|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Poll: 75% Of Americans Support Direct Talks With Syria & Iran
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Poll: 75% Of Americans Support Direct Talks With Syria & Iran
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Ass Boil |
And we find yet another subject where the ignorant Bush cunts are left on the sidelines with their extremist opinions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Americans Overwhelmingly Support Direct Talks With Iran And Syria
One of the core recommendations of the Iraq Study Group was direct engagement with Iran and Syria without preconditions. President Bush quickly dismissed the idea:
If people come to the table to discuss Iraq they need to come understanding their responsibilities to not fund terrorists, to help this young democracy survive, to help with the economics of the country. And if people are not committed, if Syria and Iran is not committed to that concept, then they shouldn’t bother to show up.
The American people, however, overwhelmingly support direct talks with both countries. From a new poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org:
Check out the whole WorldPublicOpinon.org poll HERE.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/08...yria-diplomacy/ |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Here's another:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-poll13dec13,0,3005760.story?coll=la-home-headlines
THE TIMES/ BLOOMBERG POLL
Majority of Americans support timetable for withdrawal
Results suggest that Bush, who has rejected the idea, is out of step with public opinion on the Iraq war.
By Maura Reynolds
Times Staff Writer
December 13, 2006
WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans favor setting a fixed timetable for bringing troops home from Iraq, and just 12% would support a plan to increase troop strength, an option under serious consideration by the military, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.
A month after a watershed election that switched control of Congress to the Democrats, respondents expressed low confidence in President Bush's ability to resolve the conflict in Iraq.
By a hefty margin they said Iraq should be the top priority for the new Congress. A plurality of 45% said they had more trust in Democrats to handle the war; 34% said they had more confidence in Bush, who has rejected the idea of setting any timetable for withdrawing troops.
Nearly two-thirds said they believed Iraq had descended into civil war, which Bush has denied. At a time when the administration is at work on a new strategy for Iraq and is resisting calls to start bringing troops home, the poll suggests that the president and his staff are out of step with public opinion.
"The public doesn't want the status quo any longer in Iraq, and they believe the Democrats, rather than President Bush, will be best at finding a solution to the war," said Times polling director Susan Pinkus.
A majority of 52% of the poll's respondents — including nearly 1 in 3 Republicans — said they preferred a fixed timetable for withdrawal; 26% of those surveyed favored Bush's option of keeping troops on the ground until the country was secure.
About 1 in 8 expressed support for the option of increasing troop strength, which is favored by many Pentagon leaders and has been proposed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a likely presidential candidate.
"I'd rather get them home now," Marcia Downing, 54, a homemaker from Nashville who is a registered Republican, said in a follow-up interview. "We are losing people day after day after day…. Get our sons home."
The war appears to be the top issue on Americans' minds. When asked an open question about priorities for the new Congress, 27% of respondents listed Iraq as their top concern. The next two issues — healthcare at 16% and immigration at 11% — ranked significantly lower.
Respondents from both parties expressed strong support for the recommendations released last week by the Iraq Study Group, which urged the administration to make a new diplomatic effort to engage Iraq's neighbors in stabilizing the country.
By 64% to 28%, respondents favored the group's recommendation to open direct talks with Iran and Syria.
"Dialogue is important in any resolution," said Terry Katz, 52, who runs a landscaping company in Cincinnati.
Katz, who is Jewish, said he disagreed with the administration's decision to shun Iran because of its hostility to Israel and its nuclear weapons program, saying: "I think that's all the more reason to talk to them."
The panel also encouraged the administration to shift the military mission in Iraq from combat to training, which would permit most combat troops to withdraw by early 2008 and a smaller number of training advisors to remain, largely embedded with Iraqi security forces. Respondents also favored that option nearly 2 to 1.
"I believe we need to be out of there," said Marilyn Perlman, 65, of Boulder, Colo. "Pulling our troops out of the midst of the battle makes sense, and relocating them near the borders" could prevent more violence.
Overall, 56% of those polled said they believed the situation in Iraq was not worth going to war over, compared with 40% who said it was. That result was roughly comparable to results from polls earlier this year.
Bush's overall approval rating stood at 42%, generally in line with other results in the last year, in which his approval rating has fluctuated between a high of 45% and a low of 38%.
Respondents said they trusted Democrats more than Republicans on nearly every issue, including the economy.
Poll participants even gave the Democrats the edge on one of the Republicans' signature issues: taxes. Forty-seven percent said they trusted Democrats more than Republicans to do a better job handling taxes, and 56% said they would favor repealing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and investors.
And despite the Bush administration's new Medicare prescription drug benefit, 63% of respondents said they thought Democrats would do a better job of handling drug prices for the elderly and poor.
The only area in which Bush had an advantage over Democrats was the war on terrorism. Forty-three percent of respondents said they thought the president would do a better job than Democrats on national security and terrorism, whereas 38% said Democrats would. However, his advantage has declined in the last year; in January it was 45% to 32%.
Though Americans said they preferred Democrats on most issues, they also said they wanted both sides to work together. Sixty-five percent said Democrats and Bush should compromise to get things done, while 32% said they should stand up for their beliefs.
Democrats seemed more conciliatory than Republicans: 57% of Democrats said their party should compromise rather than stand on principle, and Republicans split about evenly, with 47% favoring compromise and 51% urging the president to stand up for his beliefs.
The poll of 1,489 adults conducted Dec. 8 through 11 had a margin of sampling error of 3 percentage points.
|
|
|
| SorryBoss |
I don't doubt that those numbers are accurate,but I would guess thats always been the case when it comes down to either military action or peace.Are you saying this is a new phenomenon,that most Americans (or only dems), favor diplomacy?
What would be more of a eyeopening thread would be:
The percentage of Syrians (Iranians or any middle eastern country),that would favor an open dialogue with us.Because as I recall there has been animosity with these countries well before Bush became president.Hell before he was a twinkle in George Bush Sr's eye.I am not saying Bush has handled these situations well,but as long as we're allies with Israel there will be animosity and hatred coming our way from that area. |
|
|
| DREAD |
In this modern day and age- Castro like actions are a waste of chest thumping and feather fluffing- in this day and age- it is about productivity. Conversations can ONLY be held when both sides maintain a 100% stance of follow trough- consequences and benefits follow through. If one side is perceived as weaker, than the other side will always seek to exploit and mislead.
The US has a history of paper tiger hollow threats..... speaking with Syria and Iran would be pointless- unless we are prepared to follow through with the punishment for their misaction, inaction or manipulation- as we would need to be prepared to follow through with the benefit side of the arrangement- |
|
|
| erik28com |
| If there is one thing I have learned from 6 years of the Bush presidency its that he could give a fuck about what Americans want. If he did we'd be out of Iraq. Oh but Nancy Pelosi who is trying both things is a traitor. Cause you know she wore a scarf. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Ass Boil,
Even I do not have problems with the U.S. negotiating with Iran. Just not on their nuclear program, on terror, or on Israel. Because we cannot negotiate on those things.
We can say to them we will free up assets that we have held frozen since 1979. We can use that as leverage on something. Perhaps a change in the Great Satan America policy they have. Or, even to normalize relations. We free up those assets for the embassies opening up again, a less harsh tone. I'd be for that. |
|
|
| Crazytree |
Quote: Originally posted by DREAD
Conversations can ONLY be held when both sides maintain a 100% stance of follow trough- consequences and benefits follow through. |
Hate to break it to you... but it's the US who has a history of broken promises in the region.
Remember when we told Iraq we wouldn't intervene if they invaded Kuwait? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
Hate to break it to you... but it's the US who has a history of broken promises in the region.
Remember when we told Iraq we wouldn't intervene if they invaded Kuwait? |
Educate me... |
|
|
| Crazytree |
| Quote: ednesday July 25, 1990, the American Ambassador in Iraq, April Glaspie, asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border. The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, "inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion” on the disagreement which opposes Kuwait to Iraq, stating "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts". She also let Saddam Hussein know that the U.S. did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". These statements may have misled Saddam into believing he had received a diplomatic green light from the United States to invade Kuwait (New York Times, September 23, 1990). |
|
|
|
| DREAD |
Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
Hate to break it to you... but it's the US who has a history of broken promises in the region.
Remember when we told Iraq we wouldn't intervene if they invaded Kuwait? |
CT- not arguing that point.
I think we purposely mislead Iraq with mixed signals, all the way right up to the hanging.
BUt.... I am talking about something else all together. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
| What was the conflict? We do not have an opinion? Thats it?????????????????????? |
|
|
| AcquiringSignal |
The Republicans have been exposed.
They are fucked for decades.
Even with A+ Bullshit spinners of everything.
The public is ignoring them
:D |
|
|
|
|
|
