Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

57% back a hit on Iran if defiance persists
LA Times ^ | 27 Jan 2006 | Greg Miller

Posted on 01/27/2006 8:00:41 AM PST by robowombat

57% back a hit on Iran if defiance persists Fri. 27 Jan 2006 Los Angeles Times

The war has not diminished Americans' support for military action against Iraq's neighbor if nuclear pursuits aren't dropped.

By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer

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.

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

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iran; irannukes; nationalsecurity; next; poll; pollsoniran
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

1 posted on 01/27/2006 8:00:42 AM PST by robowombat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: robowombat

This is priceless. Priceless.


2 posted on 01/27/2006 8:01:51 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

Well, I wonder is Mr. Schumer has seen this poll. After all, he and his colleagues reside in the "mainstream" of American thought and customs, don't they?


3 posted on 01/27/2006 8:02:16 AM PST by RexBeach ("There is no substitute for victory." -Douglas MacArthur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

Those that opposed the invasion in Iraq have to consider what our position would today if we had to move on Iran with Sadaam Hussein still in power.


4 posted on 01/27/2006 8:03:36 AM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1566014/posts
5 posted on 01/27/2006 8:04:57 AM PST by oxcart (Remember Bush lied.......People DYED... THEIR FINGERS! (M. Steyn))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

Right... the Democrats will be for the strike before they're against it.


6 posted on 01/27/2006 8:06:15 AM PST by Lexington Green (I'd rather have Jihadis in front of me than Democrats behind me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

Moving on to more important matters, we now know exactly where the blood spatters were in the cruise ship cabin of the missing fiance


7 posted on 01/27/2006 8:07:21 AM PST by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
Those that opposed the invasion in Iraq have to consider what our position would today if we had to move on Iran with Saddam Hussein still in power.

But that would require thinking, which is a terrible burden on those that have eschewed thinking for feeling.

8 posted on 01/27/2006 8:07:26 AM PST by A message
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: paul51

update: newly wed


9 posted on 01/27/2006 8:08:21 AM PST by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

I am starting to have faith in Americans again.


10 posted on 01/27/2006 8:09:06 AM PST by SF Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SF Republican

you mean 57% of them


11 posted on 01/27/2006 8:10:20 AM PST by Flavius (Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
57% now. I would like to know what the percentage would be after the shooting starts? I believe that only 35% of Americans are true Patriots! I would guess that we would have no more than 45% of the American people backing our forces once the bombs start to fall.
12 posted on 01/27/2006 8:10:43 AM PST by 2001convSVT ("People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
Freepers who went on about Americans not supporting military action please take note. I suspect there have been very few times in our history when Americans did not support war at the time it is initiated. And this one is still just in the run up.

What the American people would like to see is a total conquest of the Iranian regime. Americans view Iran (and probably Saudi Arabia) as the source of Islamic terrorism and fundamentalism.

If you want to calm Iraq and most of the Middle East, neutralize Iran and Syria.

13 posted on 01/27/2006 8:14:53 AM PST by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
A right to nukes

The recent call for sanctions against Iran in reaction to its restarted nuclear program is incredibly hypocritical (Jan. 23). Why are the United States, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom allowed to possess nuclear energy while Iran is denied the same right? I understand the fear that Iran might produce nuclear weapons, yet all the nations seeking sanctions against Iran possess nuclear weapons of their own. If we are going to demand that Iran not have a nuclear weapons program, we should dismantle our nuclear arsenal as well.

If we are so concerned about nuclear weapons in the Middle East, why have we rejected the Egyptian and Saudi call "that the whole Middle East - including Israel - be declared a nuclear-free zone" (Jan. 17)? Is it any surprise that Iran would want to develop nuclear weapons when Israel possesses such weapons and is capable of reaching Iran with them?

If we want to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weaponry, the first step is to disarm the nuclear arsenals of the nations Iran most fears - Israel and the United States.

Ross Kleinstuber Newark, Del.

From a letter to the editor in the Philadelphia Inquirer. I wonder how many letters they had to sift through to get to one that echos their view.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/13721979.htm

14 posted on 01/27/2006 8:14:58 AM PST by sportutegrl (People who say, "All I know is . . ." really mean, "All I want you to focus on is . . .")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl
The language of the letter in the Philly chessewrapper signed by Mr. Kleinsturbater appears to be almost word for word the same text I have seen printer here from a private investment tip paper and from another'opinion' piece in another rag which I cannot recall its name. These bilge is coming from some liberal sewage dissemination site. Anti-war.com perhaps?
15 posted on 01/27/2006 8:19:16 AM PST by robowombat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: paul51

But have they confirmed that it's Smith's blood??


16 posted on 01/27/2006 8:23:35 AM PST by sarasota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl

Ross Kleinstuber lives in a make-believe world. Idealism over realism is, in effect, the quickest route to failure.


17 posted on 01/27/2006 8:24:09 AM PST by L98Fiero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
some respondents said they believed Iran posed a more serious threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq did.

I think we all know that Saddam's Iraq would be right where Iran is today if he had not been toppled.

57% would support military action against Iran? Today? Well, we also know just about how far that percentage would drop when the going got tough. The weaklings would come out of the woodwork again.

18 posted on 01/27/2006 8:30:29 AM PST by daybreakcoming (May God bless those who enter the valley of the shadow of death so that we may see the light of day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarasota
But have they confirmed that it's Smith's blood??

That question is good for another 30 shows

19 posted on 01/27/2006 8:39:39 AM PST by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
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..........

Thanks to the left-wing media and the Democrats, half of the American public has no stomach for a ground war.

However, most of America still LOVES a good air war.


20 posted on 01/27/2006 8:44:31 AM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson