1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Zogby: Majority Favor Strikes on Iran

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by trickblue, Oct 30, 2007.

  1. trickblue

    trickblue Old Testament... Zone Supporter

    28,940 Messages
    356 Likes Received
    Interesting...

    Zogby: Majority Favor Strikes on Iran

    A majority of likely voters - 52 percent - would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53 percent believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.

    The survey results come at a time of increasing U.S. scrutiny of Iran. According to reports from the Associated Press, earlier this month Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program and Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of "serious consequences" if the U.S. were to discover Iran was attempting to devolop a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration also announced new sanctions against Iran.

    Democrats (63 percent) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51 percent) and Republicans (44 percent) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71 percent), than Democrats (41 percent) or independents (44 percent). Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election and women (58 percent) are more likely than men (48 percent) to say the same – but there is little difference in support for a U.S. strike against Iran among these groups.

    When asked which presidential candidate would be best equipped to deal with Iran – regardless of whether or not they expected the U.S. to attack Iran – 21 percent would most like to see New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the country, while 15 percent would prefer former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and 14 percent would want Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain in charge. Another 10 percent said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would be best equipped to deal with Iran, while Republican Fred Thompson (5 percent), Democrat John Edwards (4 percent) and Republican Mitt Romney (3 percent) were less likely to be viewed as the best leaders to help the U.S. deal with Iran. The telephone poll of 1,028 likely voters nationwide was conducted Oct. 24-27, 2007 and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

    Clinton leads strongly among Democrats on the issue, with 35 percent saying she is best equipped to deal with Iran, while 17 percent would prefer Obama and 7 percent view John Edwards as the best choice. Giuliani is the top choice of Republicans (28 percent), followed by McCain (21 percent) and Fred Thompson (9 percent). One in five independents chose Clinton (21 percent) over McCain (16 percent) and Giuliani (11 percent). Clinton was the top choice among women (24 percent), while 14 percent would be more confident with Giuliani in the White House and 11 percent would prefer McCain. Men slightly prefer McCain (18 percent) to Clinton (17 percent) on this issue, while 15 percent said Giuliani is best equipped to deal with Iran. The survey also shows there is a significant amount of uncertainty if any of the long list of declared candidates would be best equipped to deal the Iran – 19 percent overall said they weren’t sure which candidate to choose.

    There is considerable division about when a strike on Iran should take place – if at all. Twenty-eight percent believe the U.S. should wait to strike until after the next president is in office while 23 percent would favor a strike before the end of President Bush’s term. Another 29 percent said the U.S. should not attack Iran, and 20 percent were unsure. The view that Iran should not be attacked by the U.S. is strongest among Democrats (37 percent) and independents, but fewer than half as many Republicans (15 percent) feel the same. But Republicans are also more likely to be uncertain on the issue (28 percent).

    As the possibility the U.S. my strike Iran captures headlines around the world, many have given thought to the possibility of an attack at home. Two in three (68 percent) believe it is likely that the U.S. will suffer another significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil comparable to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 – of those, 27 percent believe such an attack is very likely. Nearly one in three (31 percent) believe the next significant attack will occur between one and three years from now, 22 percent said they believe the next attack is between three and five years away, and 15 percent said they don’t think the U.S. will be attacked on U.S. soil for at least five years or longer. Just 9 percent believe a significant terrorist attack will take place in the U.S. before the next presidential election.
  2. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Bad Santa Staff Member

    61,243 Messages
    4,572 Likes Received
    Let Israel do it...I think they have some exp in that area.
  3. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    78,457 Messages
    3,772 Likes Received
    They will if we don't and with good cause, they know who the 1st target would be.
  4. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed...part 2 Zone Supporter

    28,339 Messages
    1,362 Likes Received
    that's my thought. just tell them we don't care what they do, just protect yourself from the obvious threats iran has offered.

    on the flip side, a majority favored invading iraq also. we're a fickle bunch when it's not easy or over by the nightly news.
  5. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed...part 2 Zone Supporter

    28,339 Messages
    1,362 Likes Received
    damn skippy. iran has already said they'll nuke israel as soon as they can. the US has a "oh you're kidding" policy which is stupid with proven fanaticals.
  6. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    I think if Israel does it, we completely lose whatever ground we've gained with countries like Egypt and Lebanon, etc.

    The threat hasn't cowed Iran, so it seems the last resort just might have to be force, but most Americans favoring it, does not mean it's the best course of action.

    It'd be best not to happen with this administration, because this administration is obviously lacking in the handling of such things.
  7. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    On the public surface, maybe, but not in reality. America has positioned itself to completely ruin Iran militarily.
  8. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Lost in the Woods

    4,524 Messages
    182 Likes Received
    Stop the insanity.
  9. zrinkill

    zrinkill Diamond surrounded by trash

    33,048 Messages
    793 Likes Received
    The minute anyone really thinks Iran has nuclear weapons ..... Israel will bomb them.

    Its really that simple.

    The U.S. is the best friend Iran has right now ...... and they do not even know it.
  10. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    19,903 Messages
    1,496 Likes Received
    As soon as an Iranian nuke heads toward Isreal we blow it out of the sky then let loose with our own.

    We don't need pre-emptive strikes.

    Reagen might have ended up very mentally diminished as President but not all his policies failed.

    I say send Rambo and Chuck Norris into Iran to get the head cleric in charge. :laugh2:
  11. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    19,903 Messages
    1,496 Likes Received
    Thats what that base in Iraq is all about.

    If they do anything we hit them so hard they go back into the middle ages; where they pretty much reside religiously now anyways.
  12. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed...part 2 Zone Supporter

    28,339 Messages
    1,362 Likes Received
    funny how things can turn, huh? bush used whatever excuse he had to apparantely to get into iraq, afganastan was easy. he named iran at the time on the axis of evil and yea, we took the "low hanging fruit" per se and now iran *is* surrounded.

    they've got a problem they're not even fully aware of i'd bet.

    vta - you say not to let bush do it cause of past mistakes, who would you want in charge when bush steps down to finish this fight?
  13. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed...part 2 Zone Supporter

    28,339 Messages
    1,362 Likes Received
    and if we stop, what will iran do? if we just pack up, go home and pretend the world loves each other in blissful harmony, what in the name of god will iran do?

    follow through on what they said they'd do. nuke israel and we'd not be far behind.

    the world is an evil place sassy. the old head in the sand sing kumbaya just doesn't work outside of fiction.
  14. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,830 Messages
    1,683 Likes Received
    amazing how many "useful fools" (as Lenin called them) are around who actually think nice words will deter fanatics.
  15. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    78,457 Messages
    3,772 Likes Received
    I agree. It is easy to sit there and say make love and not war and all this other non-sense then there is the real world and you have a country in Iran that has made it perfectly clear what their intentions are in regards to Israel. They want them wiped out and nothing short of that will ever be acceptable. Israel takes a hell of a lot of blame for their actions because they retaliate but then they are surrounded by those who would wipe them out if not for the US and the fire power Israel has because of the US. Israel has been able to negotiate peace with countries like Egypt and Jordan over land disputes and I do think they want the same with Palestine but it is hard when you’re under constant attack. So yes if I'm in the shoes of Israel I'll do whatever I have to too make sure Iran does not get nuclear weapons
  16. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    Regardless of what I want, the next President is either Hilary or Rudy.
    I don't trust Hilary to be a wartime President; I know Rudy can be ruthless and would handle it better.

    I like Rudy, I like what he did to NYC and organized crime, and he can run an administration. Will that make him a competent President overall? Not necessarily, but given that I really believe that these are the only two valid choices, I'd rather it be Rudy handling this situation. Hilary would make a good President in a time when there is no war.

    As for Iran, they're well aware of the American military's where about's. That's why all the sabre rattling since 2003; a cornered rat will always bear it's teeth.
  17. Mavs Man

    Mavs Man All outta bubble gum

    4,668 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    That's what I've been saying all along. Make it a reality show or release it in theaters, use tickets/advertising sales to help balance the budget, and it's over in 100 minutes or less. Depending on how long the credits run. :D
  18. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Lost in the Woods

    4,524 Messages
    182 Likes Received
    If Iran were to attack Israel, the response would be swift and overwhelming. Not only that, but since there would actually be legitimate grounds for the assault, there would be the requisite political support to do the job properly.

    It's called deterrence, I believe.
  19. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    Swift and overwhelming by whom? I think youre affording too much credit to most nations. It was evident when Hezbollah (Iran, in reality) crossed the border to kill a few soldiers and kidnap others, that the response was anything but.

    The only response was to condemn Israel in the face of retaliation against a foe who hides behind civilians.
  20. zrinkill

    zrinkill Diamond surrounded by trash

    33,048 Messages
    793 Likes Received
    :bow:

Share This Page