rigorousintuition.ca

[Jeff]

Zogby Poll: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran

October 29, 2007

A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% 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%) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51%) and Republicans (44%) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71%), than Democrats (41%) or independents (44%). 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%) are more likely than men (48%) 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% would most like to see New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the country, while 15% would prefer former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and 14% would want Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain in charge. Another 10% said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would be best equipped to deal with Iran, while Republican Fred Thompson (5%), Democrat John Edwards (4%) and Republican Mitt Romney (3%) 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% saying she is best equipped to deal with Iran, while 17% would prefer Obama and 7% view John Edwards as the best choice. Giuliani is the top choice of Republicans (28%), followed by McCain (21%) and Fred Thompson (9%). One in five independents chose Clinton (21%) over McCain (16%) and Giuliani (11%). Clinton was the top choice among women (24%), while 14% would be more confident with Giuliani in the White House and 11% would prefer McCain. Men slightly prefer McCain (18%) to Clinton (17%) on this issue, while 15% 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% 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% would favor a strike before the end of President Bush’s term. Another 29% said the U.S. should not attack Iran, and 20% were unsure. The view that Iran should not be attacked by the U.S. is strongest among Democrats (37%) and independents, but fewer than half as many Republicans (15%) feel the same. But Republicans are also more likely to be uncertain on the issue (28%).

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

link

[FourthBase]

That's it. I'm going to seriously try to leave the country. For good.
_________________
"Is there no other way the world may live?" - Dwight Eisenhower
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=13979

[slow_dazzle]

Sigh..."There's no use in trying to deal with the dying"
_________________
On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

John Perry Barlow - A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace

[vigilant]

Appears that television sets all over the nation are working just fine, as intended....the chum is rolling out of the bait can just fine it appears...also interesting that Ron Paul was no where in the poll considering the surge in his financial contributions...wonder how the questions were structured in the poll?
_________________
The whole world is a stage...will somebody turn the lights on please?....I have to go bang my head against the wall for a while and assimilate....

[11:11]

[StarmanSkye]

Fourth Base: Good Luck. I wish I could too, but I'm stuck.

I'm just too disgusted for words -- I never expected more people would be for such an absolutely assinine, horrific idea as attacking yet another nation on specious pretext than on remaining in Iraq. God DAMN but they are such fools to be so easily scammed by the lying frauds. Iran is the size of Connecticut with the military budget of Sweden -- How is it a threat to ANYONE?? As if the slightest hostile act against Israel wouldn't result in a swift, overwhelming retaliation -- likely nuclear.

As it is, Russia may well be compelled to make good on its defense claim on Iran's behalf. Besides the utter catastrophe the US would cause in world relations.

I'm afraid none of the Presidential candidates (with the possible exception of Kucinich, but he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected anyway) are worth a damn, and are way too compromised or part of the corrupt system to change the US's greedy warmongering oil-and-blood-soaked agenda.

Such stupid, reckless, childish madness ...

In light of this poll, the following report on a Washington scheme to bribe Arab leaders with the promise of a Palestinian 'state' in exchange for their going-along with an American attack on Iran takes on a sudden, portentious meaning. (NOTE: It's a worldnetdaily source -- I'm not familiar with it, saw the article on a newsgroup, dunno how credible it is.) Certainly the Bush gang and their sycophantic talking heads aren't letting up on their threats and rabble rousing rhetoric.

IDiots.
*****
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58350

NUCLEAR WAR-FEAR
'U.S. to strike Iran' if diplomacy fails
Intel official says Washington promoting Palestinian state to pay for Arab
support

By Aaron Klein
) 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


A senior Palestinian intelligence official said that based on
meetings with American diplomats he "understood" the U.S. plans to target Iran's suspected nuclear installations in two to three months if negotiations with Tehran don't generate a major breakthrough.


The official, speaking to WND yesterday on condition of anonymity, said
according to what he "understood," the U.S. will "pay" for Arab support for a U.S. strike against Iran by creating a temporary Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and most of the West Bank by next summer.


The official met last week with U.S. secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
during her trip here earlier this month to prepare for a U.S.-sponsored
Israeli-Palestinian summit slated for next month in which Israel is expected to outline a future Palestinian state in most of the West Bank.


Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in recent weeks hinted at willingness to give away sections of Jerusalem.


The Palestinian intelligence official would not say if he was basing his
information on any specific statements by U.S. officials that a military
operation against Iran was in the works.


"It's based on what I understood from the Americans," he told WND.


His statements come as the Bush administration today imposed a series of new sanctions on Iran, accusing the country of an illicit nuclear program and supporting terrorism throughout the Middle East.


The sanctions specifically single out the elite al-Quds division of Iran's
Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terror entity guilty of weapons proliferation and aiding terrorism, including attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq and aid to Palestinian terror groups and the Lebanese Hezbollah militia.


The U.S. has made it illegal to do business with the Guard, the most powerful arm of Iran's fighting forces.


Rice yesterday announced the sanctions were part of "a comprehensive policy to confront the threatening behavior of the Iranians."


She repeated twice in a prepared statement that Washington remained committed to a "diplomatic solution" rather than military action, but U.S. officials have told the media in recent weeks Bush has not taken the military option off the table.


Iran denies it is engaged in illicit nuclear activities or that it is seeking
nuclear weapons.


The sanctions follow the resignation last week of chief Iranian nuclear
negotiator Ali Larijani, a move widely interpreted as a hardening of Iran's
stance regarding U.S. and international negotiations.

[11:11]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HD9nO0c328

[vigilant]

I also find it interesting that considering the percentage of people that want the soldiers out of Iraq is so high, that they would be so ready to evacuate Iraq and rush right into Iran. This tells me that it isn't "war" specifically that people are sick of as it pertains to Iraq. This tells me that the "opinion shapers" have a firm grasp on the population.
_________________
The whole world is a stage...will somebody turn the lights on please?....I have to go bang my head against the wall for a while and assimilate....

[11:11]

Or that the polls are rigged by the controllers.

[slow_dazzle]

11:11 - I nearly included a comment about that in my reply to the OP.

Why is a poll like this being carried out NOW and WHY are the results being publicised?

Psyop?
_________________
On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

John Perry Barlow - A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace

[judasdisney]

FourthBase wrote:

[chillin]

[11:11]

[chiggerbit]

Sweet Jesus, 41% of Dems, too? I find that hard to believe. Well, maybe not. But to see such high numbers supporting Hillary, who claims to have been duped into supporting the Authorization to Use Military Force in the first place, yet now voting for the Kyle-Lieberman amendment, makes me sick all the way to the bottom of my bowels.

[Sepka]

What alternative is left? Diplomacy has failed completely. Sanctions are being undercut by the Russians.
_________________
- Sepka the Space Weasel

One Furry Mofo!