Zogby Results

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
My responses are in red:

Majority says U.S. has done all it could and should withdraw: Enemy has staying power, new Zogby Interactive poll shows

President Bush is under fire over his Iraq policies, as a majority of likely voters nationwide say they are not pleased with his handling of the war there, a new Zogby Interactive survey shows.

As the President delivers his annual State of the Union message, 55% of the voting public favors a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq, believing the U.S. has accomplished all it realistically can in the Middle Eastern nation.

Many disagree that the enemy in Iraq is getting worn down and that the U.S. will eventually win the war. Just 40% agree with that statement, while 59% do not. Similarly, while 41% favor escalating the Iraq conflict, using more missiles and heavy artillery against insurgents -- but a 56% majority opposes this approach.

The survey finds the nation sharply divided over the Iraq conflict, with 49% agreeing with the proposition that America cannot win the war in Iraq and that Iraqis should be left to sort out their own future without U.S. or allied intervention. However, just as many oppose that view.

Despite the misgivings of many about the war, a 53% majority of voters oppose an immediate withdrawal -- although 46% favor this position.

The survey does find that the groups that supported President Bush's 2004 re-election -- including conservatives, rural voters, Protestants and evangelicals, regular churchgoers, men, the investor class and Republicans in general -- are much more likely to favor continued involvement in Iraq and are more likely to reject arguments favoring withdrawal from the region. And NASCAR fans -- one of the groups closely watched during the 2004 elections -- are solid war supporters.

However, the President does not win the hearts and minds of a number of other groups, including moderates and liberals, large city dwellers, Catholics, women, non-investors, and households containing members of a labor union. And among a number of key swing constituencies, including small city residents and suburbanites, there are clear signs of fatigue with the war.

The President may also have his work cut out for him in retaining support on the subject from lawmakers who are eyeing a future White House run. Asked whether they would support a presidential candidate in 2008 who aggressively supports the Iraq War, 36% of poll respondents said they would. By contrast, 43% said they would instead support a 2008 presidential candidate who believes nothing more can be accomplished in the region and that a continued U.S. presence would be counterproductive.

The interactive survey of 13,456 likely voters nationwide was conducted Jan. 27 through 30. It has a margin of error of +/- 0.9 percentage points.

For Zogby Interactive methodology, please go to: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1064

Please click the link below to view the full news release with tables:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1066

Where they mention "investors" threw me because the poll asks if you have investments and what type, and they include not only stocks but 401k as well. So I answer that yes, I have investments. But then they ask if you consider yourself part of the "investor class", and I'm not sure what that means so I answer no.
 

Bustem' Down

Give Peas a Chance
I think we do need to step it up over there, but as far as using more missles and heavy artillery I don't think would work. These people have to stay in one place to use that kind of firepower and we can't just start leveling villiages. Train and deploy more special forces units and double recruiting efforts to create another infantry division or brigade (I can't remember which is bigger).
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
A division consists of multiple brigades. I think that we need to quit fighting the way that we did in Vietnam and start fighting like we did in WWII. We draw a line in the sand and say "this is the front line." Then we start moving forward and engage the bad guys and keep moving the line forward. As move forward we sweep the buildings and grap up all of the arms and keep forcing the insurgents to fight or fall back. We keep pushing the line until the insurgents are dead or living in Iran.

The concept of having centralized bases where we launch attacks to take over towns, then withdrawl from the towns and return to the base as the enemy returns to the town, is a failed approach.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
If I remember correctly, this was part of the same poll from above:

Two-thirds majority backs joint military action to thwart Iran's nuclear program, new Zogby Interactive poll shows

As President Bush reaffirms his intention to thwart Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons, a wide majority of Americans favor military action together with allies to prevent Iran from realizing those efforts, a new Zogby Interactive survey shows.

In his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, Bush declared that Iran "is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats."

The comprehensive new Zogby poll shows that 64% of respondents favor joint U.S.-European military intervention to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and 63% favor joint military action with the United Nation to stop Iran's nuclear program. Another 47% would support unilateral military action by the U.S. against Iran.

"These are surprising findings for me," said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International, who said a majority of "Americans are telling us that they would prefer we pack our bags and leave Iraq now."

"And yet, Americans appear ready to do some damage to Iran if it proceeds with its nuclear program. They are not necessarily ready to stand on the front lines by themselves. They would prefer that Israel take the lead, or that it be a joint effort with Europe or the United Nations. But still, it is surprising that Americans are this militant," Zogby said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog organization, said in a report Tuesday that Iran had obtained documents and drawings on the black market that serve no other purpose than to make an atomic warhead. Tehran warned of an "end of diplomacy" if plans to refer it to the U.N. Security Council are carried out. The agency also announced that Tehran has not yet started small-scale uranium enrichment, but has announced plans to do so, the Associated Press reported.

Among the 47% of respondents who said they supported U.S. military action against Iran to halt their nuclear program, 74% of that subset said they would favor joint air strikes with European allies. Some favored more than one measure to counter Iran as described in the following chart:

Options Favored by Supporters of Action to Halt Iran's Nuclear Ambitions

% Favor Option Supported:
58% Using U.S. special- ops forces
64% Air strikes - US alone
56% Joint air strikes with Israel
74% Joint air strikes with Europe
36% Invasion to secure Iran Nuke sites
25% Invasion to topple Iran govt; occupy
24% Pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran

5% None of these choices

In the worst-case scenario of an Iranian nuclear attack against the United States, 66% said they would support nuclear retaliation, while 21% said they would not support such a reaction. Meanwhile, nearly half -- 48% -- said they would support a U.S. nuclear response to an Iranian nuclear attack against an ally, and 39% said they would favor U.S. nuclear retaliation should Iran use a nuclear weapon against any nation, whether or not they were a U.S. ally.

North Korean Nuclear Ambitions Also Targeted

The poll also finds Americans willing to deal as harshly with a nuclear North Korea . North Korea has blustered on the international stage about its advancing nuclear weapons program, but it is yet unclear whether they have developed a nuclear bomb. Nearly half of all respondents said they favor a U.S. nuclear reaction should North Korea use such weapons against South Korea or Japan, the survey shows.

The interactive survey of 13,456 likely voters nationwide was conducted Jan. 27 through 30. It has a margin of error of +/- 0.9 percentage points.

For Zogby Interactive methodology, please go to: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1064

Please click the link below to view the full news release with tables:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1067
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Need more men...

Bruzilla said:
A division consists of multiple brigades. I think that we need to quit fighting the way that we did in Vietnam and start fighting like we did in WWII. We draw a line in the sand and say "this is the front line." Then we start moving forward and engage the bad guys and keep moving the line forward. As move forward we sweep the buildings and grap up all of the arms and keep forcing the insurgents to fight or fall back. We keep pushing the line until the insurgents are dead or living in Iran.

The concept of having centralized bases where we launch attacks to take over towns, then withdrawl from the towns and return to the base as the enemy returns to the town, is a failed approach.

...to take and hold. Way more.

Presidents tend to do stupid things like ask their SecDef what they need. There's this built in desire to be efficient and get the most out of the troops etc, please the boss.

What they should do at the start (and always end up doing anyway) is TELL them what they want done. Then SecDef and his chiefs are off the hook and start sending in laundry lists...which is what it always takes.

Bush 41 got it right and Swazkopf (sp?) didn't move until he had, what, 750,000 pairs of boots on the ground and enourmous piles of stuff.

We were screwed this time, MArch '03, when the 4thID was not allowed to come in from Turkey at the last minute. They were the cap on the bottle and all the smart bad guys left town that way along with all they could get out. And all the jihadists came rolling back in the same way.

We don't need so much force to hold the cap on if it's in place before you shake the bottle. Afterwards, you need multiples to get it back under control.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Bruzilla said:
A division consists of multiple brigades. I think that we need to quit fighting the way that we did in Vietnam and start fighting like we did in WWII. We draw a line in the sand and say "this is the front line." Then we start moving forward and engage the bad guys and keep moving the line forward. As move forward we sweep the buildings and grap up all of the arms and keep forcing the insurgents to fight or fall back. We keep pushing the line until the insurgents are dead or living in Iran.

The concept of having centralized bases where we launch attacks to take over towns, then withdrawl from the towns and return to the base as the enemy returns to the town, is a failed approach.
Amen and amen. Bruzilla for Army Chief of Staff. I guess you would need to be in the Army and promoted to a 4 star, but hey.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
willie said:
Me four
Vrai, you getting some kinda kickback on this membership drive?
Nope - just trying to get more people involved because it's fun and interesting.

I'll be waiting to hear you all's impressions of the poll questions and Zogby's interpretation of results.
 
Top