Would a nuclear attack on Iran make Bush more or less popular

[Syrinx]

Poll question: Would a nuclear attack on Iran make Bush more or less popular

I decided to go gas up the car tonight because I think the prices will be about ten to twenty cents more tomorrow (today). I turned on the radio and I was getting some station out of Atlanta with Michael "Savage" Wiener.

Savage said that Bush is definitely going to nuke Iran, and that his approval ratings will soar when he does, because of the "rally around the commander" effect.

I find this very difficult to believe.

I'm no fan of Iran. It seems to be one of the worst countries in the world to live in.

But it seems to me very unlikely that an unprovoked nuclear attack against a sovereign country would lead to increased job approval ratings. At least in any country I want to live in.

What do you think?

[SoftUnderbelly]

1. hmmm

i think his approval ratings will go through the roof in mental asylums world wide, however i feel sane people might not be so happy about the prospect of nuclear holocaust.

[Syrinx]

2. welcome to our own little asylum :)

I wonder how Russia and China would react to such an attack.

[paparush]

16. Like this. 10...9...8... 7...6...5... 4...3...2...1 ....

LAUNCH!!

[Mojambo]

3. The resulting $8.00 a gallon gas prices might have an impact. n/t

[Syrinx]

4. yep

That was part of the calculation!

[rucky]

5. I still can't get over the shock that we're talking about NUKING Iran.

much less consider how popular the decision would be.

If it does regain Bush's favor with America, then I want no part of America.

[Syrinx]

6. sign me up

I'm onboard with you!

[Azathoth]

7. He'd be lynched by a mob

Unless Iran does something really, really, really stupid, like lob a warhead into Disneyland, the American people are not gonna support the pre-emptive nuking of another country, even Iran. They've had enough bloodshed and misery over the past several years since the mad-eyed monkey has been in the White House.

[Syrinx]

8. I hope you are correct

And if you are correct, I almost hope he does it. (Just kidding.)

[FloridaPat]

9. Only if there is a "terrorist attack" on the US that points to Iran.

There has to be a reason besides the lie that Iran will get nuclear weapons. These folks in DC are totally nuts and would do anything There is also the theory that the next attack on US soil will allow them to turn the US into dictatorship. So that would be 2 countries destroyed over this. Although one could argue the US is already dead.

[CarlSheeler4U]

10. If he saends his family, now we're talking sand to glass

Iran, unlike Iraq, has not had a depleted military from the vestiges of
Desert Storm. Iran has received support from China, Russia and France.

Assuming the world's most advanced countries opted to stay on the
sidelines, do we believe that any support would be avaiable for any
subsequent attack on the US?

How could we say such an attack on our civilians was not justified
beacuse we empowered our leaders to do nothing to prevent it from
occuring? The civilian casualities would be enormous there
(Iran)...and what about blowback, as if our foreign and energy policies
since the mid 1900's are not bad enough?

How does this legitimately differ from invading Poland, Czechlosavkia
and Austria? The same saber-rattling applied as justification. Let's
say we can do it, because we can. Does this result in "might makes
right?"

What then would prevent China from invading Taiwan and South Korea
under similar pretenses? Venezuela would seek Russian support to
protect its borders and the whole option of preventive first strikes
creates justification (remember Pearl Harbor?). How about a Sino-Russo
pact if things get hairy?

The point is right here, right now we will either watch in the manner
German citizens did in the late 1930's and early 1940's as their young
men are recruited for the "noble" cause or we will act with resolve
sooner than later.

The alternative to this debacle is cut the BS and invest the tens or
hundreds of billions needed to produce alternative energy instead of
maintaining occupancy of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, which if one
bothers to examine on a world map border each other and puts Russia in
the unenviable position of spooling up its own military, nuclear
arsenal and reformation of the former Soviet bloc. Yes, hthe US will have a decisive first strike, but the occupation will be a bettle of attrition.

This is not a movie, this is a real take. I warned a group of College
Democrats at Brown in November that this could occur before 2010 and
they looked at me like I went to public school, which I did.

Being a Marine vet with combat and staff planning experience forces one
to think of the world in pieces of a puzzle with "what if" planning.

Now folks understand why I believe that post election 2006 and waiting
till 2008 is way too late for Impeachment. Further, putting the US in
a battle footing has historic foundation in political motivation.

The public seldom changes its elected officials in time of war and it
opens a third nightmare scenario where King George's toilet paper
called our Constitution has its amendment removed permitting a third
term in office. I think it's time to restore the color coded alerts
and declare that our country is at a red alert and the threat is from
within.

I welcome folks' thoughts and input.

Carl
Sheeler for US Senate (D-RI)
www.carlsheeler.com
[e-mail]

[Old and In the Way]

11. He'll be popular at the Hague.

Seriously, at some point the world's going to say, "if you want to be part of the world community again, you'll need to deposit the boy-king in our playpen." What if any other world leader decided to declare acts of war on 3 seperate countries in 6 years? We're getting into Hitler territory here.

[salin]

12. The continuing deluge of bush lied us into Iraq stories

are too fresh in the public's mind for their to be a "rally around the commander in chief" effect.

The news is too bad coming from Iraq for anyone to buy the bomb and suddenly the people will rise up and topple their own govt (ala the greeted with rose petals in Iraq).

The deficits are too great to buy the "low cost/no cost" price tag (not yet floated per Iran - but given their tendency to recycle their own propoganda lines, I expect we will start hearing that one again, soon.)

[greekspeak]

13. When you ask that question, do you mean in polls or on the ground?

Because if you mean polls, we all know that those numbers can--and regularly are--doctored to make Chimperor Gleepants look better. If you mean on the ground, I doubt it will hurt him much. His based will salivate and spontaneously orgasm, and that is a good 25-30%. Most Americans will probably be horrified. So his numbers will probably drop into the 20's to around 30 on the ground, in the polls, probably not much change, or the pollsters will doctor the numbers up into the 60's or 70's as long as they can.

[foreverdem]

14. Less popular

People are already fed up with the Iraq war, fed up that we were lied to and all the innocent lives, both American and Iraqi that have been lost. * has a hard time getting any support for the Iraq war, I think that the people of this country would be horrified at the thought of a nuclear attack on Iran. Anyone who is still on the fence about him would finally realize what a lunatic he actually is.

[Tesha]

15. The question's too complex for a yes-or-no answer.

More popular with whom?

What's the rest of the scenario?

• For example, with the Whacko Fundy Religiously Insane, this will
  make him insanely popular. They want Armageddon and here's their
  boy "bringing it on!"
  
  
• With normal, sane, people? Even less popular, but really, what
  normal sane non-wealthy people still support him anyway? How
  many more of these folks are left for him to lose?
  
  
• With testosterone-addled teenage boys? Wildly more popular.
  
  
• If Washington, New York, Boston, LA, Chicago, and San Francisco
  then vanish in retaliatory nuclear fireballs? Probably less popular,
  but with all those blue voters no longer answering polls, who can
  be sure?

There isn't any cut-and-dried answer to your poll.

Tesha

[NJ Democrats]

17. I think that his numbers would go up

They would go up, because everyone would at first rally around the troops, and saying this war was provoked by Iran, they would nuke us, etc. Eventually, however, his numbers would drop tremendously as war weariness would set in.
Oh, and I am not saying iran isn't a threat, I think they are. Something needs to be done about Iran, but not a nuke war.