Gallup poll, the last one I could find, the numbers were: > ************************************************** > > Again, though, I definitely believe that those numbers are skewed by the presence of the "UN option." If >truly forced to choose between "supporting the US in War without UN" and "opposing the US in war without >the UN", I think that those numbers look much differently. The eternal optimist? John, the question was 1) Not even with UN backing 2) Only with UN backing 3) Even without UN backing You really think all the 2s are going to slide into 1s? What's amazing to me is how many people would be opposed to action, even if mandated by the UN. >Moreover, I think that the opions of governments are more important that those of polls. I think that this is a >prime example of why republican government is preferrable to a direct democratic government.... as >sometimes governments need to make tough decisions that an inexpert populace might not make. And, what are the chances of being re-elected when they take actions that are opposed by the overwhelming majority of their citizens? If I were a politician willing to do what it takes, I'd say that I would represent the interest of _fill the country in here_ and not by Bush's lap dog. Unless the war in Iraq is not considered important by people, why wouldn't politicians who oppose it have a tremendous advantage in the next election in countries where the overwhelming majority of people are opposed to the war? Dan M. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
