The poll, I gather, didn't ask whether people would support an attack on Iran without UN approval, though it does say they have a strong preference for the US working with allies. It's unclear to me what that means in practical political terms. I suspect that the Bushies would be able to get away with massively bombing a few sites they label nuclear weapons facitlities and that there would be high tolerance in the US for whatever "collateral damage" ensues.
Now would probably be a good time for people to start talking about what consequences such attacks would have even without a groundforce invasion.
Gary
Message: 3 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:11:26 -0500 From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> Subject: [lbo-talk] 57% back hit on Iran To: lbo-talk <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Message-ID: <p06230906c0000495d311@[192.168.1.100]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Los Angeles Times - January 27, 2006
57% Back a Hit on Iran if Defiance Persists The war has not diminished Americans' support for military action against Iraq's neighbor if nuclear pursuits aren't dropped.
By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON - Despite persistent disillusionment with the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans supports taking military action against Iran if that country continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.
_______________________________________________ lbo-talk mailing list lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
End of lbo-talk Digest, Vol 25, Issue 220 *****************************************
-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 5566 bytes Desc: not available URL: <../attachments/20060127/29b8a1a3/attachment.bin>