Rasmussen
has a surprising poll out today. The lead result indicates that
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of U.S. voters nationwide favor a military response to eliminate North Korea’s missile launching capability.
It appears that many people are living in a fantasy world, where we can simply destroy North Korea's missile capability in a couple days, go home, and go about our business. The poll doesn't say this, but what else could these people be thinking? Fifty-seven percent really want to launch a preemptive war against North Korea? With all we have going on right now, is this a good time to start a conflict in the far east? Amazingly enough, support is across the political spectrum
Support for a military response comes from 66% of Republicans, 52% of Democrats and 54% of those not affiliated with either major political party. There is no gender gap on the issue as a military response is favored by 57% of men and 57% of women.
It's possible people either don't understand the ramifications of what a military response would entail, or they misinterpreted the question to mean
should we shoot down North Korea's missiles. I find it extremely difficult to believe that a majority support a preemptive U.S. attack.
My guess is they think we should blow up a few launch pads and call it a day.
ReplyDeleteThey need to do a similar poll on Iran. I looked on the Rasmussen site, but didn't see one.
ReplyDeleteI'm don't know how it would poll, but Iran is out of the question. Iraq has tied our hands.
ReplyDeleteIran is safe unless it's stupid enough to cause real trouble (i.e. attack someone)
It's just another reason among many why the Middle East was more stable and secure before we stupidly invaded.
"I'm don't know how it would poll, but Iran is out of the question. Iraq has tied our hands."
ReplyDeleteI think they are both out of the question because of the overall situation. We could devastate Iran if we wanted to, regardless of Iraq. But we don't have the political will to do so -- and I'm not sure we have the will at all. We would never do what would be necessary to cripple Iran or North Korea. Starting another war in the Middle East or Asia is just not in our interests with everything we have going on right now.
"It's just another reason among many why the Middle East was more stable and secure before we stupidly invaded."
That's a wild overstatement. It wasn't even close to stable or secure. In fact, it was a powder keg waiting for the next explosion -- just like it is now. And it's impossible to say what the situation would be like had we not invaded Iraq.
> And it's impossible to say what the situation would be like had we not invaded Iraq.
ReplyDeleteOne thing is easy to say: We'd have options for taking action. Now we don't, and Iran can pretty much do whatever it wants short of attacking another country.
"One thing is easy to say: We'd have options for taking action. Now we don't, and Iran can pretty much do whatever it wants short of attacking another country."
ReplyDeleteWe have options now. They just aren't good ones. But they weren't too good before either.
Speaking only for myself, I consider "military action" to mean the use of anti-ballistic missiles to send a clear signal that we won't tolerate these acts and we have the capability to make Kim's pursuit of missile technology meaningless.
ReplyDeleteThat it would embarass him only sweetens the deal.
"3* If North Korea launches a long-range missile, should the United States take military action to eliminate North Korea’s ability to launch missiles?"
ReplyDeleteThat's the actual poll question. Eliminating their ability to launch is a lot different than shooting down a missile. But yes, I think it's possible that a lot of people interpreted the question that way.