• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

LA Times: 57% of Americans support military action against Iran

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

JOHNYJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
No way in Hell ! Bush and his team still haven't pacified Iraq. Who would be dumb enought to let them lead us into another war , of choice.
Iran isnt Iraq she has military capabilities.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
"............if that country continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons"

Last resort!
 

curious_

New member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
57% Americans support military action in Iran

57% Americans support military action in Iran
By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer
Published: January 27 2006 15:22 | Last updated: January 27 2006 15:22


WASHINGTON — Despite persistent disillusionment with the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans supports taking military action against Iran if that country continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The poll, conducted Sunday through Wednesday, found that 57% of Americans favor military intervention if Iran’s Islamic government pursues a program that could enable it to build nuclear arms.

Support for military action against Tehran has increased over the last year, the poll found, even though public sentiment is running against the war in neighboring Iraq: 53% said they believe the situation there was not worth going to war.

The poll results suggest that the difficulties the United States has encountered in Iraq have not turned the public against the possibility of military actions elsewhere in the Middle East.Bush ratings sink in latest poll
Click here
Support for a potential military confrontation with Iran was strongest among Republican respondents, among whom 76% endorsed the idea. But even among Democrats, who overwhelmingly oppose the war in Iraq, 49% supported such action.

In follow-up interviews, some respondents said they believed Iran posed a more serious threat than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq did.

“I really don’t think Saddam had anything to do with terrorism, but Iran, I believe, does,” said Edward Wtulich, of Goshen, N.Y. He was among the 1,555 adults who participated in this week’s survey,
which has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. “Iran has been a problem, I think, for years,” Wtulich said, “and we’ve known about it.”

Wtulich, a registered Democrat and retired manager for the New York City Housing Authority, said he supported taking a hard line with Iran despite the strain of the Iraq war on the U.S. military.

It makes me scared,” he said, “but we may not have a choice.”

Experts said the public’s views on Iran appeared to have hardened in part because of the more aggressive anti-Western posture of Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Elected last year, he has riled the international community with remarks denying the Holocaust and with declarations that Iran will defy European and U.S. pressure and continue to pursue efforts to enrich uranium.

His comments have fostered an impression of him as “very reckless, a real rogue, as opposed to simply a populist,” said political science professor John Mueller of Ohio State University, who is an authority on wartime public opinion.

Mueller said that Americans’ rising support for confronting Iran was “impressive,” especially considering their misgivings about the war in Iraq, and that their support suggested “concerns about the new president.” But he added that poll respondents are often more inclined to voice support for military intervention when the question is framed broadly and the potential for casualties is unclear.

“You always get higher support for things like ‘military action,’ because that could just mean bombing, as opposed to sending troops or going to war,” Mueller said.

Poll respondents expressed a strong preference for the United States working with allies to fight international law violations or global aggression.

Iran has insisted its nuclear program is solely for energy production. But the United States and other Western governments suspect Iran’s program is aimed at developing weapons.

European nations that have negotiated with Iran over its program want the matter referred to the United Nations Security Council. Iran has indicated it might be open to a compromise in which Russia would provide enriched uranium to Iran, for use exclusively in energy reactors.

The American public’s position on Iran appears to have hardened over the last year, a period marked by an increasing international focus on Iran’s nuclear program. When a similar question was asked in a Times poll last January, 50% favored military action against Iran.

Regarding Iraq, the latest poll shows that although most Americans remain disenchanted with the war, opinions have stabilized, at least for now. The percentage saying they believe the situation in Iraq was not worth going to war over dipped slightly, to 53%, compared with 56% in a survey a year earlier.

When asked who was winning the war in Iraq, 33% said the United States, 7% said the insurgents, and 55% said neither side was winning.

Americans remain divided over how long U.S. forces should stay in Iraq: 40% believe the United States should remain in Iraq for “as long as it takes,” 36% want U.S. troops withdrawn within a year, and 14% support immediate withdrawal.

Respondents were also divided, largely along party lines, over whether the Iraq war is really part of Washington’s war on terrorism; 51% say it is, 46% say it is not. President Bush has repeatedly cast Iraq as the central front in the war on terrorism. But many of his administration’s prewar claims about Iraq’s ties to Al Qaeda have turned out to have been overstated or based on unreliable intelligence sources.

The poll also found that 32% of Americans believed that terrorism around the world had increased because of the Iraq situation, 17% believed it had decreased, and 47% believed the problem was about the same.

This article appears by special arrangement between the LA Times and the FT http://news.ft.com/cms/s/821b8e1c-8f47-11da-b430-0000779e2340.html
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
JOHNYJ said:
No way in Hell ! Bush and his team still haven't pacified Iraq. Who would be dumb enought to let them lead us into another war , of choice.
An attack on Iran wouldn't be a war of choice. Iran has made clear its intentions to (at best) start another Cold War, and (at worst) pick up where Hitler left off.

JOHNYJ said:
Iran isnt Iraq she has military capabilities.
Well that's precisely the point...If Iran's military used swords, we wouldn't need to attack them in the first place.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Binary_Digit said:
"............if that country continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons"

Last resort!
Can you envision any circumstance where Iran suddenly has a change of heart and decides to give up its nuclear program? I certainly can't. So that reads to me like 57% of Americans support military action.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kandahar said:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...7jan27,0,5687029.story?coll=la-home-headlines


Perhaps another war wouldn't be as big of a political liability for the people calling the shots as some critics have been saying. It looks like it would give them a chance to redeem themselves for their blunders in Iraq, by going after a country that truly IS a threat.
The thing is those on the left who agreed with the war in Iraq at first are now talking about going into Iran and it will be the same thing all over again, once the going gets rough all the libs start talking about impeachment and Bush lied kids died etc etc.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The thing is those on the left who agreed with the war in Iraq at first are now talking about going into Iran and it will be the same thing all over again, once the going gets rough all the libs start talking about impeachment and Bush lied kids died etc etc.
Perhaps the president should be more concerned about the security of America, than what some partisans might say about him at some point in the future.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: 57% Americans support military action in Iran

Polls are, or at least should be, irrelevant when it comes to foreign policy decisions...

The President should make his decisions based on the interests of the country and not the popularity of those decisions...

It's actually encouraging to find a President that DOESN'T make his policies based on polls...I'd rather see someone do what's right than whats popular...

In this case, 1% or 99% may believe Iran deserves some sort of military action...These percentages do not take away nor add to the reality of the situation...
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Re: 57% Americans support military action in Iran


57% Americans support military action in Iran

Unlike the murky weapons of mass destruction pretension that impelled the Bush administration to invade Iraq, the Iranian goal of acquiring nuclear weapons is clear and unequivocal. The United States, the European Union, Russia, Israel, and the IAEA of the United Nations have assembled empirical evidence that Iran has been in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) since 2003.

The Iranian government, which is a signatory to the NPT, publicly admits its NPT non-compliance and insists that it will proceed with its goal of acquiring a nuclear weapons capability... regardless of its NPT responsibilities and the sentiment of the global international community to end nuclear weapons proliferation. The IAEA is scheduled to present Iran's NPT violations and intransigence to all diplomatic efforts in this regard to the United Nations Security Council in February.

This poll suggests to me that although support for military action is steadily increasing among American citizens... the Bush administration must still do a much better job of educating the American public about the dangers of a nuclear Iran. Clearly, along with the threat of a global health pandemic, the nuclear arming of Iran is the most pressing problem on the international stage today. With its harsh rhetoric of actually using nuclear weapons and its long history of supporting terrorism, the Iranian ruling clerics cannot be allowed to possess any weapons of mass destruction. Additionally, a nuclear armed Shi'a Iran would almost certainly compel Sunni Arab Middle East nations such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt to begin nuclear weapons programs of their own. Thus, the dangers of nuclear proliferation and nuclear warfare would increase exponentially over time.

It should also be posited that destroying the Iranian nuclear program would not necessarily entail a land invasion. This preemption could be accomplished with heavy and sustained air and cruise-missile strikes. I do not believe economic sanctions will be effective in this regard, as Iran will no doubt respond with a cessation of its oil exports... thus destabilizing the global economy.

The options here are not pretty. To imagine that Israel will act unilaterally against Iran ignores the hard truth that the IAF lacks the requisite tactical military assets to carry out an intense program of heavy and sustained attacks over a great geographical distance. Even if an Israeli preemption was feasible, it would almost certainly initiate warfare across the entire Middle East region... thus impelling a world-power intervention with significant land forces.

Like it or not, any military actions against Iran must be undertaken by an international coalition of the willing. France, Russia, and China will almost certainly oppose this, as they each have significant economic and military investments with Iran. This problem will not simply melt away however, and no doubt will get much worse before it gets better... but time is of the essence here and time is running out. Once Iran produces a fissile weapon, the nuclear genie has escaped the magic lamp and cannot ever be returned.
 

curious_

New member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: 57% Americans support military action in Iran

Although I really don’t think Saddam had much to do with terrorism, but Iran, I believe, does, a lot. Therefore, I think President George W. Bush must launch a vigorous and massive air strike campaign with the purpose of annihilating all/most WMD in Iran's possession while simultaneously undertaking a vigorous and sustained public education campaign in support and understanding of the war. I am kinda happy that President Bush is not guided by those polls and their popularity rankings and acts as a true American leader considering what is best for American people's interests.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: 57% Americans support military action in Iran

Tashah said:

57% Americans support military action in Iran

Unlike the murky weapons of mass destruction pretension that impelled the Bush administration to invade Iraq, the Iranian goal of acquiring nuclear weapons is clear and unequivocal. The United States, the European Union, Russia, Israel, and the IAEA of the United Nations have assembled empirical evidence that Iran has been in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) since 2003.

The Iranian government, which is a signatory to the NPT, publicly admits its NPT non-compliance and insists that it will proceed with its goal of acquiring a nuclear weapons capability... regardless of its NPT responsibilities and the sentiment of the global international community to end nuclear weapons proliferation. The IAEA is scheduled to present Iran's NPT violations and intransigence to all diplomatic efforts in this regard to the United Nations Security Council in February.

This poll suggests to me that although support for military action is steadily increasing among American citizens... the Bush administration must still do a much better job of educating the American public about the dangers of a nuclear Iran. Clearly, along with the threat of a global health pandemic, the nuclear arming of Iran is the most pressing problem on the international stage today. With its harsh rhetoric of actually using nuclear weapons and its long history of supporting terrorism, the Iranian ruling clerics cannot be allowed to possess any weapons of mass destruction. Additionally, a nuclear armed Shi'a Iran would almost certainly compel Sunni Arab Middle East nations such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt to begin nuclear weapons programs of their own. Thus, the dangers of nuclear proliferation and nuclear warfare would increase exponentially over time.

It should also be posited that destroying the Iranian nuclear program would not necessarily entail a land invasion. This preemption could be accomplished with heavy and sustained air and cruise-missile strikes. I do not believe economic sanctions will be effective in this regard, as Iran will no doubt respond with a cessation of its oil exports... thus destabilizing the global economy.

The options here are not pretty. To imagine that Israel will act unilaterally against Iran ignores the hard truth that the IAF lacks the requisite tactical military assets to carry out an intense program of heavy and sustained attacks over a great geographical distance. Even if an Israeli preemption was feasible, it would almost certainly initiate warfare across the entire Middle East region... thus impelling a world-power intervention with significant land forces.

Like it or not, any military actions against Iran must be undertaken by an international coalition of the willing. France, Russia, and China will almost certainly oppose this, as they each have significant economic and military investments with Iran. This problem will not simply melt away however, and no doubt will get much worse before it gets better... but time is of the essence here and time is running out. Once Iran produces a fissile weapon, the nuclear genie has escaped the magic lamp and cannot ever be returned.
Sounds like this needs to be nipped in the bud. Unless the Iranians let in weapons inspectors I don't see any alternative to a measured tactical military approach in the 1st instance. But howwould we know where to attack since the weapons developement labs must surely be in secret hidden locations. An attack would also then strengthen their resolve to be armed against the west with nuclear weapons. It will also massively increase anti western sentiments & draw many more into the ranks of terrorism. Seems like a no win situation :confused:
 
Last edited:

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
People, people, people...where are your heads?

A military stike against Iran would be the stupidest thing this nation has ever done, so I certainly wouldn't put it past Bush & company.

Here we have a president trying to support democracy in the Mid East, and when he doesn't like the results of the elections, he refuses to speak with the newly elected leaders. Brilliant strategy....doh.

It's estimated the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan will approach 2 triliion dollars! Think of what that money could've done to shore up Social Security and Medicare in this country?

And now you want another war?! Un-frigging believable! We can't hit all of Irans nuclear sites, many of which are underground and placed strategically in populated areas, so the civilian death toll will be enormous and only inflame the hatred of the entire Middle East against America.

Iran is capable of throwing the new born democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan into chaos, and with their network of sponsored terrorist groups, you can bet any attack on Iran will bring retaliatory strikes against U.S. soil.

Iran is also capable of blocking the Straits of Hormuz which will wreck the global economy and send the price of oil up over $100 a barrell!

So what's the solution?

I believe the only sane course of action is to give Iran a taste of their own medicine. Terrorism.

Iran has a very shakey government, with many groups of armed dissidents...witness the latest bombings in Iran just this past week. Why not finance these dissidents to destablize this shakey government through strategic bombings...creating unrest and dissatisfaction among their own people. All of this could be accomplished at a fraction of the cost of an all out direct assualt.

57%...yeah, right...57% idiots....and probably alot of evangelical Christians who have lost their way, and are not following the teachings of Christ, and truely believe Bush walks on water.

God help our nation...January 20th, 2009 can't come soon enough.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hoot said:
January 20th, 2009 can't come soon enough.
Good point. I can't make up my mind between Rudy Guliani, Bill Frist, Condi Rice or Jeb Bush. :2wave:
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
KCConservative said:
Good point. I can't make up my mind between Rudy Guliani, Bill Frist, Condi Rice or Jeb Bush. :2wave:
Dream on. Of course...with someone of the caliber of Bush gaining the White House, I suppose anyone could be president?

Hey...at least I try to offer solutions to problems like Iran, instead of just shooting my mouth off about my disatisfaction with Bush.
 

ptsdkid

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
1,704
Reaction score
10
Location
New Hampshire
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
KCConservative said:
Good point. I can't make up my mind between Rudy Guliani, Bill Frist, Condi Rice or Jeb Bush. :2wave:

**Lets not forget Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, George Allen and Mitt Romney.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
....and once again...the fickle American public calls out for support to send their troops over to die for them. After a few deaths and the "Global Left" start parading around civillian deaths, the fickle American public will demand a pull out with the notion that they "support the troop."

And why would I say such a thing? Let's see......
Korea
Vietnam
Beirut
Somalia
Bosnia
Afghanistan
Iraq

From "Baby killers" to "hapless victims of American imperialism," the military never tires of being tossed around as Americas play toys.

I love American polls.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom