[thechat] Getting closer

[Lauri Vain]

Tony,

> 50:50 split on a poll of 800 people!
> Polls tell you absolutely nothing.

Agreed, polls fall in the grey area and the result totally depends on
the questions you ask and the target group you choose.

That means that it necessarily isn't a 50:50 split and that there really
is no telling whether the majority of people are for or against the war.


You cannot decide that "everybody is against war" from what your friends
and co-workers say, as friends most often have a similar education, have
similar interests and similar views on the world... angles on the world
can of course vary among friends, but you usually tend to agree in most
bigger questions. (For example, there is a political party over here and
from the, let's say, several hundred people I know, nobody votes for
them, but there they are, often having ~25% of the seats in the
parliament. I see how they deceive people with populistic campaigns. But
unless I find a way to take away the vote of those people who always buy
the valid points and the crap from that party, there is nothing I can
really do... that is the downside of democracy).

I do agree with most of your views, but I would simply prefer if you
would substitute "everybody" and "all" with "some", "several" or "most"
(whilst still using the last one carefully). When you use absolute
statements everywhere, then what you say doesn't carry a weight for
politicians nor to quite a many other persons. The thing is that there
are people who allow themselves to be brainwashed by propaganda
statements and there are those who are always against what the
government does and blames the government, not taking into account that
there are people who agree with the government, and sometimes for good
reasons.

The world has more colors than black and white, even when you clearly
see that the government is using foul play. There might be good reasons
to go to war (although nobody has proved them yet) and there are lots of
reasons not to go to war. And I am sure we agree on that. It would be
good to integrate that into what you say or you can easily be mistaken
for those that are always for or always against what the government is
saying (their vote really carries no vote... or shouldn't anyway).

Tony said:
> My point was that no country should wage war on another without
> the support of it's people.  That support should be a democratic
> process not a media event.

Doesn't congress have to approve wars?

Thanks,
Lauri