MSNBC crawl reporting that 52% in a poll would support striking Iran.

[Skidmore]

I don't know what poll, but that was what was on the screen. The rhythm of the war drum is faster and here we go again dancing the neocon tune.

[gatorboy]

1. Zogby poll.

Same folks that said Kerry was a presidential shoe-in ;)

[atreides1]

5. I think they hand picked the group that supports war with Iran

Zogby polled a particular majority to get the results that their employer wanted. I'm signed up with Zogby and I didn't get this poll, and I have replied to all the polls that they've sent me.

[BobRossi]

16. MSM doing it's job.

If it didn't have a war to report on it wouldn't have anything. They love war.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. Zogby poll

I was tapped as a participant for a brief period, and they show you the results after you've completed it.

What really jumped out at me was that the sampling was heavily slanted towards self-identified Republicans.

[Atman]

2. I don't believe it. It's propaganda to help get everyone ready for the attack

If most of your neighbors agree, it must be okay, right? Total bullshit.

.

[beberocks]

3. What I want to know is if that 52% will be marching down to the army enlistment offices

I don't think that most Americans (that 52% certainly) know what a war with Iran would mean. Russia has been arming both Syria and Iran, and Iran has 1 million-man army. It would not be like attacking Iraq, and probably would mean WWIII.

[LeftHander]

4. Same 52% believe Brittany Spears should join Bush cabinet...nt

[DefenseLawyer]

6. As anyone seen the question?

It was probably something like "Would you support the bombing of Iran to prevent them from launching a nuclear attack on the United States?" or some similar framing.

[Atman]

8. I noticed that, too...no one is posting the actual question

I figured it was just as you stated...totally leading to the answer they wanted.

.

[sandnsea]

10. from gaining a nuclear weapon

Yes, that was the question.

[sandnsea]

7. To keep them from getting nuclear weapons

Remembering most people don't have a clue that there is even talk of actually bombing Iran. That's the really scary part, they think it's all a hypothetical.

[Sir Jeffrey]

9. Anybody else completely demoralized and depressed by this?

My god, what the fucking hell is wrong with Americans?

[mwb970]

17. That number came as a surprise to me.

The question seemed to add "...if it would prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb?" I doubt that the Yes vote would have been as high without that addition.

Of course, it seems absurd to think that anything we could do militarily would completely wipe out that possibility, and bush refuses to use diplomacy.

I don't think the "reasoning" of the respondents went beyond "Iran with bomb bad, so must attack Iran."

[Sir Jeffrey]

21. Then we've already lost and war is inevitable...

When our party goes out and keeps claiming that Iran with a nuke-you-lar weapon is a threat to the world, we buy into the psychotic chimp's rhetoric and framing. That gives them all the leverage they need to bust out a few more WMD lies. Then they can claim all the support they need to launch yet another war of aggression against a country that realistically poses very little of a threat beyond its regional aspirations.

Our candidates, if they even give a shit about this, need to reframe their discussions of this issue post haste. Point out that we have like 8,000 nukes and Iran, even if you believe the lies about their desire to build a bomb, would only be able to afford at most 10...and who eve knows if they could effectively deliver them beyond Europe...and of course any launch would be met with the full force of NATO's entire nuclear arsenal reducing Iran to glass sands. A little realismand perspective would be nice to listen to once in a while.

It is just so fucking frsutrating to have this constant stream of bullshit forcefed to us by our leaders in both parties. Either they are lying to cover the spread in the elections, they are really stupid, or they really believe Bush is doing the right thing and just don't have the balls to take the stand he has.

[mwb970]

23. Also, the USSR had thousands of nukes aimed right at us for years.

We didn't bomb them.

[Sir Jeffrey]

24. Because they were capable of fighting back...

I believe John Pilger said it best when he stated that the US, ever since WWII, makes it a point only to go to war against almost completely defenseless nations like Vietnam, Iraq, Grenada, Panama, etc. Any nation capable of mounting a sustained, direct military challenge to US global hegemony, (think China and Russia, for example), is dealt with in other ways.

We always seem to go after the weak countries because they are "low risk high reward" for our military contractors and the politicians get to posture as war heroes...as if ordering other people into battle is the same thing as leading a group of men up a hill with bullets whizzing by your head.

This thing seems to go in steps and is repeated over and over:

1. Play up a defenseless nation as a grave threat to the security of the country or the free world.

2. Frame the issue in such a manner that the opposition party wimps out and accepts your framing.

3. Buy off support in the congress to get some sort of authorization for war...or even grounds for declaring war without returning for authorization.

4. Fabricate intelligence and blame the faceless bureacracy if the lies you told are discovered. Assert the opposite in public.

5. Go to war with public support.

6. Change the rationale if needed after the fact to maintain public support.

7. Stay as long as you can get funding for your criminal friends in the MIX.

8. When the peace party finally wins, and the war ends, go back to step one and start over.

[Jim__]

11. Unbelievable!

No matter what the question was, would you ever support potential military action by this regime? Once you say you'd support it under some circumstance, they'll just claim that circumstance exists. Are there still Americans who don't realize that?

[Gman]

12. I don't believe it, it ain't true

it's propaganda fed to them. Remember that NBC was the first to retract and pull Florida out of the Gore category in '00. They have been in bed with Bushco for many years now.

[BanzaiBonnie]

13. I was rejected for a zogby poll

because I did not fit their demographic. There was no demographic in that poll for people who claim to be independent.

[tuckessee]

14. 52%? That's all?

I'm surprised it's not considerably higher.

Most people I talk to, including active military, support major war with Iran.

[Sir Jeffrey]

15. Here is the question from Zogby...

"Based on what you know about Iran's development of a nuclear program, how
supportive are you of a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon?"

http://www.zogby.com/wf-Zogby-10-29-07.pdf

Broken into very supportive (26.1%), somehwat supportive (26.3%), not very supportive (14.4%), not supportive (27.4%), no opinion (5.8%).

[Generator]

25. And what they know is mostly propaganda

Iran is years away from nuclear technology. They do not want to attack America. They HATED Saddam. So now how would you answer that question?

Based on what you know! My god that is a knee slapper.

[Emit]

18. Sadly, I predicted this last month

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1912216

[devilgrrl]

20. Who was polled? The fake media members at the fake FEMA press conference?

52%... yeah... right... sure.... uh huh... :eyes:

[book_worm]

22. This country never learns!

[OzarkDem]

26. Push Polling - not a valid statistic

Actually 68% oppose invading Iran.

[UnyieldingHierophant]

27. You know, I'm no dove...and I find that crazy

I'd like to see the questions and how they are worded?

[mattomjoe]

28. I'm calling BS on this poll

Our country is sick of the Iraq War -- there's no way people are going to behind expanding an already unpopular war.