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. Posted on 01/27/2006 2:01:22 AM PST by M. Espinola
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.
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.
graphics added
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Persists? Why wait?
iran is like a drunk driver approaching a sobriety checkpoint. i just hope our idiots in some capacity of power have a plan that seizes the oil fields concurrent with the first strikes.
The air attacks against Saddam's military installations, much of which carried out with precision high-tech weapons, were practice for Iran, a desperate jihad instigating OPEC member state, a rogue nation surrounded.
I'm sure they do. Just as in our invasion of Iraq, the first order of business was to send the Seals and GROM to secure the oil loading platforms and land-based oil pumping stations.
We won't be waiting too much longer. The enemy only have themselves to blame for their upcoming defeat.
Most striking thing here is this is coming from the L.A.Times,(piece of crap liberal rag that it is.
Polls always seem legitimate, when they say what people want to hear.
Check this out:
Neo-Nazis' passports may be frozen
Jan 26, 2006
ASSOCIATED PRESS
A senior German security official proposed Wednesday temporarily pulling the passports of neo-Nazis intending to participate in an Iranian conference on the Holocaust.
Guenther Beckstein, the interior minister of Bavaria, suggested that local authorities temporarily revoke the passports of right-wing extremists known to have expressed interest in participating in the conference in an effort to prevent them from traveling.
"It would massively damage Germany's image if German citizens (took part) in Iran to deny the Holocaust or the right of Israel to exist," said Beckstein, a member of the conservative Christian Social Union, sister party to Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union.
He called on the German government to take a stand on the issue, after the Iranian foreign ministry indicated some Germans had expressed interest in attending.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for the conference earlier this month, the latest step in his campaign against Israel. He has already called the Nazis' World War II slaughter of European Jews a "myth" and said the Jewish state should be wiped off the map or moved to Germany or the United States.
Newsflash: 100% of critics who said Iran was a bigger threat than Iraq now say never mind, Iran isn't a threat either.
The Left will sellout to anyone as we witnessed with Saddam.
I remember posting along these lines before the invasion of Iraq, expressing concern for the disposition of oil, the lodgment of military basis, the raising up of Iraqi military forces, et cetera and the salutary effects an Americanized Iraq would have on the geopolitics of the region and ultimately for the war against terrorism.
Of course, the administration did not attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq along these lines of real politik but rather cast the war as an extension of democracy once no weapons of mass destruction were acknowledged to have been found. In today's climate, which has only intensified after an invasion of Iraq in which no weapons of mass distraction were found, the administration knows that it has absolutely no chance of carrying the Security Council, the Democrat party, world opinion, or even the Republican Party, if military action against Iran is implicated as a war for oil -and that is a very great pity.
But you are absolutely correct, any military action against Iran motivated by a real need to protect the United States against nuclear action by unbalanced religious fanatics, must also consider the implications for the worldwide distribution of petroleum and a predictable economic collapse should that supply be interdicted.
Despite the transitory poll numbers which currently seem to favor a strike, we all know that support will evaporate as soon as casualties, or prices at the pump, climb.
WEll you know the Times base is Liberal L.A., and not much effort was made to include red flyover anything.
Yeah, but EVERY poll taken AFTER President Bush decided to do it preemptively would show under 39% approval rating.
Heck, if Iran actually nuked Israel and tried but just missed nuking the USA, I'll bet that 75% of the Democrats in the country would be whining about 'Bush & Haliburton's illegal war for Iranian oil'.
Yeah, until we get there, then it just another quagmire to fill the papers with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.