Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: Gallup poll confirms majority of Americans favor diplomacy with Iran

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Gallup poll confirms majority of Americans favor diplomacy with Iran

    [QUOTE]According to a recent Gallup poll, 59% of Americans think it is a good idea for the President of the United States to meet with the President of Iran, and 67% support meeting with the leaders of countries considered enemies of the United States.

    For months, the presidential campaigns and members of Congress have focused on the question of whether to negotiate with countries hostile to the United States. This poll indicates a strong majority of Americans prefer a US policy characterized by engagement with other countries rather than one that pursues diplomatic isolation. A recent University of California-Berkeley poll reflecting IranianAmericans' views showed strikingly similar results, with 66% supporting diplomacy with Iran.
    Among those polled during Gallup's May 19-21 survey, 71% of Democrats and 58% of Independents favor discussions with Iran. Nearly half of all Republicans support negotiations with Iran as well.

    In general, Americans' views on the President meeting leaders of foreign countries considered enemies of the United States are even more affirming of diplomatic engagement. Of those polled, 79% of Democrats and 70% of Independents think it is a good idea, with 48% of Republicans agreeing as well. These new figures add weight to the already significant number of people calling for a new Iran policy centered on diplomacy.

    "The Gallup poll confirms what many already knew - the American people and the Iranian-American community support diplomacy as the best approach to resolve conflicts," said Babak Talebi, Director of Community Relations at the National Iranian American Council. "Decision-makers in Washington should heed the will of the American people." [/QUOTE]



    [url]http://www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1133&Itemid=2[/url]

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    they might as well change the poll to say Gallup poll confirms that majority of Americans are sane

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    From Parts Unknown
    Posts
    10,325
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well thats obvious... Who wouldnt want that alternative over war against any country?? The problem is: can it be done?

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=24;2590735]Who wouldnt want that alternative over war against any country?[/QUOTE]

    umm... have you been awake at all in the past 7.5 years?

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Post Thanks / Like
    TanG, I also see less of the 'kill 'em all" clatter that used to dominate this part of the site.

    I guess even they are 'softening' a bit:)

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    From Parts Unknown
    Posts
    10,325
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tanginius;2590764]umm... have you been awake at all in the past 7.5 years?[/QUOTE]


    Nice how you deleted the rest of my post you quoted. Which answers your follow up question.:rolleyes:

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=24;2590735] The problem is: can it be done?[/QUOTE]

    Oh, it can be done, the question is "Does it do any good?" and "What are we willing to concede to get them to stop being jerks and start being nice little puppies?"

    That's what I'd like to hear Obumma and his cronies tell us how they'd do this!

    :confused:

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,565
    Post Thanks / Like
    In another poll they found that we should try talking to Charles Manson so we can know what he's feeling and try to understand why he's antisocial.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    astoria
    Posts
    5,313
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tanginius;2590698]they might as well change the poll to say Gallup poll confirms that majority of Americans are sane[/QUOTE]so how would you approach iran?

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=asuusa;2592563]Oh, it can be done, the question is "Does it do any good?" and "What are we willing to concede to get them to stop being jerks and start being nice little puppies?"

    That's what I'd like to hear Obumma and his cronies tell us how they'd do this!

    :confused:[/QUOTE]

    that sounds reasonable...

    Obama, can you please look into the fututre and tell us exactly what will happen in a meeting with leaders from Iran or any nation which aids terrorists. Can you please tell us exactly what they will request from. You mean you can't look into the future?

    Hurmmph....damn you Obumma

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ (Jets Stadium Section 246)
    Posts
    35,734
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2592568]so how would you approach iran?[/QUOTE]

    Me, with guns blazing! :yes:

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2592568]so how would you approach iran?[/QUOTE]

    diplomatically... just like I would approach any other country


    is there a specific problem you'd like me to solve?

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    We are negiotating with Iran the idea that we aren't is more Democratic BS.

    [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25300269[/url]

    [QUOTE]The United States says it is focusing on diplomatic pressure to thwart Tehran's nuclear ambitions but has not ruled out military action as a last resort.

    Diplomats said on Friday the six powers had offered Iran preliminary talks on its nuclear program, on condition it limit enrichment to current levels for six weeks in exchange for a freeze on moves towards harsher sanctions.

    They said European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana conveyed the proposal during talks in Tehran on June 14 in which he presented a revised batch of incentives for Iran to stop pursuing technology that could yield atomic weapons.

    'Freeze-for-freeze'
    Asked whether such a "freeze-for-freeze" proposal would be acceptable to Iran, Elham told reporters:

    "About suspension, it has been said that suspension of activities and suspension of enrichment is not a logical issue that would be acceptable and in any case the continuation of negotiations will not be based on enrichment suspension."

    Iran has repeatedly rejected the sextet's precondition of a full suspension of enrichment-related activity before negotiations to implement the incentives, which include support in developing a civilian nuclear program.

    [B]Iran says it will review the offer by the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany but that it will not stop enriching uranium, which can have both civilian and military uses.[/B][/QUOTE]It appears that we are in multi lateral negiotations with Iran on Nukes. Keep up the lies boys the elections is in a few months.

    I wonder what most Americans would think if they were asked do you favor the US abandoning multi lateral talks with Iran for unilateral action?

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,909
    Post Thanks / Like
    The stupidest thing in world would be for the leader of this country to meet with the nut that runs Iran. All that would do is legitimize a rogue government. Besides do you really think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can be reasonable?

  15. #15
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,876
    Post Thanks / Like
    He is only a small nut in a field of nuts. The Mullahs call the shots in Iran!

  16. #16
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=24;2590735]Well thats obvious... Who wouldnt want that alternative over war against any country?? The problem is: can it be done?[/QUOTE]

    This.

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,876
    Post Thanks / Like
    We may not have to do it, Israel may do it for us. If the Iranians got really stupid and tried to mine the Persian Straights. The Saudis would also declare war.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jetstream23;2592572]Me, with guns blazing! :yes:[/QUOTE]

    What's stopping you? Freaking cakewalk, right? Open arms...liberators...candy, unicorns, flowers at our feet, rainbows, singing birds.

    Cakewalk, cakewalk, cakewalk. So easy.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetsFanatic;2595131] Besides do you really think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can be reasonable?[/QUOTE]

    Does it snow in Miami?

    The problem we have in negotiations, is that we're willing to concede far more than he does so he's in the driver's seat; Which he loves and loves to thumb his nose at the big ol' White Satan"! So meeting with our prez will glorify him in his eyes, i.e., "See, I'm a player on the world scene, I can even get a meeting with the most powerful man in the world!" And now that he's heard Obamma say he'd meet with him, that, naturally, will make him harder to reason with!

    [QUOTE]U.N., "atomic energy chief ElBaradei has been pleading with Iran to accept a new package of incentives before another round of sanctions would be imposed."[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]Meanwhile, Iran is reiterating its decision to continue enriching uranium, calling Western pressure to suspend the work "illogical."

    The statement by a government spokesman comes as Europe waits for Iran's formal answer to an international package of incentives designed to rein in its nuclear program.

    Iran's official IRNA news agency quoted Iranian spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham on Saturday as saying that his country will respond to the package at a convenient time.

    The package would give Tehran economic incentives, and the chance to develop alternate light-water reactors, in return for dropping the uranium enrichment.
    [/QUOTE]

    CBS News

  20. #20
    Undrafted Free Agent
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;2590657][url]http://www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1133&Itemid=2[/url][/QUOTE]

    Of course meeting with countries who have a different view than we do would be beneficial. We could attempt to come to a common ground. Nukes never bring common ground to a situation.

    The president of Iran himself came to NYC and spoke at Colombia University about a year ago. Im not sure how many people knew about that. My point is, that though he may have different views than this government which, showing the polls, many citizens of the country also have different views than the government, the president of Iran came to this country in peace, not to speak to the President, but to speak to the people of this country at an educational institution. Our own president doesnt even do that. Though there were things that he may have agreed with that we may not agree with, he didnt bring gunz and rockets with him to Colombia U. He bought himself, his voice, a pen and a pad. How could you not respect that?

    There's no reason to push this man and his country into a corner. An attack wouldnt be for the sake of maintaining our liberties.

    Example: look how we just invaded Iraq with all there "weapons of mass destruction". I knew that sh!t was fake just because of how we stormed into the country.

    Remember the cold war? remember when Russia had nukes in Cuba. Why didnt we just storm Russia? I'll tell you why, we didnt storm into Russia because Russia REALLY had Weapons on mass destruction as our current president would put it. What did this govenrment do? They got on the damn phone and talked about it. We sent ships out in the ocean, but we just didnt barge into Cuba beacuse we SEEN what they had, we knew it.

    Yet, Iraq is basically the same threat and we just go in like some wild Cowboys huh? Its not hard to point out the bull****.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us