In case you wondered...

Hmph. Another one of those quizzes I can't finish because some of the questions don't offer any answer I'd be willing to check. I was sort of managing up until #9... where it comes down to choosing among three options, all of which are looney, extremist, simplistic, and fundamentally wrong.
Come right down to it, a lot of the questions are wrong, too, but that seems to be typical in quizland.

Yay! I'm finally glad somebody's less of a terrorist-lover than me.

I came out at 85%.

I think part of it was that I said that 9/11 in fact *did* change everything. It made the American Public willing to accept all sorts of crap it wouldn't have accepted mere months before. It gave W the opportunity to sell us an Iraq war on a completely false basis. It made it unpatriotic and dangerous-seeming to grumble about airport security. It made it OK to talk about free speech being something that we can't afford any more. It did change lots of stuff in a way that the Oklahoma bombing inexplicably failed to.

-Rob

I started out trying to answer the questions honestly but the dishonest answers where too fun to ignore. I do think the best way to support our troops is with a magnetic ribbon on the back of my car.
-------
Your 'Do You Want the Terrorists to Win' Score: 36% A rather wishy washy performance. At least you are less than half aligned with evil. However your patriotism and allegiance to President Bush are lacking. You certainly harbor a few treasonous thoughts, which will no doubt result in the deaths of at least a few of our troops. Please get yourself straightened out immediately. Read a book by Ann Coulter at once!Do You Want the Terrorists to Win?Quiz Created on GoToQuiz

I can't believe I'm only 87% terrorist-loving!!! I voted for Kerry and everything!

Hi Rob! :) I said the same thing about 9/11 changing everything-- it resulted in the "Patriot Act."

I guess I too failed in my quest for perfection with the 9/11 question, which left me with only a 96% score.
Seeya at Gitmo.

As usual, I'm to the left of Orac, but not by much: 87. Still, it's the difference between disdain and disenfranchisement, as far as this quiz goes.

I wonder how low a score you need to be a "supporter"...

94%! Guess I have Gitmo to look forward to as a new home.

Canuckistani with 89% checking in. In metric, that's probably 156% or something.

Yeah, there were no sensible answers to #9, so I chose "they hate us for our freedoms", and I had to go for war as a last resort versus quitting our oil addiction, because there are theoretically acceptable reasons for going to war in the ME, or almost anywhere else in the world*, in the future. Theoretically.

* Err, don't try coming up here again. There's a reason why your presidential palace needed a spiffy new paint job early in the nineteenth century, you know.

Well I got a whooping 96%, I hope this part of the statement isn't true!

Luckily George Bush is tapping your internet connection and is now aware of your thought-crime. Have a nice day.... in Guantanamo!

I got everyone here beat: 98%. And the only reason I didn't get 100% is that I didn't vote for Kerry (not an American citizen, so I couldn't). Some of the questions were off, like the "change everything" one. I had to answer "No" to that one simply because not everything changed.

98% makes me a godless liberal.

Strangely enough Liberals are the extreme right wing in both the countries I've lived in.

Same results as Infophile, for exactly the same reasons. Something about the questions and the phrasing of the results leads me to think this is a joke. I'm worried that it probably isn't...

Wow. I scored a 96%.

Funny, I do not label myself a liberal, although I am godless.

Come on, you must know that the two terms are synonymous. ;-)

Come on, you must know that the two terms are synonymous. ;-)

Only if you're Ann Coulter or PZ Myers....

Um...100% and I'm seriously worried about anyone who scored under 90%.

The test is badly flawed and badly worded. It has to be a joke, or a troll.

Too many middle-ground answer options were missing for it to be serious, and the anti-war ones were far too mocking in their tone.

For the record, I support the war; and I support its expansion, though I agree a change of approach is probably needed - including proving who's supplying the insurgents with weapons - allegedly Syria and Iran - and hang Damocles' sword over their heads so they stop. If they don't, bring it down hard.

Peter, Paul & Mary may have sung about 'love between my brothers and my sisters all over this land', but the preceding lines are about a Hammer of Justice and a Bell of Freedom. We are cowards, worse than Britain and France were over Czechoslovakia, if we abandon an embattled democracy (which is what Iraq now is) to its fate as some would suggest.

I would also remind you that non-signatories to the Geneva conventions remove the necessity for signatory combatants to obey them.

We are cowards, worse than Britain and France were over Czechoslovakia ...

(a) You don't read this blog regularly.
(b) You don't agree with this blog.
(c) You don't understand this blog.

The test is badly flawed and badly worded. It has to be a joke

Now what on earth could have possibly given you that idea?

I think it is a joke. Many reasonable answers are missing and the wording is just funny.

I answered it truthfully first and got 83%. I think it is because I said i didn't know who O'Reilly and Co. are - I know two of them so I figured it's 50% correct. Changing it to "propagandists for the republican party" gets you to 87%.

After that I started changing answers in random to see various messages. At 68% you get the same message as for 87%. At 60% you get: You, sir or ma'am, are more than half terrorist sympathizer. Your ill-will toward America can barely be concealed, and has now been uncovered by this quiz. Your love of America and of her dear leader, President Bush, is clearly approaching treasonously low levels. But it's not too late for you. Shut yourself out from all liberal influence, listen only to Sean Hannity, read only Ann Coulter, and above all stop questioning! Questioning only gets our troops killed in their noble battle against the forces of evil that besiege our great land!

Justin -

What do you mean by 'you support the war'? As far as I can tell, the majority of Iraqis want us to leave, we are doing no good and providing zero security, and there is absolutely no plan for what to do next. How on earth can you support that? Unless, of course, you have shares in the companies involved in reconstruction, who have managed to do very well indeed despite not actually doing a lot of reconstruction.

The only reason we are still in Iraq is because the president does not want to admit to a mistake. That's what our troops (and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis) are dying for. Sheesh, we're not even getting any oil out of it.

And when you say you support the expansion of the war.. does this mean that you also support reinstituting the draft? The US is in no position to threaten either Iran or Syria without a large increase in troop numbers.

I'm unsure as to how the Czechoslovakia comparison is meant to work - that was an established (more or less) nation state under threat from an external enemy. The elected iraqi government exists only because an external power protects the green zone; it has zero authority outside it. There is simply no comparison.

If the US actually wants to turn Iraq into a stable democracy, it needs to increase troop levels to a minimum of 500,000, probably more given the size of Iraq's borders. That means the draft, and it also means tax hikes. Doing half a job, as has been the case so far, has been proven to be worse than never going in at all.

And as for the genevea conventions.. You cannot pretend to be a beacon of light and democracy at the same time as embracing the ways of the despot and thug. The whole point of freedom is that a light gets shone onto the terrible things that the powerful can do to the powerless in the darkness; you want to turn that light out?

actually, they dont want us to leave. When asked if they like being occupied they say NO! But the second question, do you want us to leave then? they also answer an enthusiastic NO!

I certainly dong know anything about fighting a war, I might agree that Bush and the gang have botched it, but I also know that the NYT editors dont know anything about it either and when they tell me Bush botched it I"m more likely to give him the benefit of the doubt.

We can all agree it was a stupid quiz though. They could have asked just one question, A: you think Bush botched the war and made things worse, or B: you think Bush was an idiot to go in the first place.

I never really wanted to grow up to be a republican, I agree with Bush on exactly 2 issues, tax cuts and going to war in Iraq. If the democrats can come up with someone who's not actually worse this next election they can have my vote. I have no confidence they will pull that off though.

Yes, they do want us out.. And 71% is not a small majority.

650,000 dead; or in the region of 3% of the entire population. That's not 'botching it', that's borderline genocide. There isn't any doubt. Bush and his cronies had ample material giving the danger of what they were doing and ignored it because they wanted a war.

And as for supporting tax cuts AND war.. You do realise that wars have to be paid for? Whoose pocket do you think the money is coming out of?

hmm, I seem to remember a little criticism of that 650k dead number, perhaps on these very same blogs here... I seem to recall the method used to estimate that was ludicrous. I also recall that those aren't actual casualty figures but a guess based on the amount of bombs dropped combined with statistics from WWII or something. It was my impression that it was so easily debunked that even those of us that comment and do not ourselves blog could do it ;)

There was a lot of *denial* of the 650k number. There is, however, a difference between denial and rebuttal; the method used is perfectly standard in these situations. If you look around the blogs (Here, for instance), you'll see that is was a valid study.

I assume you now agree that the Iraqis do want us out, and that wanting both tax cuts and war is very illogicical?

If I recall, the 650k was an average between the White House's estimate of 3 and the study's result of 1.3 million.

[/snark]

I'm in agreement with British commentator Peter Hitchens on it: democracy isn't even half the ingredients for a free-society, the rule of law makes up most of it. Saddam's trial is evidence enough of that. I doesn't matter if he deserves the punishment:if they can't put such an obviously guilty man on trial and achieve a fair conviction then we have no unblurred line of distinction between dicatorships and true democracies.

Free-societies are not normal, they are a special exception. They take a long time to create and they cannot be engineered within the span of a single generation. They rarely even happen in the space of several generations.

I've always been against the war, but the 600,000 figure seems utterly ridiculous. The amount of people who would have to die every day is unreal, but there are problem with the studies. They chose houses on main roads, surely they would be more prone to violence? Also, the health ministry must've forgotten about the thousands upon thousands of extra death certificates they issued.

Not only that, but how is that genocide? The Coalition troops aren't the ones committing most of the violence - it's mostly Sunni against Shiite and vice versa.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14.php?PHPSESSID=9f3806bc81b440e44…