Poll: Half Could Support Iran Attack

A majority of American voters believe economic sanctions to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons won’t work and half say the United States should take military action if sanctions fail, a new poll shows.

In a Quinnipiac University survey, 60 percent said the sanctions placed against Iran by the U.S. and its allies have not been effective, while 33 percent said they have been effective.

Asked whether the U.S. should take military action to prevent Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon, 55 percent of voters said it shouldn’t, while 36 percent said it should. However, asked if the U.S. should take military action if sanctions against Iran to prevent its nuclear weapons program proved to be unsuccessful, 50 percent voted in favor of using military force.

If Israel were to attack Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program, only 6 percent of voters believe the U.S. should oppose Israel’s action. They were almost evenly split between those who said America should support Israel’s attack on Iran, 46 percent, and those who said the U.S. should remain neutral, 44 percent.

MORE...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69036.html

Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

of them? Until that happens, then I say every country should have at least one as a deterrent.

The fact of the matter is that Iran is about on par with Pakistan in terms of stability (perhaps even less so with how much the populace has been trying to overcome the oppression) and it is bad enough that Pakistan has nukes. The key differences there is that Pakistan has theirs pointed at India (who has their pointed right back). When it comes to nukes, having more actually means that you are less likely to use them because of the sheer destructive potential of the arsenal (main reason why there was never an exchange between Russia and the US).

I do agree that our goal should be total nuclear disarmament but we are less likely to get there if the number nukes is still going up. The reason why the use of any nuke, especially in a situation where there would/could be an exchange, must be avoided at all costs is because of the impact it would have on the entire globe (i cba to find the example of a full out exchange between India and Pakistan).

After W*, it's shameful that it could be this easy to lie us into another war.

I was expecting an attack on Iran shortly after Operation Frequent Manhood III started in 2003... sure, we were overextended and up to our necks in the imbroglio in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I didn't think those considerations would interfere with W's needs to show his momma how big a man he was.

Anyway, it's a simple equation. If we intend to impose our will on Iran, we will have to do so by force, either our own or our proxy's. I cannot think of many occasions when "sanctions" have made a state back down from something, however overwhelming the military force that can be brought against them. I remember very well the "diplomacy" before the first Iraq war -- which boiled down to us saying "do what we want or we'll massacre you" and them responding "bring it on." Why should this be any different?

-- Mal

... try embargoes, maybe even diplomacy. But you gotta start somewhere.

I don't find it surprising that a majority supports an attack on Iran.

BOMB 'EM BACK TO THE STONE AGE!!!1!

and a socialist, and who think that climate change is a money-making scheme for Al Gore, and that George Bush is a self-made man and war hero.

Take hate radio off the air, US becomes livable again.

To pay for it and send their kids or go over themselves....

I don't think that's how things get decided anyway, whether that's a good thing or not.