The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
1) Headline news: Britain critical to US public support if no new UN resolution 2) Detailed results of poll re: war against Iraq 3) Other results: opposition to pre-emptive war and indecision over US nuclear retaliation US public opposed to unilateral war on Iraq: An opportunity for Britain According to a poll on US attitudes to war on Iraq, commissioned by the Knight Ridder group of US newspapers and carried out by Princeton Survey Research Associates and published in part in the Miami Herald on 12 Jan., a unilateral war on Iraq by the United States - without a UN resolution and without a major ally - is opposed by an overwhelming majority of people in the US. 1) Headline news: Britain critical to US public support if no new UN resolution While support for the war was almost equal to opposition (47% against 45%) if the US was joined by one or two major allies, in the absence of a UN Resolution, this turned into overwhelming opposition if the US fought entirely alone and without a UN Resolution (34% support against 59% opposition). This shows the extraordinary importance of the political decisions taken in London in terms of the political viability of the war in the US. (The full poll results are available online via Martin Merzer, 'Poll: Majority oppose unilateral action against Iraq', Miami Herald, <http://www.miami.com/>). 2) Detailed results of poll re: war against Iraq Respondents agreed that Iraq posed a 'serious threat' to the US (75% Yes, 19% No, 7% Don't know) - there was a slight gender gap with women more worried than men, but thought that al Qa'eda was a more significant threat to US security than Iraq (49% thought al Qa'eda the biggest threat, only 21% opted for Iraq). The threat from Iraq was therefore seen as less important as a priority for US foreign policy than al Qa'eda (27% thought Iraq the most important priority, whereas 49% prioritised al Qa'eda). Only 27% of respondents were in favour of moving forward quickly 'with military action as the only way to effectively deal with the threat posed by Iraq'. 68% of respondents supported taking more time to 'try to achieve our goals in Iraq WITHOUT going to war'. Again there was a clear gender gap, with only 22% of women in favour of quick military action as opposed to 31% of men, and only 18% of African Americans supported quick military action - 81% supported a more patient approach. A majority of Republicans (59%) also favoured the slower route. Respondents were given a choice of scenarios and asked whether they would support or oppose war on Iraq in these cases: 'The United States joined together with its major allies to attack Iraq with the full support of the United Nations Security Council': 83% support for war, 13% opposition, 5% don't know. There was no real gender gap, but African Americans were less enthusiastic about war even in these circumstances: only 70% support for war, against 86% support among non- Hispanic whites. There was an interesting age gap, with 19% of 18-29 year olds opposed to war even in these circumstances, compared to only 9% of 30-49 year olds. 'The United States and one or two of its major allies attacked Iraq without the support of the United Nations': 47% support, 45% opposition, 9% don't know. A significant gender gap appears, with 55% of men supportive, but only 38% of women supportive of war in these conditions. While 42% of non-Hispanic whites were supportive of war, only 27% of African- Americans joined them; 65% of Black Americans were against war in these conditions. A majority (54%) of 18-29 year-olds opposed war and only 41% supported war in these conditions while figures were almost exactly reversed for the 30-49 year-olds. 'The United States acted alone in attacking Iraq without the support of the United Nations': 34% were supportive, 59% were opposed, 6% were don't knows. 43% of men supported war, but only 26% of women did so. 35% of non-Hispanic whites supported war, but only 19% of African-Americans did so. 3) Other results: opposition to pre-emptive war and indecision over US nuclear retaliation Pre-emptive attacks on countries and groups that threaten the US did not receive wholehearted support: 45% thought this a 'good policy', while 43% thought it a 'bad policy' (women were much more opposed than men - 41% support against 46% opposition - and African Americans were very much more opposed than whites - Black people were 30% supportive and 64% opposed). If Iraq responded to a US attack with chemical or biological weapons, 46% of US citizens would support the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq, but 45% would oppose such action. _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk