It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Only 7% Support Taking Military Action Against Iran: Poll

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Only 7% Support Taking Military Action Against Iran: Poll


thinkprogress.org

According to a new poll from Public Agenda, nearly 50 percent of those who follow the situation in Iran say “the one” best way to deal with Iran is through using diplomacy “to establish better relations.” Only five percent favor threatening military action, down from nine percent in fall 2007. Seven percent support taking military action:

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
And that 7% constists of The Decider, McSame, Insaney and John Bolton....Oh, and the handfull of war-mongers from this site.


Must say, this gives me a little bit of hope for the populace--It doesn't appear they are guzzling the brainwashing kool-aid as freely this time around as last.

But nothing another false flag won't take care of eh, oh greedy war-profiteers!

thinkprogress.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 5-6-2008 by DimensionalDetective]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
But will this 93% stand up and protest an attack on Iran if it appears inevitable or occurs? Will we see the kind of civil disobedience that culminated as a result of the Vietnam war? Will the Media get into Iran and show the images of dead childern that so shocked the American people?

Pleas please don't attack Iran!!!



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
No one could be happier with that poll than the Mullah's and Amedenajad.
I posted this before, but you have to pose the question...and answer it for me if you will. Does Amadenajad mean what he says AND is he capable of doing it?
If you answer yes to both parts, well than you have to be a fool to take military action off the table.
If you answer no, to even just one part, well then, you have every right to be pissed off at the saber rattling or rumors of it from this Administration and the hawks.
What is your answer to my question?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Really? That many?

Well I guess that accounts for most of the Republican party then.


Or what's left of them anyway.

To paraphrase mush loosebowels... we should keep some (conservative Republicans) around in a zoo or museum someplace so people can be reminded what they were.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Alot of what the President of Iran has said has been misconstewed or misquoted. For example he said that the Administration in Israel will be wiped off the map, not Israel itself. There are alot of players in the Iranian political scene and the President by no means holds all the power, with like you say the Ayatollah . There are also many moderate politicans within Iran, and Ahamdinajad is projected to have problems in the upcoming Iranian General Election.

I don't believe even if Iran is developing Nuclear weapons (which there is absoloutely no evidence of) They would not use it against Israel, and to even consider that it would be used against America is so out there it is beyond belief. America and Israel must negotiate with it's so called enemy Iran not intimidate threaten or attack. So in answer to your question any sabre rattling is wrong even if it becomes evident Iran is devloping nuclear weapons.

If America does, as is rumoured, attack or back an attack by Israel the Iranian's could launch an attack on the Aircraft carriers in the Gulf which they are more than capable of sinking. If just 1 is sunk, American power is massively weakened as these are what they use to project their military power across the globe. Are you and the American elite willing to risk that?

Stand up America, Stand up for yourself and the world.


[edit on 5-6-2008 by Peruvianmonk]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Does Amadenajad mean what he says AND is he capable of doing it?


The thing is, he hasn't really said anything other than the usual rhetoric. He said the Zionist regime in Isreal will disappear from the pages of time, called them a stinking corpse, said the regime's days are numbered. Big deal. He hasn't ever mentioned military action against Israel. Right?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe
 


Exactly. Rhetoric like that appeals to the more radical elements of the Iranian theroacy and government, with most Iranians just looking to get on with their lives. Israel is the one threatening Iran with nuclear attack along with the one-time presidential nominee Hilary Clinton concluding that she would obliterate Iran if they did what they have never threatened, attack Israel.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by Peruvianmonk]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
guys,
Are you really defending Amadenajad's rhetoric as not being fairly clear of what he would like to do to Israel? Now, if you think Bush isn't clear with his rhetoric well then at least you are consistent on needing something like.."I, Amadenajad, ruler of the world, will bomb TelAviv on July 4th 2008" Is that how more clear you need it?
The moderates in Iran are as held hostage as we are right this moment!
Do you or any of us have any power or influence of Bush and his minion's?????
The Mullah's have the ultimate power but I, myself, have no idea how in bed with Amadenajad they are.
So guys, does Amadenajad have the power to act? (oh, by the way, lets quote more current rhetoric coming from Tehran than what you used...."stinking corpse" is old news.
(makes me think of the "I fart in your general direction" line)
....and there is no way that Iran would get within striking distance of any of our warships!......again.
So.....no mincing words my fellow posters....does Amadenajad mean, and can he carry out, anything he rants about?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I think this is because most people saw what a threat Iraq was.
(if you didnt pick it up I was being sarcastic)
And I think most people dont want to dig there way into another hole like we did in Iraq.
Acorrding to the Gov. in 03 Iraq was a huge threat and that they had abunch of things they didnt.
And now there doing the same with Iran.
Making biased claims about their gov. and how evil they are, and that their on the verg of making Nuclear weapons.
When all that mccain and bush want is another reason to up oil prices.
There are supposedly nuclear weapons in N. Korea.
So why havent we invaded them yet?
Its because Korea is no where near oil.

Dont trust everything you read.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe
 


Hilary Clinton concluding that she would obliterate Iran if they did what they have never threatened, attack Israel.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
She just meant that she would effectively remove the current government of Iran....I didn't hear her use the words military attack or bomb.

(oh, I just couldn't resist this, sorry)



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa

I believe the Pentagon fairly recently ran a simulation of an air raid on Iranian nuclear plants and military sites and the subsequent retaliation of the Iranians which would lead to the destruction of the Fifth fleet. Do not overestimate the power of U.S naval units.www.agoracosmopolitan.com...

The President of Iran's rhetoric is no different from America's and Israels just more religious and from a different cultural view. I don't think the American people can be fooled into an attack on Iran as this poll shows. I am not sure whether the attack will still happen, mabye 60/40 against an attack happening before the end of Bush

[edit on 5-6-2008 by Peruvianmonk]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 5ealchris


Dont trust everything you read.

------------------------

please, my friend, take your own advice.
This really is the debate this Country is going to have and it is going to frustrate the hell outta me.
I asked nicely about answering the Amadenajad question. It is paramount to having a valid opinion on this whole matter...well, isn't it?
We can't compare Iran and Iraq. We can't. Does it help to consider Iraq as comparing it to crying wolf? Take Iraq off the table or isolate the issue from this.
You are all right or correct, if Amadenajad is impotent. If he isn't then what are you guys missing?
5eal, you are spewing out the liberal way out left rhetoric. (Hell, I am even an Al Franken fan!) Stop thinking partisan on this issue. Stop buying the media de jour crap.
Think for yourselves. Amadenajad a blow hard then you are good to go. If he is a viable threat then you better think twice.
Am I missing some logic somewhere?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


I don't really get what point your trying to make. That what the President of Iran said is worse or any different to what the Israleis or American leaderships are saying? Or whether he Ahamdinajad is important or not?

The post is on the 93% of Americans being against a military option against Iran. And the use of the word 'obliterate' by Clinton sorta confers the idea that some kind of military strike would be used, or were you being sarcastic?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Ok, now I know you aren't reading my post.
(or I just was unclear) Exactly, Bush's rhetoric is not different from Amadenajads, BUT if that is the case than like Bush, you are saying that Amad. has the ability to follow through too. Otherwise, you can't compare the two.
I also don't accept the assessment of the military projections that you asserted. How long did Iran and Iraq fight a war? Yeah, and how long did it take the U.S.A. to achieve "military" victory? So, Iran would last not a single day longer than Iraq did. They would not chip the paint off of one ship.
Look at me coming off all hawkish, but like many educated liberals in America, I am an American first above all else.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
This is a funny coincidence. In a recent poll of the world's Islamic population, about 7% of them were considered 'extreme' and supported attacks on America. It seems like 7% is the magic number. 7% of the worlds population are war mongers



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


I don't really get what point your trying to make. That what the President of Iran said is worse or any different to what the Israleis or American leaderships are saying? Or whether he Ahamdinajad is important or not?

The post is on the 93% of Americans being against a military option against Iran. And the use of the word 'obliterate' by Clinton sorta confers the idea that some kind of military strike would be used, or were you being sarcastic?

--------------------------------------------------------

Fair enough, the point I was trying to make was ultimately directed at Dimension, the OP, but he starts so many threads he hardly has time to get back to all of them.
The point, is, if you are going to be against an attack on Iran, then you have to believe that Amadenajad is lying, impotent, not in charge, can't follow through, doesn't mean what he says, is pandering, is talking tough to impress. etc..... but the ultimate question that these "NO attack on Iran" people is, they have to state for the record that this is in fact what they believe about Amadenajad. It is a bit of a put up or shut up. They can't have it both ways.
Is that any clearer? seriously. I want to hear Dimension state that he does not believe that Amadenajad has the capabilities to follow through on his rhetoric. I want him to own his "no attack Iran" policy and have a reason for it.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Yes you are being very unclear. Did you read the link on the Pentagon war game? It is quite clear Iran would cause massive damage to American units. I never compared the invasion of Iraq to Iran. Firstly this will not be an invasion of Iran but an air strike and Iran has not been under a 10 year blockade and has the been able to purchase cruise missiles and air defence systems from China and Russia,that will bring down American aircraft.

I'm not looking to compare the 2 but if i must both are arrogant and both do not hold the reigns of power in their respective countries.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Ok i believe Ahmadinajhad(god his name is hard to spell) does not hold the real power and will not last much longer. And i believe as is stated by the NIE that the Iranians gave up their nuclear weapons program in 2003, and if they have restarted it they are 10 years away from a bomb. And even then it will be a defensive measure in response to the threats of Israel and America.

Do you really think they will use their 5-10 bombs against Israels apparent 150 and Americas thousands either through a direct attack or through a group of terrorists? Really??

Do you feel there are any valid reasons to attack Iran?

[edit on 5-6-2008 by Peruvianmonk]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
well there you have it. You don't believe Amadenajad can follow through and therefore your logic is golden.
Me, I just have a hard time believing that a nut job like him could bust a grape. So I too do not believe an attack on Iran is appropriate.
In fact, with out a "clear and present" and verifiable threat to anyone, I don't know why we pay Iran any attention at all. The candidates do it because they are pandering to the jewish vote here in America.
I almost, (and I say almost) want Bush to attack Iran if it will finally move America to throw that criminal in prison. BUT, if for some reason that Amadenajad can in fact or does in fact pose a real threat, well then, the bastard has to go.
My Iranian friend seems to adamently believe that the dude is insane, so I don't see any reason to think otherwise.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join