Look at which countries are for military strikes.
Posted on 09/24/2006 7:39:31 PM PDT by Flavius
LONDON: Support for a preemptive military strike against Iran's nuclear weapons facilities if Teheran continues to produce nuclear fuel finds support in Iraq, Israel and the US, according to a new survey published by the BBC. However, public opinion in 25 countries finds limited global support for the military option, with only 17% of respondents surveyed backing aggressive action. Over 34% of Iraqis, 30% of Israelis, and 21% of Americans surveyed in June by Globescan and the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes support a military action if "Iran continues to produce nuclear fuel" in defiance of the United Nations Security Council. Support for a military response finds almost no support in Europe, with less than 3% of Russians, and 4% of Germans, 6% of the French, or 8% of the UK backing force, the survey released by the BBC last week said. While the US refuses to rule out any option in dealing with Iran, the dilemma facing policy makers in Washington and London was summed up by the UK's foreign minister for the Middle East, Kim Howells on September 13. Speaking to a parliamentary committee Howells said he could not "see a military way through this. I am not sure even that there is an easy way for the UN to impose sanctions." While opinions on what to do about Iran are sharply divided, few believe Teheran's protestations that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only. Worldwide, 60% believed Iran is "trying to produce nuclear weapons." In the US and Israel over 83% hold this opinion, as do a majority of South Koreans (76%), Italians (74%), and Brazilians (72%). In three nations, significant minorities believe Iran's nuclear interests are benign: Iraq, 38%, Egypt, 38%, and Indonesia, 35%. However, even in these three, substantially more believe Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons; Iraq, 60%, Egypt, 54%, and Indonesia, 47%. Among all of the nations surveyed, Iraq showed the greatest internal divisions over how to respond to Iran. Over 65% of Iraqis said they were very concerned or somewhat concerned if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, while 14% said they were "not at all concerned." No consensus exists as to how to deal with the nuclear threat, the survey found. Less than 10% believe no action should be taken in response to the Iranian nuclear program, 39% favor diplomatic initiatives only, 30% endorse economic sanctions, and only 11% support a "military strike against facilities." The US, Iraq and Israel reported the greatest support for aggressive actions: with 21% of Americans supporting a military strike and 45% preferring economic sanctions, Iraq 34% backing military strikes and 29% sanctions, and Israel 30% endorsing military strikes and 32% sanctions. The survey of 27,407 adults in 25 countries was conducted from May through July, and before the conflict in Lebanon. Generally, Muslim and European nations favored a non-aggressive approach, with 73% of Egyptians, 72% of Indonesians and 60% of Turks favoring diplomacy or no action. Evidence that Iran has successfully split the Americans from the other great powers comes in the strength of a passive response to its nuclear ambition among the G5+1, 57% of Chinese, 54% of French and 53% of Britons, and 48% of Russians and Germans back a non-confrontational response. "Diplomats have their work cut out for them," Globescan president Doug Miller said. The poll "reveals a world-wide mandate for stricter international controls of nuclear fuels that could be used in weapons," but no clear way to implement it. "Clearly world opinion rejects Iran's claim that it is trying to develop nuclear energy" and not weapons, Steven Kull of the University of Maryland said. "But at this point the world public favors addressing the problem through diplomacy rather than a confrontational approach," he concluded.
http://www.islamicpopulation.com/europe_general.html
Over 34% of Iraqis, 30% of Israelis, and 21% of Americans surveyed in June by Globescan and the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes support a military action if "Iran continues to produce nuclear fuel" in defiance of the United Nations Security Council.
Support for a military response finds almost no support in Europe, with less than 3% of Russians, and 4% of Germans, 6% of the French, or 8% of the UK backing force, the survey released by the BBC last week said.
While the US refuses to rule out any option in dealing with Iran, the dilemma facing policy makers in Washington and London was summed up by the UK's foreign minister for the Middle East, Kim Howells on September 13. Speaking to a parliamentary committee Howells said he could not "see a military way through this. I am not sure even that there is an easy way for the UN to impose sanctions."
While opinions on what to do about Iran are sharply divided, few believe Teheran's protestations that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only. Worldwide, 60% believed Iran is "trying to produce nuclear weapons." In the US and Israel over 83% hold this opinion, as do a majority of South Koreans (76%), Italians (74%), and Brazilians (72%).
In three nations, significant minorities believe Iran's nuclear interests are benign: Iraq, 38%, Egypt, 38%, and Indonesia, 35%. However, even in these three, substantially more believe Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons; Iraq, 60%, Egypt, 54%, and Indonesia, 47%.
Among all of the nations surveyed, Iraq showed the greatest internal divisions over how to respond to Iran.
Over 65% of Iraqis said they were very concerned or somewhat concerned if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, while 14% said they were "not at all concerned." No consensus exists as to how to deal with the nuclear threat, the survey found. Less than 10% believe no action should be taken in response to the Iranian nuclear program, 39% favor diplomatic initiatives only, 30% endorse economic sanctions, and only 11% support a "military strike against facilities."
The US, Iraq and Israel reported the greatest support for aggressive actions: with 21% of Americans supporting a military strike and 45% preferring economic sanctions, Iraq 34% backing military strikes and 29% sanctions, and Israel 30% endorsing military strikes and 32% sanctions.
The survey of 27,407 adults in 25 countries was conducted from May through July, and before the conflict in Lebanon.
Generally, Muslim and European nations favored a non-aggressive approach, with 73% of Egyptians, 72% of Indonesians and 60% of Turks favoring diplomacy or no action. Evidence that Iran has successfully split the Americans from the other great powers comes in the strength of a passive response to its nuclear ambition among the G5+1, 57% of Chinese, 54% of French and 53% of Britons, and 48% of Russians and Germans back a non-confrontational response.
"Diplomats have their work cut out for them," Globescan president Doug Miller said. The poll "reveals a world-wide mandate for stricter international controls of nuclear fuels that could be used in weapons," but no clear way to implement it.
"Clearly world opinion rejects Iran's claim that it is trying to develop nuclear energy" and not weapons, Steven Kull of the University of Maryland said. "But at this point the world public favors addressing the problem through diplomacy rather than a confrontational approach," he concluded.
Okay this poll says that everyone agrees that Iran is trying to get the bomb. And everyone agrees not to do anything about it. The West are nothing but sheep letting ourselves being lead to the slaughter. No wonder Iran has contempt for the West. We deserve it. Our time has passed.
WTF cares about the nay-sayers? It's going to happen, right after the mid-terms. Take it to the bank...
so.
If Europe was the USA or Israel they would care.
Do they have an opinion about Iran nuking Europe?
They think "it can't happen to them". I think they are wrong.
And most European also beleive Sun will rise in the East tomorrow. Who the hell cares about these predictable peacenicks?
There was a foreign policy analyst on FOX the other day and he seemed like he knew his stuff. He pointed out that an attack on Iran would raise the price of oil to 200.00 a barrel and would only set Iran's program back two years. He said that the reason the State Department is sitting back and giving the Europeans more time to talk to Iran is because the Administration also needs more time to decide what to do next because the option of bombing Iran has such negative consequences. He said it was not at all a given that Bush would choose military action. I strongly believe that is exactly where we are at right now and no firm decisions are in the works.
the cowards want somebody else to take out the bully
The effect of losing Iran's oil would be that great? Isn't it already under severe economic embargo? Also, any attack would have to go for the full monte. Not just smash the plants.
They do and then again they don't. But if we do take out the bully they will hate our guts worse than they do now. I think if we attack Iran and only set them back a few years when Iran does come back they will use our attack as the reason they need to bomb us, which they will do by handing it off to terrorists.
Oil at $200.00 is bad enough as it is.
"Also, any attack would have to go for the full monte. Not just smash the plants."
What is full monte in your opinion? Bombing the government in Tehran? Just asking for clarification.
I wondered for awhile why Amadabadoo, as Levin calls him, was taunting the US so much, almost daring us to attack. He still is doing that per his UN speech. The same for Hugo Chavez. They are trying to taunt us into a rash move to cause people to unite behind them and to destroy the Bush administration and elect a leftist Democrat government.
Look at which countries are for military strikes.
The US has an embargo (but could get some through OPEC?), but many European and Asian countries trade with Iran.
Regime change
They expect us to get our hands dirty while they castigate us in public and sigh relief in private.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.