i'm not sure what this tells us about american's feelings. there's only one post-election poll in that list and it doesn't address what people want done about iran.
stretching the post-election definition to include a poll taken a few weeks before the election, i find only one, a suspect push poll.
the question in that one isn't about all the options one might consider, like diplomacy, sanctions or blockades, but only what military options you support from its limited list.
for instance one could have an opinion about a military strategy, pro or con, but strongly prefer a non-military solution, or vice-versa. the poll does not reflect that distinction. perhaps it's deliberate.
the next newest poll is seven months old and public opinion has shifted too much for that to be relevant.
they quickly go back even farther, all the way to 2003.
it's january 2007. america just seated a new congress. bi-partisan elected officials, civilians and generals alike are highly dubious of bush and his plans to escalate his disastrous involvement in iraq. our congress is asking real questions for the first time in five years. the answers they're receiving are illuminating. iran itself is questioning it's own belligerence. things are shifting, and the debate is not the same as it was even six weeks ago.
if you were to ask americans today what if anything should be done about many countries, including china, korea, iran, darfor, syria, pakistan etc, i have a pretty good idea what the results would be and i doubt military action would top the lists.
- js.
|