Should we attack Iran?

Question

Sean Hannity stated the other day on his radio show that 52% of Americans supported attacking Iran.

But the most recent CNN poll shows that 63% of Americans oppose air strikes on Iran and 73% oppose using ground forces.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/08/cnn-political-ticker-am-90/

So who is correct?

FYI: Hannity didn't provide a source for his 52% poll to strike Iran or I would have included it.

Does Iran pose a serious and legitimate threat to the soverneighty of the United States of America, which would require a pre-emptive strike by the US?

pusherhombre: So what exactly will happen if Iran gets nukes?

Did anything adverse happen when Pakistan got nukes? What about North Korea, China, India, or Israel?

Do you think that the Iranian leadership is that stupid to attack the US with 1 nuke and not expect a full retaliation?

cognitive_dissonance: Thanks for the link.

How the hell did Zogby and CNN come so far apart. The 63% CNN poll has a margin of error of 3% as does the Zogby poll. So it appears that neither poll should be taken seriously.

You are right about Hannity not mentioning the poll because of Hillary's numbers in it.

Hannity is such a idiotic tool.

Drew Blood: I agree. If Israel has a problem with Iran's nuclear development, then by all means, Israel should solve it, alone.

Answer 1

Hannity is just another person liberally throwing numbers around like he knows what he's talking about. Go figure...

And no. Iran does not pose enough of a threat to do a pre-emptive strike. That is fear mongering. It has been shown that M.A.D (mutually assured destruction) generally tones down disagreements between nuclear armed states than escalating them. Russia/U.S., Pakistan/India. See how well N. Korea is acting now tha they 'feel' like they are equal with the power of the weapon.

I say: let them have their nuclear reactors providing energy to their people and YES, a nuclear weapon. Then they'll feel like they are equal with everyone else and Ahmadinijad and all his Mullahs will stop screaming and acting like 2 year olds. And, anyone who just wants to go in guns blazing into Iran is just as bad as the extremist - not acting like an adult.

Good for you for thinking for yourself.

Answer 2

No we should not. Hamity's "poll" is as meaningless asthe rest of the right-wing's fake statistics. Not that I object to him spouingt false info--it justt helps to discredit the neocons that much more!

As to your question and details: Iran may (or may not) be trying to build a nuclear weapon. The UN says it's not certain--Bush says they are. Based on the track records, I'll take the UN estimate. Either way, even Bush admits they won't have a working device before 2015. So Iran is NOT a threat at this time--and may never be. The "threat" is simply an assertion made without basis in fact.

Somethink to think about here (and somebody's going to get a sociology dissertation out of this)--there's something odd going on with the "neoconservatives" generally. Hamity's remarks are one example, the hype about Iran's nuclear program is another. They seem to think that simply asserting a claim as factual is enough to give the claim validity. I've noticed the fake claims on many subjects--and always the same pattern: if/when challenged, the neocos become extremely defensive--insisting they are "right" without evidence. If pressed, they assert: "You can't prove X (whatever X is) isn't so" If pressed still further to provide actual evidence, they resort to accusations that their "freedom of speech" is being violated by those who challenge what they've said (or any of several other counters all of which amount to impugning the character or motives of their challengers).

But--they really do not seem to grasp the idea that making claims is not valid if they don't provide real evidence to support those claims.

Off topic--I know. But something to think about. Most curious.

Answer 3

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1379

Zogby was the polling company reporting that 52% support an attack on Iraq. Hannity probably didn't want to cite this report because that same poll indicates more Americans would trust Hillary to lead the war than any other candidate.

Hannity and Fox are shilling for Rudy/Hillary 2008, but if they were open with their support of Hillary it would cost them the base.

Answer 4

I'm not surprised that Hannity didn't provide a source, that would be counter to his natural methods (ignite a storm of controversy so his name is kept in the public eye, like so many other folks on TV from both sides). And why not attack Iran? We're doing such a great job of helping teh wounded vets who've returned from the Gulf; and we're doing a smashing job of helping Iraq rebuild; and such a great job of finishing up in Afghanistan; if we attack Iran we wouldn't have to worry about them being in between the two other places we've attacked - and it would give us practice for attacking Pakistan. Besides, we can afford it.....

Answer 5

Why attack Iran when Israel is all too willing to do it for us? Part of the reason Al Qaeda attacked is because of our support for Israel, so we might as well get our $10 billion a year in foreign aid's worth!

Answer 6

Maybe Yes
because, if Iran nukes Israel that would probably start WW3

but.. I don't want that fool bush doing any more damage.
I pray to God this issue can wait till bush is out of office.

Answer 7

ummm no we shouldnt attack iran..........and in my opinion iran doesnt pose a serious threat; they arent doing anything to us. Idk what exactly they are doing, but a war would be terrible. For goodness sake; parents tell children to work and talk out problems, but you see what is happening here; adults are taking the aggresive side. There are good and bad people in Iran and if we attack them then poor, innocent children will have to die. I understand that the country's government sort of stinks now, but that doesnt mean we have to pull out our guns and threaten to kill them if they dont do exactley what we say. Instead we have to talk things out and remember that we have to keep some of their needs in mind.

Answer 8

If our drooling moron of a president gets us into a war with Iran, it will more than likely ignite WW2. The price of proving Bush's machismo is a little too steep for most of us.

Answer 9

what jackasses did this poll??? where going no where with what we already have and wasting too many lives and too much money. and they really want to qo after a country with no compulsion to use nukes???? when iran nukes us what are these people going to say????? hell NO we don't belong on iraq!! Haliburton has made ENOUGH money.

Answer 10

Should we just sit tight and wait until Iran develops nuclear weapons and attacks us?