57% back a hit on Iran if defiance persists

phoenix80

phoenix80

Banned
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 ...
 
The amazing thing is how much support Bush had for war with Iraq, didn't it peak at like 70%!? That's an even higher percentage than the number of Americans who supported war with Japan AFTER Pearl Harbor. (exaggeration.)
 
Damien435 said:
The amazing thing is how much support Bush had for war with Iraq, didn't it peak at like 70%!? That's an even higher percentage than the number of Americans who supported war with Japan AFTER Pearl Harbor. (exaggeration.)
Click to expand...

Not sure of the % of support he had. How do you think Americans and the world will react if we go into Iran? Popularity will soon drop just like it did with Iraq. People will start to cry foul as soon as the first thing goes wrong.
 
Yes, but this time if we do it with the Europeans (or just tell them that they can deal with this one.) then we only have to worry about the democrats condemning our actions, not the rest of the world also.
 
Bushwahhhhh!

Damien435 said:
Yes, but this time if we do it with the Europeans (or just tell them that they can deal with this one.) then we only have to worry about the democrats condemning our actions, not the rest of the world also.
Click to expand...

Why is it that Bushites go into attack mode every time that any questions are asked about the reasons for the invasion of Iraq?

I have voted almost every party that has existed for the last 40 years. I didn't question Bush's reasons for the invasion until reports began to circulate that 'just maybe' the reasons that were used for justification were not panning out.

Leaving party leanings out of the equation, if and when Iran is invaded, the reasons will definitely be questioned this time because Bush's track record mandates that justification be backed up by more than just Bush saying he is justified in his decision.

You will notice that I DID NOT comdem your actions for making this post - you have a right to your belief and I have a right for mine.

I just believe you can only get away with calling WOLF one time and then people will begin to question your honesty.
 
See I have a rather polarized view of the world, Saddam was an evil son of a :cen: who was killing his own people and needed to removed from office. That Bush had to put the fear of imminent death into America to get us to do, what is in my opinion, the right thing to do is a sad statement about America.

And for the record, I still believe that Saddam did have WMD's, but for all the things he might be he is not stupid, he probably figured out that to use them would condemn himself to death but if he hid them then there would constantly be this talk of "Did he or didn't he?" which would in the end probably help in if/when he was captured because the answer to that question would probably have to be answered first before he could be put on trial.
 
Like I have said before and will say again in the future. To paint a picture you not only need to see what IS there but what is NOT there to get the whole picture.

If someone said they were going to come to your house and kill you, your family, and burn your house down, and seem capable and willing to do so are you going to wait for them to do it?

Iran represents or will represent a very real threat if they ever do develop a modern nuclear weapons program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top