Zogby: Two-thirds majority in US backs joint military action again Iran

[ECH1969]

As President Bush reaffirms his intention to thwart Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons, a wide majority of Americans favor military action together with allies to prevent Iran from realizing those efforts, a new Zogby Interactive survey shows.

In his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, Bush declared that Iran “is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.”

The comprehensive new Zogby poll shows that 64% of respondents favor joint U.S.-European military intervention to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and 63% favor joint military action with the United Nation to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Another 47% would support unilateral military action by the U.S. against Iran.

“These are surprising findings for me,” said Pollster John Zogby". Americans appear ready to do some damage to Iran if it proceeds with its nuclear program. They are not necessarily ready to stand on the front lines by themselves. They would prefer that Israel take the lead, or that it be a joint effort with Europe or the United Nations. But still, it is surprising that Americans are this militant,” Zogby said.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1067
--------------------------------------------------------------

24% of Murkins support Pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran according to this poll.

[Caoimhe]

1. Another question they should ask

Do we do this by instituting a Draft? (THERE IS NO OTHER WAY)

[demnan]

16. Yeah another question they should ask is

Am I willing to give the lives of my sons and daughters to protect against a possible threat of a much smaller and weaker country.

[megatherium]

22. They most certainly can do it without a draft.

The end point wouldn't be an occupied Iran (completely untenable), but instead a ruined Iran, a failed state. They would just bomb things (air defense assets, government sites, suspected nuclear sites).

[BlackVelvet04]

2. I got that survey and the way it was worded

was terrible. I didn't even finish taking the survey and that's the first time I've quit in the middle of one.

[JuniperLea]

8. I got it too and felt the same...

I sent them an email telling them so. I think it's a cheap, dirty and underhanded trick to word those polls the way they do!

[Generic Other]

14. Was that the one where you had to picka war for the US to fight?

I recall having the same reaction to that poll.

[JuniperLea]

17. they left no options

every answer was warmongerish

[leftchick]

24. yes, Iran, North Korea

and then the Gay questions which were off the wall. It was the most bizarre Zogby ever. Did some defense contractor buy it up?

[Progressive4Life]

36. I smelled a rat, too

One of the questions went something like, "If Iran nuked an American city, would you support nuclear retaliation?"

I voted no because the whole thing screamed PUSH POLL!

[mtnester]

46. I agree - I took that poll too and it was the first time I ever

chose so many "no...none of the above...unsure" type answers

[Cleita]

12. I had a problem with some of the questions too, but answered

them to the best of my ability. Maybe I shouldn't have.

[incapsulated]

19. Can you give us an example?

I'd like to see, since this is a rather disturbing result.

[Progressive4Life]

37. Push poll - sharp departure from their usual format

Click on my reply above ("I smelled a rat, too.")

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

3. i just don't buy it

no one i know is advocating this. if you believe this poll, it has higher support than the iraq war, which was supported by every other idiot i encountered

[cantstandbush]

4. Have 2/3 volunteered to serve in that war? n/t

[sasha031]

5. it's obvious they are just polling the rapture ready crowd

[Cleita]

7. No, I take Zogby polls all the time. You can sign up to take

them at his website too. I do feel his samplings are more realistic of the American public than Gallup.

[Tigress DEM]

43. Then he should give Peace a chance and list it as an option.

This poll sounds like it was weighted and didn't give the option to correctly answer the question.

Like "Who Would Jesus Bomb - Iran or North Korea??" Should have had a write in space for "Neither - dumb ass. Jesus doesn't bomb people and neither do I"

I get all mad at polls that force manufactured results. (The dumb ass was directed at the poll creator, not you by the way.)

[Cleita]

49. It was weighted and it wasn't a good poll.

I don't know who his client was unless it was the Pentagon. It sure read that way. I try not to avoid these because you do have an option to refuse to answer certain questions. I think the reason that the pro nukes were prominent was because many of our liberals did drop out and not take the poll. It then leaned to the right.

[Cleita]

6. That amazes me as I took that poll and didn't support a strike

of Iran. What seriously is wrong with Joe Sixpack American? Why is he willing to sacrifice his kids for oligarchic empire building?

[Generic Other]

34. It seems like you didn't have a choice

except to refuse to answer. It was one of those "Have you Quit Beating Your Wife?" loaded question.

[Cleita]

39. There was the "strongly disagree on" as well as "not sure" options.

There were so many questions on who was going to strike whom with nukes and if we should retaliate with nukes that I said no on all of them or whatever amounted to no, because to me nuclear retaliation in any way is not an option for us even if we are struck with nukes ourselves.

We have to defend ourselves but not with tit for tat nuking. If they had given me a space to explain my position, it would have been better, but I think if people really think about what nukes are, and what the consequences would be, they would also say no.

I don't really think any country except Russia have nukes that would be a real threat. The rest of this scare tactic is to bring back Reagan's SDI initiative because it's more money that they can line their pockets with.

[Tom Joad]

9. War drums from AIPAC and friends effective.

I don't suppose the poll of Congressional Dems would be much different.

They support a violater of the Nuclear non-proliferantion treaty, Israel, itself armed to the gills with nukes, to take pre-emptive action against Iran, that does NOT have nuclear weapons.

[bananas]

10. I believe it based on people I've talked to

They don't want Iran to get nukes, no matter what.
These aren't rightwingers, either.

[WillyT]

11. Great... Now Zogby Can Put Out Another Poll, That...

finds the percentage of Americans willing to send their own sons and daughters to that war.

Then, when they don't like those results, they can find for the percentage of Americans who are willing to support a Military Draft.

Time for everybody to put up, or shut up about being pro-war.

:mad::nuke::mad:

[Generic Other]

35. To get the right result these are the questions they would have to ask:

Which would you be most likely to do?

Send your sons and daughters to war.

Eat your dog.

Be audited by the IRS.

Serve time in prison.

[WillyT]

48. LOL !!!

:hi:

[Karmakaze]

13. Don't even listen to this bull....

If Fox News has no legal obligation to tell the truth in its reporting (as ruled by a judge) then neither does Zogby or any of the other pollsters. Their poll results are what they and their clients want you to hear, and don't you think otherwise.

[catabryna]

15. Now that there is some scary, er, um... stuff...

But nothing surprises me anymore. I continue to be absolutely appalled by the amount of fear that has been instilled in our citizenry by the war-mongers!

[high density]

18. I took this poll and the questions were very black and white

"Diplomacy and wait a while" wasn't offered as an option at all, it was either attack or don't attack. It seemed kind of, uhh, early to be asking such questions, I thought. :crazy:

[demosincebirth]

20. I quit have way through it. I didn't like where the poll

was leading and how they would interpret my answers.

[pacalo]

21. If I remember correctly,

the question was something like, "If the U.S. were attacked by a nuclear bomb by Iran, would you be in favor of..."

I question the claim that most Americans would support retaliation against Iran for simply having a nuclear program.

I suspect words have been twisted to get the result desired.

[ECH1969]

25. Read the link.

It deals with all the questions and varations to under what circumstances are you willing to use military force.

[pacalo]

33. I read the headline & the article.

"Two-thirds majority in US backs joint military action against Iran"

"Americans appear ready to do some damage to Iran if it proceeds with its nuclear program."

In the future, consider the questions carefully when you fill out Zogby polls!

[radio4progressives]

23. no fucking way...

sick bastards in this country

[FlemingsGhost]

26. Gallup: "Over half of U.S. believe Bush deliberately misled re: Iraq"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2084560&mesg_id=2084560

... while at the same time giving the fascists their support regarding Iran?

Mmmmmm-kaaaaay ...

:eyes:

[ECH1969]

28. That is simply because they don't like the number of casulties

from Iraq. If the public was asked would you support attacking Iran at the cost of 2000 US lives, the answer would be no way.

[calimary]

27. Hey, thanks for this! I used to take Zogby polls all the time and then

they stopped coming. Didn't know why, except if you don't see 'em in your email and you miss one or two, it appears you cycle out of their system. I wanted back in, and went to your link, filled it out, simple! YAY! Now I can return to rating bush as POOR at every possible turn!

[SoCalDem]

29. Be sure and tell them you are a republican..

:) that weights the hate bush a bit more:)

[depakid]

30. So now Zogby's beating the drums

of war.

Even so, after all the propaganda that's been consumed over the past 5 years- along with the inflammatory statements coming from Ahmadinejad, I'm not surprised that many people support an attack.

In a way, I almost hope it happens. It will end up being a disaster and may end up deterring a wider and more devistating war. Then again, it may not....

[tjwash]

31. Are the two thirds of those mother fuckers enlisting as well?

Yeah, I thought so.

What would these pea brained idiots do after bush invades Iran, and China and Russia both start lobbing nukes at us? Oh, they didn't realize that China has an oil contract with Iran, and Iran has likewise doubled their oil production to Russia?

Fucking Zogby. You might as well ask what fox news viewers want to do.

[tocqueville]

32. here are the results

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog organization, said in a report Tuesday that Iran had obtained documents and drawings on the black market that serve no other purpose than to make an atomic warhead. Tehran warned of an "end of diplomacy" if plans to refer it to the U.N. Security Council are carried out. The agency also announced that Tehran has not yet started small-scale uranium enrichment, but has announced plans to do so, the Associated Press reported.

Among the 47% of respondents who said they supported U.S. military action against Iran to halt their nuclear program, 74% of that subset said they would favor joint air strikes with European allies. Some favored more than one measure to counter Iran as described in the following chart:

Options Favored by Supporters of Action to Halt Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions

Option Supported: % Favor

Using U.S. special- ops forces 58%
Air strikes - US alone 64%
Joint air strikes with Israel 56%
Joint air strikes with Europe 74%
Invasion to secure Iran Nuke sites 36%
Invasion to topple Iran govt; occupy 25%
Pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran 24%
None of these choices 5%

In the worst-case scenario of an Iranian nuclear attack against the United States, 66% said they would support nuclear retaliation, while 21% said they would not support such a reaction. Meanwhile, nearly half – 48% – said they would support a U.S. nuclear response to an Iranian nuclear attack against an ally, and 39% said they would favor U.S. nuclear retaliation should Iran use a nuclear weapon against any nation, whether or not they were a U.S. ally.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1067

note that above applies to North Korea too

[Mossadeq]

38. Fuck that.

Maybe they should ask them how to stop a sunburn missile moving at over mach II 10 feet above the water, or how they expect to fly over Iran and not get shot down. Ask them what they would do if 300,000 Iranians poured over the Iraqi border at 4:00 in the morning. What the fuck ?

They have no idea of what they ask.....none.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Erect bogeyman. Wave flag. Invade or bomb at will.

Bury dead. Erect monument. Prepare for next war. Repeat.

[hopeisaplace]

41. The question should be: If it was necessary to institute the draft to

start this war, are you in agreement?

[teryang]

42. Sheeple led to the slaughter

An attack on Iran will have consequences beyond anything these morons can anticipate.

[LWolf]

44. They never do get around to asking me.

:shrug:

I wonder what the numbers would say if Zogby polled the rest of the world to see how many would like to take action to disarm all the U.S. nuclear capabilities.

[kineneb]

45. two-thirds responding have no idea

that if we go into Iran we will get our butts kicked. Remember, the advantage will be with the home team, and Iran is a rugged country, much of which is above 4000' elevation.
As others here have asked: are those 2/3rds willing to enlist?

[Massacure]

47. Zogby should ask again when oil is $85 per barrel after invading Iran.

Americans like to learn the hard way.