« eating crow | Main | striking fear »

war polling

asv goes to the polls: an unscientific polling of the blogosphere and its readers on the use of force against iraq

There's been a lot of talk around the blog world about which type of blogger is more outspoken, more prevelant; the pro-war or anti-war faction.

I want to know where weblog authors and readers stand on this issue. Let's say this space here is your virtual congress and you are the elected officials, ready to vote on the resolution to use force against Iraq.

Just a simple yay or nay and a explanation of your vote, to satisfy my curiosity or end a certain argument I've been having or to get a less than scientific study on where the blogosphere lies on this issue. Not everyone talks politics on their weblogs, but most people still have an opinion on the subject.

Sound off. I am really interested in your point of view. I am curious about your opinions and your reasons for them. How did you come to the decision to support/not support the use of force? What's your political background? Has your opinion changed at all since the first days of the talk of war on Iraq? A simple "for" or "against" will suffice, also. Add anything you can think of that will help me in my informal study of the politcal climate of the blogosphere, both it's authors and readers.

update: The non anti-war people are very, very quiet. Very few people who support this war have spoken up. Scientfically speaking, I have yet to figure out what this all means. I'm working on a thesis, with the most likely explanation being that the pro-war part of the blogosphere does not read my blog.

Also, I hate saying "pro-war" because no one is really pro-war. Those of us that are in support of the use of force aren't out on the streets protesting for violence and death. Again, necessary evil.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference war polling:

» Yea or nay from Angst-ident Prone
a small victory: war polling Michele is asking for opinions on going to war with Iraq. I'm definitely against it. [Read More]


nay. i am so against this war on iraq. saddam has not attacked us. sure, he's a pigheaded loudmouth but so is bush. they are both behaving like kids. " i am better than you are and to prove it, i'm gonna kick your ass." bush is a warmonger. fight, fight, fight is all he wants to do. if he's trying to prove to the american people that he's a good president, he's doing a shitty. job. the economy is down, jobs are scarce and low paying and people are afraid of going to war.as the elected official of sarasota, my vote is nay. i have heard it from more than one of the voters in my city, take this vote to the people. let the people vote on who and when and where we go to war.

Madman Insane has to go. If he aquires or has aquired WMD, the consequences will be felt globally. Of course, America would more than likely be his first target.

That doesn't necessarily mean that we are taking things in the right order here. I think that Al-Queada needs to be eradicated first. I've heard rumblings that this is a logical step in the fight against terrorism... I don't believe so, but I do believe, VERY strongly that we must take care of him or suffer the consequences later.

War must be undertaken with a heavy heart and a swift hand. Although still a necessary evil in today's society, it is still an evil.

Yea, and I've believed that for 12 years.

Let the people vote on military action, Kat? Maybe you should let them cut there teeth on the budget of Sarasota, or the criminal code of Florida first. There would be no need for elected officials, if you cut out the middle man.

Nay - so far. I agree Saddam is a dangerous man and should be removed from power. But, I don't think that we have the right to do that at this point. 11 years ago we should have finished the job we started. But, today, without CONCRETE proof that he has WMD and is planning on using them in the near future, we cannot go into his country and remove him from power just because we don't like the guy. Now, if the government has the proof, and aren't sharing it with the public for some good reason, then go for it. Get rid of the madman.

My political background is (and has been since I was old enough to vote) Republican. But I don't support every plank in their platform. If anything, I lean more toward Libertarian than otherwise these days.

Perhaps it's idealistic, but I'd rather pursue every possible avenue before resorting to an action that will negatively affect a large portion of the population we're telling ourselves we're going to liberate from a dictator.

I'm not convinced that this is all about Saddam right now, instead of Saddam back then. Or that it's entirely about Saddam at all, and not a strike of anger and frustration against one Middle Eastern nation because we weren't able to bag Osama bin Laden in another, and because we often seem lump the whole region into the 'terrorist' category. I'm not convinced that we'd be quite so warmongering if 9/11 hadn't happened.

On the other hand, if it's clear that Iraq has WMDs in defiance of any treaties or agreements, than yes, something pre-emptive needs to be done, in my opinion. War is, though regrettable, sometimes a necessity.

I think I'm surprising myself when I say: Nay. It's a hesitant nay, however. I could be persuaded. But with clear logic, and hard facts. I'm not seeing enough of that to win me over yet.


Go ahead and call me a "leftist fucknozzle," but I don't really believe Saddam Hussein is that much of a threat to anything but the Bush family ego. Yes, he's a shitty person and everyone is right to hate him and the world would be better off without him. The same is true of many dictators around the globe. The Bush people keep changing their story on the need to invade because they don't have any evidence Saddam is involved with al-Qaeda or that he has nuclear capability or that he's even particulary interested in attacking us.

The Bush Doctrine will set a horrifying precedent for the rest of the world. I'd rather not see that happen.


Go ahead and call me a "leftist fucknozzle," but I don't really believe Saddam Hussein is that much of a threat to anything but the Bush family ego. Yes, he's a shitty person and everyone is right to hate him and the world would be better off without him. The same is true of many dictators around the globe. The Bush people keep changing their story on the need to invade because they don't have any evidence Saddam is involved with al-Qaeda or that he has nuclear capability or that he's even particulary interested in attacking us.

The Bush Doctrine will set a horrifying precedent for the rest of the world. I'd rather not see that happen.

Shit! Sorry to post twice -- I got an error message saying the first one didn't go through.

Nay, for now. I think it's more important at this point to finish what was started with Al Qaeda. We don't have a large enough military to divide its focus between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Take care of bin Laden first, then worry about Hussein.

For the record, I do think Papa Bush failed on his watch by not finishing the job then. I know all the arguments about why he didn't take out Hussein then, and hindsight is 20/20, but it would have saved a lot of trouble if he took care of it then.

Nay - and I think Kat and Theresa covered why for me. Maybe I'll change to "yay" in the future, but for right now? Definitely nay.

Nay, nee, non, njet, nein, no.

War-I despise
'Cos it means destruction
Of innocent lives
War means tears
To thousands of mothers how
When their sons go off to fight
And lose their lives

against...for the following reasons -

My Open Letter

What about those of us who are still on the fence? ;-)

I think a lot of the fence sitters will move one way or another after the speech tonight.

Yay, though that seems a horribly inappropriate way to state your position. War ... yay. I take no joy in it at all, but I don't see other options as viable.

Politically, I'm as much of a mess as you are ... no party purity at all.

As for Saddam, I thought we should have taken him out in 1991, and he's proven me right ever since. I'm not inclined to trust the guy who spilled millions of gallons of oil into the Persian Gulf and set over 700 oil wells on fire in an attempt to create an environmental disaster, just for fun (there was no military value at all), when we now have people who would gladly do his dirtiest work for him ... Al Qaeda.

Trust is earned, not given. Saddam has earned the opposite; a reputation as a guy who gassed his own people and seeks more and more chem/bio weapons (my concern far more than nukes), who is responsible for the death of a million Muslims, and who thinks nothing of creating events from an environmental disaster to a Presidential assassination attempt.

I didn't mean "yay" as in "hooray" just as in affirmative.

While I on the affirmative side, it is not with joy that I accept this as a necessary evil.

Nay for now. Theresa summed it up pretty well for me.

While I am all for the US taking a more pro-active role in the Middle-East, I can't shake the a nagging doubt about the timing of the whole thing. Bush seems desperate to put some distance between his government and the fast sinking economy, not to mention all of his former cronies who are being led off in handcuffs each week.


I expect tonight's speech to be more about the "evil-doer" and a rallying cry to "the American People."

The Shrub doesn't care about consent or not. The rhetoric changes daily and it is painfully obvious that he has his own plans for the world -- or rather, his advisors do. The Bush Doctrine (the name of it make me think of a frat-boy treatise on getting laid) bodes ill for the us and the world.


I'm not knee-jerk against the idea of going to war with Iraq, but at this point in time, I'm still not sold on the idea of pre-emptive attacks.

Nay. It should be obvious to everyone that this is .Jr's personal agenda, gotta save daddy's name. When bush took office we had a balanced budget. Now we are somewhere in the neighborhood of 100billion in debt. I think he should take care of home before we start worrying about abroad.

Nay - my much too long comments:

1) The threat from Iraq can be said for almost half a dozen other nations, so why the special treatment? The signs point to possibility, not inevitability of threat from Saddam.

2) We lose the high moral ground. If we unilaterally attack Iraq, that sets the precedent for emerging superpower China to unilaterally invade Taiwan or anyone else. We've already seen Russia talking this month about invading the Baltic state of Georgia like this.

3) The Vietnam factor. Once we invade, there is no "northern alliance" to assume control of the country - we will become the de facto baby sitters there for years as we try and establish a democracy while Islamic fundamentalists from Iran wage a guerilla war against us.

4) In Iraq, the ruling party is a minority. They are hated, hated, hated by the population as a whole. Once we have a regime change there will be a bloodbath of retaliation and revenge. Even if those who deserve to die do, there will tens of thousands of innocent people die.

5) As we throw increasing resources into security, military, and police actions it sucks more away from government spending for beneficial programs that help American citizens. There is no way that this war will help boost our economy in the next six years.

6) My brother is in Khandahar right now, part of the 101st Airborne. He's the first to say that he'd die fighting for his country, but I don't see how his death furthers democracy and freedom. If anything, invading Iraq is antithetical to freedom as we become the bully. I know, Saddam is psychopath, but he is the lesser of two evils compared to invasion. Especially since...

7) Weapons inspectors are more successful at destroying WMD than an invading force. Couple that with a campaign of help and aid to the people of Iraq directly and we'll see a slow thawing out of the region much like we've seen in Iran.

Yay - The regime change in Iraq is part of the larger goal of cleaning that mess up. We have to drag that part of the world into western modernity before they drag us into levantine barbarism.


The certainty of many deaths, both American and other, if we attack far outweighs "maybe" deaths sometime. No convincing proof has been presented that any threat which Saddam (definitly a dangerous person who should be watched closely) poses is greater now than it was 10 years ago. Bush is wagging the dog and the USA and the world will have to pay the price for his grandstanding.

Nay. I've seen no evidence that Hussein is any more of a threat than he's been for the past 11 years, and if his neighbors don't think he's a threat, then why do the Bushies?

I would prefer not to think an American President would cynically start a war to distract his population's attention from a sinking economy and his administration's inability (so far) to catch the admitted planner/funder of the Sept. 11 murders, but I'm leaning that way.


One should always clean up after oneself.

yay. he's paying the terrorists.

Nay, but everyone took all the good reasons. Unfortunately, Bush stopped reading my blog after his wife caught it in his browser history. So you'll have to tell him for me.

Let me add in my too long comments as well.

Well said, Jake. I am surprised that no one has pointed out the fact that not half a year ago, India and Pakistan were pointing nukes across the border at each other, and yet the US didn't feel under imminent threat or feel the need to go over there and eliminate WMD.

Since Saddam has made no show of threatening the US, or anyone else for that matter, why is his possession of WMD more frightening than anyone else's? Particularly since there have been no direct ties shown between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

Really, why isn't Bush invading Saudi Arabia? There have been more ties found with that country and the 9/11 terrorists than any other.

In other words, nay.


Under the simplistic view of "War Sucks".
I think America (or any country, for that matter) has better things to do than pick fights.

At the moment, against. Simply put, I think Dubya's being his father's puppet on this issue and that if he does decide to strike Iraq, it will eventually blow up in our faces... literally.

I am so very against this effort against Iraq and on so very many levels.

First, there has been a conserted effort by the Bush Administration to finger Iraq for the terrorism attack. Almost immediately, Saddam Hussein was included in the same breath with evildoers and the axis of evil. It makes us appear childish. There is no clear evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the Sept. 11th attack, nor is there any clear evidence that Hussein has done any more than boast about his assumed weaponry. We are in a position of power on this planet and we are looking like foolish bullies to the rest of the world.

I wrote a letter to Bush: Dear George, Jr.

i am anti-war. and although the admin. claims overwhelming support, the numbers are deceiving. the fact is, this would not be another desert storm. the estimates of casualties number in the tens of thousands. when this fact is factored into the poll question, i.e., 'do you support an attack on Iraq in which 10-50,000 American lives will be lost' and the support figure drops to some 38%.

the American people are conditioned by the campaign in Afghanistan and Desert Storm to believe we can go in and surgically strike from a safe distance. we cannot do that in this case. it's why dubya's daddy stopped at Baghdad last time.

i used to be a democrat. i'm now officially a registered green. and the more warlike things get around me, the more of a knee-jerk peacenick i turn into.

it's difficult to support a war that we, the people, are admonished not to question. we're with 'us' or with them. i beg to differ - i am not one of them. but i'm not convinced the threat merits the potential consequences which include a huge increase in anti-american sentiement, and the resulting violence and increase in terrorism against us.

i don't have an answer, but a hasty war bullied through the system of checks and balances by an administration i fear, just seems very wrong.

Nay, Nay
The arguement for military action makes no sense.
We can not kill innocent Iraqi and our own innocent soldiers. And where is the proof Saddam is tied to the 'terrorists'? In our administration's quest for their oil reserves we alientate our allies. The Washington Regime is the one to be replaced. Nay

Against this war. The Bush DysAdministration is basically arguing for the right to go whomp the other guy first because the other guy is Bad because we say so, that's why, and might hurt us later. Oh, and a "regime change" would be good for (certain) businesses. Not so good for global moral precedent-setting. Please, no one pay attention to the tanking American economy.

I lean towards 'nay', because I think the administration's reasons for a strike are suspect. But I see the 'yea' point of view, too. I'm very close to the fence.

Against. - I think this war is about oil and the ability of corporations that contributed heavily to republican coffers to control it. I also think it is about Bush trying to prove he's a better man than his father. The last thing in the world I really think it is about is terrorism. That's just a convenient smokescreem.

Additionally unilateral action by the Us will set a very dangerous precedent - China will invade Taiwan, Russia invade Chechnya, every country with a grudge against anothetr country will be able to use "terrorism" as an excuse to take unilateral action.

Think the fate of the Kurds is bad now? Wait until Saddam is deposed and he US tries to impose democracy on a culture that has never known the concept. The Kurds will demand a free state of Kurdistan in northern Iraq and that will give Turkey all the excuse it needs to invade and decimate he Kurds in order to prevent a complete uprising by their own Kurdish population. Rememwer the Turks do not exactly have a reputation for being restrained.

It is absolutely imperative that the UN be allowed to proceed with inspections. If the US takes unilateral action, or even a coalition action that doesn't include a significant participation by other middle east arab states, they will be handing Al Qaeda the best recruiting platform you could imagine.

Against. Absolutely against.

hmmmmmmmmm. We have more anti-Bush people here than anti-Saddam. Interesting.

> We have more anti-Bush people here than anti-Saddam.

That's not a logical conclusion from the data. The question was whether you are for or against starting a particular war at a particular time, not which simian world leader you prefer. You could, for just one example, be strongly against both but not willing to sanction the assassination or removal by coup of either.

thank you, Eeksy-Peeksy. i am adamantly anti-war, but not pro-Saddam. the man is completely horrible, but not a major threat as portrayed by this administration -- not in a way that's been proven. do we then go and take the power from every asshole in power anywhere? is the US in charge of this? what precedent does this set? where does pre-emptive action end?

and why all of a sudden Saddam? unfinished business, yes. oil, yes. can hurt us? well. we were far more hurt by international terrorism on 9-11, due to the ease with which the faithful can be recruited into the cause of anti-Americanism. do we want to give the recruiters more reasons, when they are not clearly necessary?

what will come of this? tens of thousands of casualties and anti-American sentiment like never before. and can we win? survey says, probably not.

What Michael Wagner says about this conversation from the safety of his own web log:

"A Small Victory is featuring a war thread (yea or nay). Reading the comments leave me with the impression that people for the war don't like Saddam Hussien while people against the war don't like George Bush. Weapons of Mass Destruction and other threats to the security of the United States and Iraq's neighbors aside, imagine hating the U.S. Republican party so much that you would rather allow the people of Iraq suffer under the heel of a ruthless dictator than have President Bush be the one who liberates them. Shallow, sad, pathetic ... and so on."


"the safety of my blog?"

I just didn't want to stray to far off topic on this blog. I'll have you know there is nothing safe about my blog. sometimes it scares the pee-pee out of me!

As for my conclusion, read how many anti-war responses mention the motives of President Bush.

"f he's trying to prove to the american people that he's a good president"

" threat to anything but the Bush family ego"

" Bush seems desperate to put some distance between his government and the fast sinking economy"

"The Bush Doctrine (the name of it make me think of a frat-boy treatise on getting laid) bodes ill "

"It should be obvious to everyone that this is .Jr's personal agenda"

I could go on but it's pretty clear that, so far, there are more anti-Bush statements in this thread than anti-Saddam statements. I find that to be pretty sad.

I don't think anyone is pro-Saddam around here.

However, I think folks question why this is an issue just now. Containment has worked for 11 years -- it can go on a while longer while we clean up the mess in Afghanistan.

Or did you miss the news about how Taliban and Taliban-like political forces are returning to power in Afghanistan? I wouldn't be surprised if you had, considering it's hardly reported. Let's clean up one mess before starting another one, and believe me, Iraq will be a decades-long affair.

I don't think anyone is pro-Saddam around here.

However, I think folks question why this is an issue just now. Containment has worked for 11 years -- it can go on a while longer while we clean up the mess in Afghanistan.

Or did you miss the news about how Taliban and Taliban-like political forces are returning to power in Afghanistan? I wouldn't be surprised if you had, considering it's hardly reported. Let's clean up one mess before starting another one, and believe me, Iraq will be a decades-long affair.

I'm against. Bush seems to be carrying out a personal vendetta here.

"Reading the comments leave me the the impression that people for the war don't like Saddam Hussien while people against the war don't like George Bush....etc."

See, that's the thing about impressions-- they're just that: impressions.

Let's break it down, Michael.

1. Of any comment that mentioned Saddam Hussein, I didn't see one that was pro-Saddam. In fact, after reading the comments, every person who bothered to mention Saddam, casts him in an unfavorable light. I believe you're oversimplifying things by casting it in the anti-Saddam/anti-Bush light. Everyone here seems to be pretty anti-Saddam.

2. Of the 28 commentors opposed to the war, 18 are questioning or less than flattering in their appraisal of Bush and/or his motives. A third of those opposed, however, do not bring Bush into their arguments, but instead question timing, resources, and manpower. Even among those who did make unflattering comments about the administration, there were those who did so in a spirit of questioning, rather than railing against the president. This is not a group of easily categorized, childish Republican-haters as you'd seem to have it.

3. In case anyone cares: 27 against, 6 for, 5 on the fence. 11 additonal comments were either devoid of an answer to the question or were duplicate posts.

4. You highlighted several comments. Not all of these are anti-Bush quotes. Some of them are cogent observations. Even this long-time Republican who voted for both Bushes and continues to vocally support this one, can see that. Dialogue is good. Why are you dismissive of it?

The last time I checked, supporting an administration did not mean blindly accepting everything the administration does or not questioning motives, policy, or protocol. Responsible constituents do observe, do question, do dialogue.

This all reeks too much of unfinished business ("He tried to kill my Dad"). I agree that Saddam may well be a legitimate threat, but if so, why are we the only ones willing to take the risks inherent in any military action? This sounds like a case of testosterone poisoning affecting the executive branch.

If we are to speak with one voice, do we really want dub'ya to do the speaking? Is he representative of our collective will? I think not. Middle-east politics are too fragile and unstable for his heavy-handed tactics; his actions and opinions suggest to me a hidden agenda; and when big brother is on the playground,
little brother gets brazen and may upset the entire balance. Surely Saddam is a threat to many people, including his own. Does this mean that George W. is not? He is a loose cannon on the world ship of state. A pre-emptive war? Since when does America opt for the low road?
I do not believe Bush has the smarts to run the country, or to design or implement a foriegn policy. He stands there declaring "I am Dub'ya, the great and powerful." But who is the man behind the curtain?

Does my mentioning that Bush isn't allowed to read my blog anymore put me in the anti-Saddam or anti-Bush group. I'm so confused.

Of course, even a confused person can see a smokescreen. Evil/WMD/Terrorists/Dictator/etc is a smokescreen, not a reason to attack another country.

PS I'm a registered Republican too.

Jen: There may be many rational reasons to be for or against the upcomming regime change in Iraq. That President Bush is for it should not have any bearing on where weblog authors and readers stand on this issue. For instance: I believe that Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky are, at best, buffoons. If by some odd coincidence I agree with them about something, I'm not going to change my mind just to be contrary. I make up my own mind and look around to see who agrees later.

Michael, I'm really not sure WHAT you're on about. I think we've established that people here have given some very diverse reasons for not supporting this war. Not all are saying 'no' just because Bush is saying 'yes'. Hell, not even all the folks who are saying that they're wary of Bush saying 'yes' are saying that's the only reason they don't support this particular war. Or is it just that the moment one invokes the name of Bush, to whatever degree, all the other parts of one's argument must be forfeited? I don't buy it.

All Bush had to do was show me actual, current evidence that Saddam has nuclear weapons, and I'd have backed him 100%. Easy to prove. If they're making weapons-grade Uranium, ya gotta have big, fat processing facilities, and we got them there satellite thingies that can see stuff like whether your dog crapped in the yard! (Not to mention the fact that the process gives off gamma radiation that's detectable.)

I kept waiting and waiting...nothing. Now, he's backed off that claim (Saddam's "only" a year or two away). Well, if that's the case, why the rush to subvert the inspectors? Give 'em a chance! Sure they got bunged up last time, but some of that was our own fault, and if he does it again, we have a legitimate excuse to blast him!

Chemical and biological weapons are only a threat to his neighbors (who aren't all hyped up about attacking) and to OUR troops, if we do attack! That is unless you buy the theory that he's supplying these weapons to the Muslim fundamentalist terrorists who hate Saddam and want to overthrow him too. But if he were doing that, he'd have already seen his Sunni minority attacked by the Shiite majority (kinda like he did to them).

Let's throw in the fact that I still haven't heard what plans we have for Iraq after Saddam. Do we really want a democratically elected government there? If majority rules, then guess who's the majority? Hard-line, Shiite Muslim fundamentalists who want to merge with Iran to form a "greater Persia"! Hoo boy, that's MUCH better...

Nope. Definitely in the NAY court on this one.

We should have taken him out the last time.

How many chances should he get, for pete's sake?

He lost his war. He's spent the past decade+ trying to evade the sanctions and restrictions that he himself agreed to.

Hussein has proven himself to be not worthy of trust time and time again.

My hope is that we do not swoop in to topple the current regime, and then leave the people hanging. We owe the Iraqis more than that.

The question that I have concerns democracy and tribes. I don't think that any country has been able to surmount tribal differences in a peaceable manner.

You've sent the White House the URL of this post, right? Let's see: non-democratic, weapons of mass destruction, disregard for international agreements, tramples on civil rights at home - Bush has to go. They played a little of Bush's speech on the radio over here, and to my amazement Bush had the audacity to include the non-democratic nature of the Iraqi regime as a reason Saddam Hussein has to go. Of course he's a piece of shit, but what's that got to do with anything?

I'm not pro-war but I say "yea". He's dangerous. He actively funds terrorism. He pays suicide bomber's families to the tune of 15mil while his own people lack food and basics. He builds palaces while children starve. He aids and abets Al Queda. He has tried (so far unsuccessfully, thank you Israel!) to get nuclear capability and is still trying. He has used biological weapons on his OWN countrymen. He has no compunctions about murdering his own people at whim.

He is a manipulative SOB who won't/hasn't allowed weapons inspectors free access - why give him another chance? What has he done to earn it?
Why would you want to wait till he actually HAD nuclear capability?? Just to see if he would use it? That's sort of like shoving your head inside a bee's nest just to see if they would sting you. No thank you.

As to miguel's post: some significant differences: The US has recourse in addressing perceived slights to our rights: the legislative branches, Supreme Court and your nearest voting booth. You may not like the actions of this democracy but it still is a democracy. Iraqis have none of that. No recourse other than pleas to Mr. Hussein's good nature. Assuming that exists.

Oh, and for the record? I'm not a Bush fan and have never voted Republican.

"neccessary evil"
I'm no christian, but I don't think the bible ever mentions "evil" as being neccessary.
Someone mentioned Saudi Arabia, and this would be a clear example of why I don't trust Bush. SA isn't on the list of states that sponsor terrorism. Everyone in the world knows SA DOES sponsor/harbor terrorists except, it would seem, BushCo. Pakistan is another great example. North Korea already has nukes, and we KNOW they hate the US. Bush names them first in his "axis of evil" speech. Iran is next, then Iraq.
We've been bombing Iraq continually for years; they're not nearly the immediate threat that the other countries are.

This war is about avoiding domestic issues and securing energy resources and keeping the US citizens in a constant state of anxiety- a trifecta.

I am against 'violence', war, no way. It appears to me that Bush is puppeteering for his DAD who arranged for our tax $$$ to give Saddam the money in the first place to buy the arms, etc...that he has right now! Why is no one stressing this point, the Bushes are trying to clean up their own bad decisions. Why do all of our 'bought' friends like Bin Laden and Saddam all want to turn on us? or is it the other way? Are we turning on them!?
Their are a lot of countries who have the capability of nuking us, who is nuking us?????
If the USA was parading around and announcing that they were going to nuke me, I'd be shooting at their planes that are violating my air space too!! omg, lol...is this really happening. OR is this a way to distract the USA public from wondering why our economy is going down the drain so fast....seems that the mighty empire is dying.
What is coming next....I hope we do not start a war....I don't see Saddam attacking us at all....it makes more sense to wait and see what he is supposed to be doing to us that is so terrible that he has been doing for the last 12 years or so???? What did he do, except not like us?