Just 18% Believe Iran has Stopped Nuclear Weapons Development Program

[radioguy]

Just 18% Believe Iran has Stopped Nuclear Weapons Development Program
Friday, December 07, 2007


Just 18% of American voters believe that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons program. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 66% disagree and say Iran has not stopped its nuclear weapons program. Twenty-one percent (21%) of men believe Iran has stopped the weapons development along with 16% of women (see crosstabs).

The survey was conducted following release of a government report saying that Iran halted its nuclear weapons development program in 2003.

The Rasmussen Reports survey also found that 67% of American voters believe that Iran remains a threat to the national security of the United States. Only 19% disagree while 14% are not sure.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) believe that the United States should continue sanctions against Iran. Twenty percent (20%) disagree and 21% are not sure.

Forty-seven percent (47%) believe it is Very Likely that Iran will develop nuclear weapons in the future and another 34% believe Iran is Somewhat Likely to do so.

Twenty-nine percent (29%) of liberal voters believe that Iran has stopped its weapons program but 54% disagree.

Among conservatives, just 8% believe Iran has stopped and 81% disagree.

Despite the Iranian government's protestations to the contrary, an earlier survey found that 67% believed that Iran’s nuclear program is intended to develop nuclear weapons rather than nuclear energy.

Another survey found that, most voters doubt the United States can count on its European allies when dealing with Iran. Just 1% of Americans view Iran as an ally of the United States. Sixty-two percent (62%) believe that Iran sponsors terrorist activities against the United States.

Only 6% disagree and 32% are not sure.

Link (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/general_current_events/just_18_believe_iran_has_stopped_nuclear_weapons_d evelopment_program)

[Americanadian]

Well, what does the media report? If the media reports that Iran hasn't suspended its nuclear weapons program, why would the results of this survey be surprising?

[mwillman]

Why is it you use the masses when they support your beliefs and you diss them when they dont agree with you.

You cant use what the mass thinks as an arguement only when it suites your purposes.

Radioguy if you love war so much why arnt you fighting in it?

[radioguy]

Why is it you use the masses when they support your beliefs and you diss them when they dont agree with you.

You cant use what the mass thinks as an arguement only when it suites your purposes.

Radioguy if you love war so much why arnt you fighting in it?

Wrong again mwillman.

I happen to think the NIE is probably correct about Iran suspending it's nuclear program.

I posted this to make the point, that our leaders have to do what they think is right and is best for the country's future. On foreign policy matters especially, public opinion polls shouldn't be used by any president to dictate policy, because they often only reflect knee jerk, gut feelings of the moment by the public, that don't take into account the unseen ramifications to the country in the long run.

Just as the president shouldn't sponsor an attack on Iran because the American people think he is making nukes, he also shouldn't pull the troops out of Iraq because the American people think he should.

Anyone, including you mwillman, who believes we should just pack up and leave Iraq, is either basing that on politics (aka BDS) and has no concern about America's commitment, nor the safety of the Iraqi people, or is simply uneducated and has no clue of the ramifications of leaving Iraq before it is stabilized.

[disrupter]

Wow & public opinion is never wrong.

Well that seals the deal radioguy, let's declare war on Iran, ok?

[mwillman]

Please define stablilized?
You talk about it like its an out break of syphilis. We are talking about a nation of people that we have invaded and destroyed a very large portion of thier social structure.

Now you want to stay and surplant it with one that is more friendly to our needs. As long as our troops are in that country they will never be free to create the life they want.

Who the hell our you people to define how other people should live. We should get out of Iraq becuase we never should have been there to begin with. When you talk about stablizing Iraq you forget that we are the reason it is unstable.

If I jump on a tigers back I don't stabilize it by hanging around and kicking it. These are not rabbits we are talking about its human beings and I dont know any that take kindly to the destruction of thier civilization.

[disrupter]

Iraq has inherent historic divisions which is a common problem around the globe.
We can not nor should we burden ourselves with excess guilt about that.
We did unleash it of course. Saddam's police state rigidly held all that potential chaos in order using extreme brutality, violence & fear.

Trying to 'stabilize' Iraq is like trying to hold back the tide. Wrestling with the ghosts of history & human hard headedness.

Only fools & NeoCrooks try to hold back the tide without extreme, bankrupting constructions.

Only mad dogs & Englishmen wander in the deadly heat of the Iraqi noonday sun.
NeoCrooks are mad dogs & the Englishmen are leaving.

[Yirmeyahu]

Just 18% of American voters believe that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons program.

Is that because they think Iran presently has an active nuclear weapons program or because they believe Iran never had a nuclear weapons program or because they think.

Without knowing what question was actually asked in the survey, this is meaningless.

Unfortunately, you have to subscribe to find out and I'm really not curious enough to go through the trouble.

[Jesse Hemingway]

Let’s see it is saying 82% believe bush about Iran; at the same time 82% disapprove of bush this makes complete sense. It must be mentally challenging :lmao2: to still support bush dam that is freighting you would almost have to bi-polar.:lmao2: :lmao2:

[Jesse Hemingway]

Olbermann indicts an 'unhinged, irrational Chicken Little of a president

'Mike Aivaz and Muriel Kane
Published: Thursday December 6, 2007

Keith Olbermann offered a special comment on Thursday about George W. Bush's "cataclysmic deceptions about Iran." He began by presenting two alternative explanations of Bush's apparent concealment of the intelligence -- made public earlier this week -- that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

"We have either a president who is too dishonest to restrain himself from invoking World War III about Iran at least six weeks after he had to have known that the analogy would be fantastic, irresponsible hyperbole, or we have a president too transcendentally stupid not to have asked, at what appears to have been a series of opportunities to do so, whether the fairy tales he either created or was fed were still even remotely plausible."

It is clear, Olbermann stated, that Bush was informed by National Intelligence Director McConnell last August that that claims about an Iranian nuclear weapons program were "crap." And yet he still told the country on October 17 that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon."

"A bright man or an honest man," said Olbermann, "would have realized no later than the McConnell briefing that the only true danger about Iran was the damage that could be done by an unhinged, irrational chicken little of a president shooting his mouth off, backed up only by his own hysteria and his own delusions of omnicience."

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Keith_Olbermann_Special_Comment_%5BM.A._VIDEO%5D_1 206.html

[radioguy]

Please define stablilized?

For Iraq, stabilized is when an acceptable level of peace has been achieved in the country and the strength of the enemy forces has been reduced to a level, where the Iraqi security forces can not only successfully defend their citizens, but are capable as well, of protecting their elected government.

What constitutes "stabilized", is something that's determined by the Iraqi's and our military leaders.

You talk about it like its an out break of syphilis. We are talking about a nation of people that we have invaded and destroyed a very large portion of thier social structure.

You are correct. We are the ones who invaded and turned their country upside down. Nobody is arguing that point.

Now you want to stay and surplant it with one that is more friendly to our needs.

We only introduced a democratic system of government, because it happens to be a system that allows the people of Iraq to choose who governs them. Would you have suggested we appoint a king for them instead?

As long as our troops are in that country they will never be free to create the life they want.

Maybe so, but if we leave before the country is stable enough to defend itself from radical terrorist groups like al qaida, they will never be free to do jack shit EVER. Not to mention the fact that 100's of thousands more Iraqi's would likely be executed for not going along with al qaida and there bunch from the beginning.


Who the hell our you people to define how other people should live.

We helped them form a democratic government of their choosing, so they could forge their own destiny and their own way of life. That's what democracy is all about.


We should get out of Iraq becuase we never should have been there to begin with.

I would tend to agree with you about the invasion. Based on what we know now, I think we never should have invaded in the first place, but unfortunately we did and that can't be change. Leaving Iraq now however, would be the ultimate in irresponsible behavior.


When you talk about stablizing Iraq you forget that we are the reason it is unstable.

I beg your pardon? I challenge you to find one quote where I have said any such thing. I'll say it right now and very clearly. The reason Iraq is unstable, is the direct result of our invasion and subsequent removal of their president and their government.

Those of you on the left love to bring up that point, like it somehow lends credence to your "end the war now" argument. The fact is, that point runs counter to your argument and serves to bolster mine.

With that said mwillman, I have a question for you.

Since we are the ones who are responsible for al qaida and other terrorist groups/insurgence coming into Iraq and murdering over 100 thousand innocent Iraqi's, who would you say bears the responsibility of protecting the Iraqi people by defeating them?

[mwillman]

So how long is it going to take to stabilize Iraq?
Its been 5 years and other then a most likely short term decrease in violence there has really been almost no growth in social order.

All we have done is allow tribalism to rear its ugly head. Even if they do form a suitable security force its just exchanging one despot for another. The Sunni are not going to just pack up and leave and the shia are still going to try and dominate them.

I think at this point we need to realize that Iraq is going to suffer for what we did for a long time no matter what we do now and staying there isn't helping.

Thier government is not going to just turn around and become some beacon of democracy.

There will be a civil war there for years to come no matter what we do and staying there just prolongs the agony.

[mwillman]

As to your point about Al Quade. Again who do you think created them?

Why is it you keep defending the people that have created all the problems we are suffering through.

If we are not in Iraq Al Quade will have little reason to stay in Iraq and the people of Iraq dont want them there either.

Why do you think there has been a decrease in violence lately its becuase the warlords and tribal leaders have decided to join in the fight against the outsiders but that doesnt mean they are going to stay on our side once that battle is over.

Its temporary alliance at best becuase they dont want us there either.

[disrupter]

A mousetrap is 'stabilized' after it has been set to snap.

stable is a very relative & potentially transitory term.

If you love Iraq so much radioguy, by all means go there.
You can replace one troop.

We should withdraw our troops from this source of unending misery.

The French revolution produced a democratic Republic, but it was a horrible, torturous, violent, bloody thing to watch.

radioguy wants to keep US troops in the middle of another bloody, endless French revolution.
A revolution where there is no guarantee of a Republic or anything at the end.
sounds like a nut case to me.

If you are a masochist & need to wallow in suffering you should follow radioguy.
If you are sane you are supporting withdrawing US troops from an insoluble situation.

[radioguy]

Actually, it shouldn't take too much longer to stabilize. The military goal of the surge was to secure Baghdad. The decrease in the violence in and around Baghdad, means that the government can focus on getting their shit together, which it's doing. It's also much easier with this relative calm, to both find, as well as train new Iraqi security recruits. Another benefit to the reduction in enemy attacks, is that it has allowed the process of rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure to progress almost unimpeded.

We are responsible for rebuilding Iraq (mostly Baghdad), helping their new government get off the ground, and outfitting as well as training enough security forces to protect the country and it's government. The troop surge has given us a window of opportunity to get the job done, that we didn't have before.

We don't have to rid Iraq of every terrorist and insurgency group to achieve victory. We just have to make sure that Iraq can take care of themselves.

This is only my opinion, but I feel if we can maintain this "calm" until the summer rolls around, I think we can get the fuck out before 2009 rolls around.

[Independent Harry]

Actually, it shouldn't take too much longer to stabilize. The military goal of the surge was to secure Baghdad. The decrease in the violence in and around Baghdad, means that the government can focus on getting their shit together, which it's doing. It's also much easier with this relative calm, to both find, as well as train new Iraqi security recruits. Another benefit to the reduction in enemy attacks, is that it has allowed the process of rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure to progress almost unimpeded.

We are responsible for rebuilding Iraq (mostly Baghdad), helping their new government get off the ground, and outfitting as well as training enough security forces to protect the country and it's government. The troop surge has given us a window of opportunity to get the job done, that we didn't have before.

We don't have to rid Iraq of every terrorist and insurgency group to achieve victory. We just have to make sure that Iraq can take care of themselves.

This is only my opinion, but I feel if we can maintain this "calm" until the summer rolls around, I think we can get the fuck out before 2009 rolls around.

That's the point, we are not going to "get the fuck out before 2009", with the plans this current administration is making. We are never going to "get out" we are building a huge super miliitary base over there. That will be permantately staffed by US military. So we will be there, forever, if they had their way.

[Smurf-Herder]

Why is it you use the masses when they support your beliefs and you diss them when they dont agree with you.

You cant use what the mass thinks as an arguement only when it suites your purposes.




:lmao2:

You're putting him down for doing the exact same thing I've seen leftists do on this board. And you're doing it to, in your response to him.

[disrupter]

And who exactly is going to peacefully run iraq, as it is 'rebuilt', radioguy?

One of the three major Shiite factions?
1) the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, America's favorite puppet,
2) the Islamic Virtue Party who actually has armed men controlling Basra & 80% of Iraq's oil, & who have been outlawed by America's puppets, Or
3) the Sadr Militia? Which is the broadest, most popular & growing.

Or one of the Sunni insurgent groups? The former insurgents & ethnic cleansers we are now buying off with wads of cash so they can buy the 190,000 weapons Gen. Betray-us allowed on the black market without even recording their serial numbers.
Creating an illusion of peace while it is in fact a retrenchment, a re-armament of fighting gangs.

Or the Kurds, while they are engaged in War with the Turks.

Iraq is a madhouse & only mad people could fail to recognize that fact.
What is the point of rebuilding, when there isn't even a stable, centralized or even distributed government?

You Iraq Insanity Promoters are CLUELESS about what is even going on there.

God you are stupid.