Rasmussen: Americans back US intervention in Iraq by 3-1

[Tender Branson]

Most voters approve of U.S. military airstrikes in Iraq but still think radical Islamic insurgents are likely to take control of the country.

Sixty percent (60%) of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama’s decision to launch U.S. airstrikes to help the democratically-elected government fight al-Qaeda-led militants who threaten to take over Iraq. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 20% oppose these airstrikes, while just as many (19%) are undecided.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on August 8-9, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.

Link

[King]

I don't see why anyone would be against airstrikes. They're a low risk, high reward tactic.

[Tender Branson]

They asked 2 more questions:

*  Should U.S. soldiers return to Iraq to help protect the democratically elected government?

*  Should the United States take further military action against Iraq if it is taken over by al Qaeda or related terrorists?

... but like usual they are not releasing it to "normal" readers.

[Lief 🗽]

I don't see why anyone would be against airstrikes. They're a low risk, high reward tactic.

Paultards and true leftists are strange people.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

I don't see why anyone would be against airstrikes. They're a low risk, high reward tactic.

I grew more supportive of the strikes as time went by. I'd say I'm now in favour of them, which is pretty significant considering my disgusting hardline pacifism.

Btw, was it posted here that AP reported last night that the US began arming Kurds in Iraq?

[IceSpear]

Yet more evidence that the Rand Paul revolution, bolstered by their overwhelming public support, is going to topple the neocon warmonger triumvirate of Obama/Clinton/Kerry.

[ElectionsGuy]

Yet more evidence that the Rand Paul revolution, bolstered by their overwhelming public support, is going to topple the neocon warmonger triumvirate of Obama/Clinton/Kerry.

I'm pretty sure that Rand Paul supports the airstrikes.

[Simfan34]

Do we have a partisan breakdown? Also I feel the number of threads on this situation is becoming excessive- although I am to blame for this, in part, having opened one myself just yesterday.

[Adam Griffin]

Americans back US intervention in Iraq by 3-1

Reported for bumping old threads

[Deus Naturae]

I don't see why anyone would be against airstrikes. They're a low risk, high reward tactic.

I grew more supportive of the strikes as time went by. I'd say I'm now in favour of them, which is pretty significant considering my disgusting hardline pacifism.

Btw, was it posted here that AP reported last night that the US began arming Kurds in Iraq?

"As time went on?" It's been a few days since they were announced...

[Simfan34]

I don't see why anyone would be against airstrikes. They're a low risk, high reward tactic.

I grew more supportive of the strikes as time went by. I'd say I'm now in favour of them, which is pretty significant considering my disgusting hardline pacifism.

Btw, was it posted here that AP reported last night that the US began arming Kurds in Iraq?

"As time went on?" It's been a few days since they were announced...

Well, this is how it usually is.

[Deus Naturae]

I don't see why anyone would be against airstrikes. They're a low risk, high reward tactic.

I grew more supportive of the strikes as time went by. I'd say I'm now in favour of them, which is pretty significant considering my disgusting hardline pacifism.

Btw, was it posted here that AP reported last night that the US began arming Kurds in Iraq?

"As time went on?" It's been a few days since they were announced...

Well, this is how it usually is.

it just seems strange to say that "I changed my mind as time went on"  when that "time" is like two days.

[Simfan34]

I don't see why anyone would be against airstrikes. They're a low risk, high reward tactic.

I grew more supportive of the strikes as time went by. I'd say I'm now in favour of them, which is pretty significant considering my disgusting hardline pacifism.

Btw, was it posted here that AP reported last night that the US began arming Kurds in Iraq?

"As time went on?" It's been a few days since they were announced...

Well, this is how it usually is.

it just seems strange to say that "I changed by mind as time went on"  when that "time" is like two days.

No, you're right. It shows how some haven't changed.

[Person Man]

Ideally, we can find a nuanced policy where we can balance the jihad is power with the power of local nationalists until there is a viable group to back. Chaotic containment may be better than restarting a ground war or ignoring the situation. It's not a good one though. It reminds me of this B movie from the 70s called Zardoz.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Ideally, we can find a nuanced policy where we can balance the jihad is power with the power of local nationalists until there is a viable group to back. Chaotic containment may be better than restarting a ground war or ignoring the situation. It's not a good one though. It reminds me of this B movie from the 70s called Zardoz.

But unlike the movie, hairy white dudes coming in won't give them hope. Everyone serious agrees with the bombing but, as it happened before, putting boots on the ground besides potentially special forces will simply lead to further instability in the future.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

I don't see why anyone would be against airstrikes. They're a low risk, high reward tactic.

I grew more supportive of the strikes as time went by. I'd say I'm now in favour of them, which is pretty significant considering my disgusting hardline pacifism.

Btw, was it posted here that AP reported last night that the US began arming Kurds in Iraq?

"As time went on?" It's been a few days since they were announced...

It took me a month to go from libertarianism to hardcore socialism.

[Morning in Atlas]

I'm cool with airstrikes. As long as our troops aren't being sent to the ground I'm fine with it.

[Eraserhead]

I'm cool with airstrikes. As long as our troops aren't being sent to the ground I'm fine with it.

Give these people an inch and watch them take a mile.

[Person Man]

Ideally, we can find a nuanced policy where we can balance the jihad is power with the power of local nationalists until there is a viable group to back. Chaotic containment may be better than restarting a ground war or ignoring the situation. It's not a good one though. It reminds me of this B movie from the 70s called Zardoz.

But unlike the movie, hairy white dudes coming in won't give them hope. Everyone serious agrees with the bombing but, as it happened before, putting boots on the ground besides potentially special forces will simply lead to further instability in the future.

That's the beauty of it. We don't have to use any of our grunts. Though I suspect many of them want to be used.

[Silent Hunter]

Ideally, we can find a nuanced policy where we can balance the jihad is power with the power of local nationalists until there is a viable group to back. Chaotic containment may be better than restarting a ground war or ignoring the situation. It's not a good one though. It reminds me of this B movie from the 70s called Zardoz.

But unlike the movie, hairy white dudes coming in won't give them hope. Everyone serious agrees with the bombing but, as it happened before, putting boots on the ground besides potentially special forces will simply lead to further instability in the future.

The US Army isn't all white... and an increasing percentage of them aren't dudes.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Wars can be popular when they begin, but as time goes on, the people realize how hyped up the threats are.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wars can be popular when they begin, but as time goes on, the people realize how hyped up the threats are.

The 500 people who got buried alive would probably disagree on whether the threat to them was "hyped up".

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Wars can be popular when they begin, but as time goes on, the people realize how hyped up the threats are.

The 500 people who got buried alive would probably disagree on whether the threat to them was "hyped up".

ISIS presents no threat to US.  And the only reason it poses a threat to anyone is originally because America overthrew Saddam Hussein and later gave weapons to the Syrian opposition (which allowed it to rise again).