SNIP
>I wonder what the results of a Gallop Pole would be if Iraq said to the United States, “We will give you all the oil you can use for free”! The problem is that the oil companies would still jack up the price and keep the profits. By the way they tell us the San Francisco Bay Area is paying the highest price for gasoline in the country. $2.29 for a gallon of regular is the going rate in S.F.
>
>Tom

Hi Tom,

You are so right. I am often surprised by poll results. They seldom reflect my opinions! I guess I am one of the minorities. Funny, but in the locations I have worked during the past 10 years, I have shared many of the political opinions of my co-workers. I have been called numerous times to particpate in polls (wonder where they got my #?) and I have participated a couple of times, but these telephone polls typically take 20-30 minutes to complete, so I've declined more often than not. Shame on me I guess!

I know that we all want peace and no one wants to see any of our troops put in harm's way unecessarily. Nor do I know of anyone that wants to see innocent civilians harmed in any conflict. Yet no one has a really great argument either way and yet both sides (for and against military action in IRAQ) have valid points on their own.

I think the biggest argument on the 'peace activitists' side is the fact that irreputable evidence of an immediate threat against the U.S. has not been proven to the public's satisfaction. That does not mean that the evidence does not exist (we both know this from our individual experiences in the miltary intelligence service--what our government knows and what it can share are two different things entirely) nor does it mean that it does. I know from experience and knowledge that the governments of many countries (including ours) make decisions too many times based on economic or political reasons. Too often military action (in small or large scale) is the result of long-term goals instead of any immediate threat of danger within our borders. I believe the public is getting tired of this and does not want to use military action for 'what ifs' anylonger--even if our government KNOWS that the ultimate goal of a government, a rebel group, or a dictator is ultimately to take out some of our citizens, leaders, or facilities. No matter that nuclear scientists have given information to our government on actual nuclear weapons capabilities within a few short months in Iraq or the fact that this dictator has used wmd in the past on his own people as well as other countries or even the fact that he has stated to too many people to count his ultimate goal in regards to the U.S. Unless the weapons can be produced or Saddam attacks the U.S. or its citizens many will never support war with Iraq. Who cares that he has spent the last 15 years moving his arsenal around and successfully avoiding detection. Afterall, a nuclear scientist that defected is not a valid source of information nor the two son-in-laws that defected and later returned and were shot--and let's not even consider the questionable ex-mistress currently in hiding and trying to warn the U.S. and other countries of Saddam's intentions. Regardless, according to many, we must have physical evidence--too bad that it will never be produced until it is used. Then our public will support war. Who is to say that all that feel that way are wrong? Certainly not me. I disagree, but I cannot say who is 'right' and 'who' is wrong. Personally, as much as I HATE the idea of war, I do know that if I had a neighbor that behaved as he has I would not just move (my family would not be safe from just moving) but I would personally take action to protect my family and not wait for a consensus that will not come from the neighborhood. Will I maintain a free life following that? Probably not. But my daughter WILL and that is my main concern. Will my neighbor's friends go after me or my family following? Probably so. So which is the lesser danger? There is no clear answer-it is a catch22 I'm afraid. I do know that up until recently war or military action with the sole purpose of overthrowing a leader (even a dictator) was not legal within our system. Who cares that it was done behind the scenes in the past-it was illegal. When did it become legal here? Obviously I missed something big. Who is acting on fear? Our government for wanting to take out a leader before he can take out us (even though that is not the reason for war it is because he has not met any of the UN resolution requirements during the past 10 years)? Or the countries that refuse to participate because they are afraid of revengeful acts on behalf of other Arab nation citizens afterwards? I cannot say. It is sad whatever happens because while I pray for a peaceful ending, I do not see it happening LONGTERM either way for at least many, many years.