| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2003 5:41 am Post subject: Americans are against unilateral war in Iraq |
| Americans are against unilateral war in Iraq
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/4925312.htm (access this URL to see the actual poll numbers in graphic form):
Americans are against unilateral war in Iraq
A Knight Ridder poll suggests that 83% of the country supports war - as long as it is backed by the U.N.
By Martin Merzer
Knight Ridder News Service
With U.S. troops heading for the Persian Gulf, Americans say in overwhelming numbers that they oppose unilateral U.S. military action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, according to a national Knight Ridder poll.
A robust majority of Americans - 83 percent - would support going to war if the United Nations backed the action and it was carried out by a multinational coalition. But without U.N. approval and allies, only about a third of the public would support a war with Iraq.
"This... is a worldwide effort to eradicate terrorism," said Robert Black, 57, a firefighter from Easton, Pa. "It should not be the United States going it alone and picking and choosing what country we want to take care of this week or this month."
The poll highlights the Bush administration's political and diplomatic quandary.
Unambiguous evidence that Iraq has nuclear, biological or chemical weapons is a key requirement for the broad international support that Americans crave. Yet a majority of poll respondents, while convinced that Iraq harbors such weapons, said they doubted that U.N. inspectors would find them.
Many said President Bush had not effectively explained why military action might be required. Nearly one in five said they still did not believe Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States.
"We have been given no compelling reasons for going to war," said Bill Quarton, 52, of Ann Arbor, Mich., who was among the respondents who said they were opposed to unilateral U.S. action against Iraq.
"Our government acts as if it knows something terribly important and we should go ahead with this, but we haven't seen anything to substantiate it," he said. "The whole scenario makes me very uncomfortable."
The survey, conducted Jan. 3 to Jan. 6 by Princeton Survey Research Associates, questioned 1,204 adults, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Most Americans do not want to rush into war, the poll found. Sixty-eight percent of respondents said the United States should continue to work toward achieving its goals in Iraq without war. Only 27 percent favored quick military action.
Still, more than 60 percent of those surveyed would support an eventual war if it were the only way to topple Hussein or end the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Arguments against war are much less compelling to Americans than arguments in favor of military action. In particular, the arguments that war with Iraq will hurt the economy, damage relations with our allies, or divert attention and resources from the goal of tracking down those responsible for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, don't carry much weight, the poll found.
Two-thirds of the respondents said they thought they had a good grasp of the issues surrounding the Iraqi crisis, but closer questioning revealed large gaps in that knowledge. For instance, half of those surveyed said one or more of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. In fact, none were.
The informed public is considerably less hawkish than the public as a whole, the poll found. Those who show themselves to be most knowledgeable about the Iraqi situation are significantly less likely to support military action, either to remove Hussein or to disarm Iraq.
Asked to rank the threats facing the United States, more than twice as many respondents (49 percent of the total) chose al-Qaeda as the greatest peril as chose Iraq.
With war looming and another crisis brewing with North Korea, the survey found Americans exhibiting considerable uncertainty and ambivalence.
Among other things, they are evenly divided about Bush's effectiveness in explaining what is at stake in Iraq and why U.S. military force might be employed. Forty-eight percent said he had not clearly laid out his rationale for a war against Iraq; 46 percent said he had.
The result shows some slippage for the President since September, when other polls asked a similar question. Then, 52 percent thought the President had clearly explained his position; 37 percent disagreed.
"He's the best," said Jose Velez, 25, of Lehighton, Pa., near Allentown. "After Sept. 11, President Bush didn't take any chances, and this is part of that."
Dan Yeager, 24, of Grand Ledge, Mich., saw it differently.
"I think going after Iraq is just for Bush's own popularity and to finish off his father's work," Yeager said. "He's not clear about why he wants to go to war. I think he just wants to do it and he's just saying, 'Back me.' "
Yeager and many other Americans remain worried about the economy.
As a group, respondents were evenly split when asked whether foreign threats or the economy should be the administration's top priority.
"We're going to spend a lot of money sending all these troops to Iraq and right now we have a problem of our own with the economy," said Lydia Sepulveda, 41, of Weston, Fla. "A lot of people are without work."
Still, the 27 percent who think Iraq should be the administration's top foreign-policy priority are more likely than others to want the White House to devote most of its time to an overseas crisis rather than the economy. Fifty-two percent of those people feel that way. Only 42 percent of those who think that al-Qaeda or North Korea should be the top priority want the White House to place that issue ahead of the economy.
When it comes to North Korea, a majority think the United States is imperiled by that hard-line regime and should maintain or enhance its military presence in South Korea.
But there is little support for military action against North Korea. Seventy-nine percent of those surveyed said the crisis should be dealt with by diplomacy; only 15 percent said the United States should prepare to take immediate military action.
"It should be resolved diplomatically, absolutely," said James Webb, 45, an unemployed shipping clerk from Philadelphia. "It boils down to something my grandmother told me: They're making war because they have too many people to take care of... . So we need to deal with that."
Returning to the Iraqi crisis, a commanding 91 percent of those surveyed believe that Hussein was concealing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Sixty-five percent said U.N. inspectors aren't likely to find those weapons.
If war proves necessary, Americans seem willing to tolerate a long military presence in Iraq. Sixty-six percent of those surveyed said they would support eventual military action even if it required U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for five years.
The survey also demonstrated that many remained altruistic and idealistic. They worry that the Iraqi crisis could mark a fundamental shift in American attitudes toward war.
Two-thirds of the respondents said Hussein's record of using chemical or biological weapons against his own people provided a good reason for going to war, the same number who cited American self-defense against a terrorist attack.
Forty-six percent of those surveyed said the possibility of a high casualty rate among Iraqi civilians was a good reason not to go to war.
The nation is evenly divided over the Bush administration's advocacy of preemptive strikes, launched before an enemy attacks U.S. interests at home or abroad.
Forty-three percent say the policy violates American ideals and could establish a dangerous precedent.
"We should be the country that sets the standards," Quarton said. "This amounts to punishing the criminal before the crime is committed."
Darius Transky, 65, is part of the 45 percent who could not disagree more. The retired Trenton high school teacher faulted Americans for failing to take quicker action throughout history.
"It's not in the American tradition, but it should've been. Americans always react after we get attacked," he said. "It's good to be preemptive: better to get them before they get us."
As one might expect, support for war among Democrats and independents was much more conditional than support among Republicans.
While Republicans widely endorse the policy of preemptive strikes and would support a war with less than the full support of U.S. allies, Democrats and independents tend to see preemptive strikes as bad policy and make their support for war contingent on U.N. backing.
Americans are divided on the use of nuclear weapons. Forty-six percent would approve of a nuclear response if Iraq used chemical or biological weapons; 45 percent would not.
Asked if Israel would be justified in responding with nuclear devices to an Iraqi chemical or biological attack, 60 percent said yes; 30 percent said no.
"It would be a grave error," Quarton said about the use of nuclear devices under any circumstances. "Two wrongs do not make a right. It would poison a large part of the world. It would create hatreds that might take centuries to resolve."
The survey also suggested that the factual underpinnings of many respondents' opinions were shaky.
Nearly one in four respondents said the Bush administration had publicly released evidence tying Iraq to the planning and funding of the Sept. 11 attacks, and more than one in three respondents did not know or refused to answer.
No such evidence has been released.
http://www.philly.com | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2003 7:12 am Post subject: SHORT WARNS BLAIR ON IRAQ WAR PLAN |
| http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12526511&method=full&siteid=50143
SHORT WARNS BLAIR ON IRAQ WAR PLAN
By Paul Gilfeather, Whitehall Editor
CABINET rebel Clare Short urged Tony Blair yesterday to prevent war with Iraq.
She said the Premier had a "duty" to stop US President George Bush sliding into battle without United Nations backing.
Asked on TV if that meant Britain should avoid going along with unilateral military action by America she added: "That is the logic of the position."
DUTY: Short
The International Development Secretary spoke as a poll showed opposition to war hardening. And her remarks raised fresh fears within Downing Street that she could quit the Cabinet over Britain's role in any future military action.
Mr Blair, who will face a stormy meeting of Labour MPs on Wednesday, is said to be increasingly worried that the number opposing war could top 100.
The outspoken International Development Secretary broke ranks as Washington unveiled plans to send 62,000 more troops to the Gulf.
She spoke out as a new poll showed 58 per cent of voters are not convinced that Saddam Hussein is dangerous enough to warrant a repeat of the 1991 Gulf War.
Ms Short said: "I think all the people of Britain have a duty to keep our country firmly on the UN route, so that we stop the US going to war too early and keep the world united."
Asked if that meant Britain should not go along with unilateral military action by America, she added: "That is the logic of the position."
The outburst raised fears Ms Short may quit the Cabinet over any future action in Iraq.
Last night Pentagon officials said the United States would be ready for war with a 150,000-strong force in place by mid to late February.
As the Prime Minister prepared to justify his position on Iraq in a televised press conference today, a YouGov poll for ITN revealed just 13 per cent of voters would support a war without UN backing.
About 30 per cent of those questioned also believed Britain and America's motives for wanting to topple Saddam were to seize control of Iraq's oil supplies.
Opposition was also growing among Labour backbenchers who are set to ambush Mr Blair at a parliamentary party meeting on Wednesday. Mr Blair will attempt to quell their anger by talking of "liberating" Iraq rather than invading it.
Ms Short is the most prominent "dove" in the Cabinet. Others include Commons Leader Robin Cook, Chief Whip Hilary Armstrong and Scottish Secretary Helen Liddell.
They have warned Mr Blair, who will meet UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix on Friday, that war with Iraq could trigger the biggest revolt of Labour MPs since 1997.
Former minister Kate Hoey warned Mr Blair of the strength of feeling on the backbenches over military action without UN backing.
She said: "If it does go ahead without the backing, there are going to be quite severe repercussions."
Former Labour minister Tony Benn said Mr Blair could lose his job if he continued to ignore MPs' views.
He said: "MPs have not been asked their opinion and I gather there are serious fears among the Cabinet that they are not being listened to.
"Tony Blair is in a unique position in that he has the power to veto President Bush's plans to invade Iraq.
"America knows it needs the political cover of Britain's support and that it would be foolish to try and continue without our backing."
Labour MP Donald Anderson, chairman of the Commons' foreign affairs select committee also warned of a backbench rebellion.
He said: "In a democracy, one needs public backing for any war, and the reality is that the public is still unconvinced. Parliamentary opinion needs facts and needs to be convinced that action is in accordance with international law which means, a second UN Security Council resolution."
But Labour party chairman John Reid made it clear the Government was not ruling out taking part in military action without UN backing.
He said: "We would all much prefer that this is solved diplomatically. If it is not, we would all much prefer that the United Nations then faces up to their own responsibilities with a second resolution - which would be my preference on this.
"But no one on this position would give solace to Saddam Hussein or to those who seek to give him succour by ruling out any option."
Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell yesterday hailed Ms Short's courage in speaking out and added: "It is inconceivable that the Government could commit forces to military action without the support of the public. It is overwhelmingly clear that this support depends on a Security Council mandate."
Meanwhile Saddam warned war could only be avoided by Iraq's neighbours. He told Turkish premier Kursad Tuzmen: "Inspection teams are here and our co-operation with them is continuing, but if America wants to look for a pretext for the aggression, only the countries of the region can prevent it.
"With clarity, seriousness and brotherly dialogue we can reach the best solutions in the field of bi- lateral co-operation which would lead to many achievements and a high degree of stability in the region."
But Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah insisted there would be no war and said Arab states were considering a proposal from his kingdom which would "solve many problems".
Mr Blair is expected to travel to Washington for a "war summit" with President Bush later this month. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Jan 16, 2003 9:54 am Post subject: BLAIR: IRAQ WAR NOT ABOUT OIL |
| From http://www.mirror.co.uk
BLAIR: IRAQ WAR NOT ABOUT OIL
Jan 15 2003
By Naveed Raja
Tony Blair today insisted Iraq's vast oil reserves were not the real reason for an American-led war against the Arab state.
He said the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction meant Britain had no choice but to back George W Bush's stance.
He told MPs a second United Nations resolution "would be preferable" before war - but did not rule out backing unilateral American military action.
DEFIANT: Blair rejected oil "consiparcy theory"
Labour's Denis Skinner told Parliament during Prime Minister's Questions that a new Gulf War was about "America getting its hands on Iraqi oil".
He accused President Bush of "finishing the job his father failed to complete 12 years ago".
When Mr Blair tried to dismiss the left-winger's "conspiracy theory" he was heckled by some of his own MPs who shouted: "It's not a conspiracy theory".
Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith taunted Mr Blair over Cabinet divisions on Iraq saying ministers were split over the prospect of war.
He said: "You and your Cabinet must be clear and united in order to send the right message to Saddam Hussein, to British troops and to the British people."
Earlier Mr Blair was grilled by sceptical Labour MPs during a private meeting on Iraq.
He told a gathering of the Parliamentary Labour Party at Westminster that Saddam Hussein's regime had to be disarmed by any means possible - including force.
But his words did little to sway anxious Labour backbenchers. MP Glenda Jackson said she was not convinced by the argument for war.
"I have not been satisfied by what the Government's been saying on this issue all along," she said. "If no weapons of mass destruction are disclosed, what is the reason for going to war?"
Former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle added: "It was a typical PLP meeting and he got a good round of applause. But I'm never convinced by arguments on Iraq."
One MP said the meeting was split 50-50 over military action against Iraq.
Former culture secretary Chris Smith warned of "major disquiet" among MPs if war kicked off without a fresh UN resolution.
He said: "If America decides to jump the gun and take military action before the UN has either got the evidence or has taken a resolution and decided that this is what the world should do, if America does that, then I very much hope that Britain would side with the UN rather than the US.
"Because if the Americans decide to go ahead of a proper UN decision, then not only is there the potential for enormous humanitarian consequences, but also that would be so destabilising across the whole of the Middle East and it would really present major global problems.
"And I hope that in those circumstances that Britain would have the courage to say to the US, we don't think now is the time to do this."
Meanwhile General Wesley Clark, former Nato Supreme Allied Commander, said he thought America would attack in "mid to late February". | | | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
