Divided on Iran [48% Support Taking Military Action]

Newsday ^ | April 13, 2006 | CRAIG GORDON

[West Coast Conservative]

As a growing chorus of former generals criticizes the Iraq war and fresh questions emerge over flawed intelligence, a new poll shows that nearly half the U.S. public supports a possible military strike to stop Iran's nuclear program but most don't trust President George W. Bush to lead it.

The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll suggests many Americans are worried about the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran. At the same time, a majority doubted Bush's ability to make the right decision about whether to go to war with Iran -- a reflection of the public's growing lack of confidence in Bush's leadership in national security, once his strongest suit.

Such misgivings could dramatically complicate Bush's ability to rally the nation behind a possible confrontration with Iran, but Bush insists he is pursuing diplomacy to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Iran announced Tuesday it had enriched uranium to new levels for the first time, crossing a significant threshold needed in the production of nuclear weapons, which Iran denies it is seeking.

Yet many Americans believe that is a foregone conclusion, with six in 10 saying Iran eventually will get a nuclear weapon.

Nearly half of all respondents -- 48 percent -- say they would support taking military action against Iran if it continues to produce material that can be used for nuclear weapons. But the country appeared divided on the issue, as four in 10 oppose it.

The poll of 1,357 respondents was taken from April 8 to April 11 and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.

[LibLieSlayer]

"The poll of 1,357 respondents"

I guess this means they surveyed anyone that they could find to answer the phone. 17 year old girls, drunk housekeepers, hippies in berkley, all of hildeabeast's donor list etc.

Bullsh!t article. References retired dim 2 Star Generals who Rummy booted out because they couldn't or wouldn't get with the 21 Century Military plan, and Bogus (now Rescinded and Corrected misstatements in Fitzgerald's case reports) concerning intel. Like I said, 100% pure bovine excrement!

LLS

[Tzimisce]

...Iran will soon be able to make a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, diplomats are eating lunch in exotic locations and trying to talk them out of it (like they'll listen.)

Hope you have a good night sleep tonight. :)

[no dems]

48% Support taking military action.

Oh yeah. Just what we need, another war when people are already sick of the one we're in.

[america-rules]

The press is so full of crap. Polls don't mean anything until blood starts to spill and if you go back to the Clinton years 60% of the military did not agree what he did't 95% of the time.

Also, did you see Chris Mathews on leno the other night where he said President Bush said "Iraq had nukes" so that's why we went in and Leno didn't challenge him on it !

[FreedomNeocon]

Well at first they did likely voters... but that didn't work.

Then they went with registered voters... and that didn't work.

Then they went with 'adults'... and that didn't work.

So now they do 'respondents'... just as you said.

[familyop]

"Nearly half of all respondents -- 48 percent -- say they would support taking military action against Iran if it continues to produce material that can be used for nuclear weapons."

Q: If we allow Iran to continue building nuclear weapons and to launch on our northeastern cities in a few years, how many will support military action then?

A: ...depends on how strong and tight the new eastern Axis becomes in absence of any US military presence in Asia or eastern Europe between now and then. Because surely, we won't keep any bases or posts within range of an Iranian nuclear arsenal.

[familyop]

"Oh yeah. Just what we need, another war when people are already sick of the one we're in."

..."people" like those behind the Washington Post stories?

White House Demands Apology for 'Labs' Scoop
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1614162/posts

Washington Post Deception Rears Its Ugly Head (again)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1613838/posts

[SR 50]

For now, I'm in favor of other countries taking on the FIGHT in Iran. We'll keep Afghanistan and Iraq and let other countries take on Iran. It would be in their best interest to do something quickly.

As long as the US says we'll get involved, the others set back and do nothing. I think it's time to give it to the UN. If they fail to act this time, then leave it alone.

The US has gotten involved to early in others conflicts with little or no support from other wealthy nations.

It's time for the US to take care of it's own problems for a change.

[dk/coro]

I cannot accept your proposition.

One way or another, the Iranian situation will be resolved long before such events as you suggest could possible occur.

Iraq is nothing more than our prime line of defense against Islamist terror -- and Iranian incursion; and even the most Liberal elements of our National Leadership -- once the responsibility is placed squarely upon their shoulders -- would have to accede to the old dictum:

"Better There than Here!"

I submit that we will have conducted aerial strikes against Iran before the year is out. Bush will not duck this issue. Time is not on our side.

[dk/coro]

Wow! What brand are you smoking?

Ludicrous rationale; and totally irresponsible in the extreme. What planet have you been living on?

If you just came into the forum to toss a grenade or two --fine. Just head back into your cave and enjoy your Easter Egg Hunt.

[napscoordinator]

President Bush and his staff said yesterday that no military action was eminent at this time so why poll? Sometimes I am amazed by what I read in the media.

[napscoordinator]

Also, did you see Chris Mathews on leno the other night where he said President Bush said "Iraq had nukes" so that's why we went in and Leno didn't challenge him on it !


Leno probably thought to himself why waste my time and the viewers time with rebuttle questions that will contain lies anyway.

[JasonC]

Oh, and a country that hates us and sits next to 40% of the world's oil and is run by fanatical Islamic dictators isn't a problem of our own?

Dream on, schoolkids. You will remain remotely safe, remotely well off, and remotely free only if we triumph unambiguously over all our enemies. It isn't optional. Try to opt out, your world will dissolve faster than you can say Jack.

[familyop]

"I cannot accept your proposition."

You called my comment #7 a "proposition." Was there some anger behind your use of that word? Losing a war is unthinkable for leaders of soldiers but not for spoiled, couch-potato readers of convincing political speech. Discouraged/anti-defense Americans need to know as to what can happen, if we allow ourselves to be demoralized or apathetic in the current war against terrorism. The scenario in my previous comment could result from a recurrence of too much Vietnam Era thinking (re. the "pullout" trend of the latter half) in our country.

"Iraq is nothing more than our prime line of defense against Islamist terror -- and Iranian incursion;..."

Iraq is a magnet for incursion fed by Iran's (so far) intact ground forces. Shouldn't Iran's ground forces be put down to the point of demoralization in order to stop the incursions?

"...and even the most Liberal elements of our National Leadership -- once the responsibility is placed squarely upon their shoulders -- would have to accede to the old dictum:
'Better There than Here!'"

Democrats would likely submit to a long cold war situation, if Iran manages to build a nuclear arsenal. Democrats are more likely to build a very large US military with antiquated equipment after it's too late to use a smaller military with newer equipment. See Democrat opposition against funding some of our more recent defense technologies.

"I submit that we will have conducted aerial strikes against Iran before the year is out. Bush will not duck this issue. Time is not on our side."

I agree on the need for that and will continue to do what little that I can do to support it and more ("more," as in stopping the source of the incursion from Iran). Informed (even if frightened) voters are more helpful to defense than ignorant, nihilistic ones.

[Joe Boucher]

And the other 52% want to simply wait for Iran to nuke Israel then us.

[Loyal Buckeye]

I'm surprised support is as high as 48%.

[DustyMoment]

Can anything demonstrate more starkly, the schism between the American public and the MSM than this?? On the one hand, we have Bush with plummeting poll numbers over Iraq and, yet, according to this poll, nearly half of the Americans polled think we need to contain Iran!!

We have been subjected to months of "news" coverage over flawed intelligence that lead to the Iraq War and the whole "Bush lied" crapola. Then we have this that shows almost half of Americans believe that we should take some sort of action against Iraq's neighbor.

Is it just too little coffee this morning, or is there a major disconnect between what the MSM tells us and what most Americans already know??

[LibLieSlayer]

We have tried it that way.... didn't work out too well... pesky WWII and Japan!

LLS

[trebb]

It's not a matter of "needing" another war when folks are tired of hearing the left-wing version of the current war, it's a matter of understanding just how dire the threat will be if/when Iran actually fields a nuke.