56% of Americans Support No-Fly Zone over Libya; 76% Oppose Ground Troops

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/14/cnn-poll-americans-say-yes-to-no-fly-zone-no-to-ground-troops/


Washington (CNN) – A majority of Americans would support a move by the United States and other allies to establish a no fly zone in Libya, according to a new national poll.

But a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey also indicates that most of the public would oppose a move to send ground troops to fight in the civil war in the north African nation. The poll, released Monday, also suggests Americans are divided on how President Barack Obama is handling the crisis.

Fifty-six percent of Americans say they would favor the U.S. and other allied countries establishing a "no-fly zone" in Libya, with four in ten opposed. The move would allow U.S. aircraft or missiles to shoot down Libyan airplanes and attack Libyan airbases in order prevent the country's embattled leader, Moammar Gadhafi, from using his air force to attack rebel troops.

According to the poll, only 32 percent of Americans would support U.S. air strikes in Libya without an attempt to establish a "no-fly zone," with 62 percent opposed.

The survey indicates there is vast opposition to injecting U.S. ground troops into the conflict, with 76 percent saying they would oppose such a move. But 53 percent say they would favor Washington and other countries sending arms and supplies to the Libyan forces fighting to remove Gadhafi from power.

[fisharmor]

56% of Americans don't realize that it only takes 12 years of a no-fly zone before you get to invade the country.

I can kind of understand that Americans don't know who Emperor Alexios was or why he's relevant to the situation in the middle east 1000 years later... but for fuck's sake, we're talking about something that just happened less than 10 years ago.
This country is going to collapse from a simple ignorance of history.

[Pericles]

56% of Americans don't realize that it only takes 12 years of a no-fly zone before you get to invade the country.

I can kind of understand that Americans don't know who Emperor Alexios was or why he's relevant to the situation in the middle east 1000 years later... but for fuck's sake, we're talking about something that just happened less than 10 years ago.
This country is going to collapse from a simple ignorance of history.

True, but I'd say it is just the foreign policy manifestation of a society that has unrealistic expectations in life. Everybody wants the rewards, but look at how few are willing to do the hard work or takes the risks required to gain those rewards.

[Legend1104]

I think the republican party understands that the war issue sunk the party last presidential election. I am willing to bet that it will not be a big issue. Most Americans today are against wars.

[TonySutton]

We need to put a price tag on each one of these military ventures when they are brought up. For example a no-fly zone costs $X per day/month etc and include Iraq is already costing us $X per day and Afghanistan is costing $X per day.

[sailingaway]

They are thinking of the running of an already ESTABLISHED no fly zone in Iraq. However, that came as a result of the Gulf war, and the air supremacy had already been achieved in that war. You have to knock out their air capability to do that, which requires repeated invasion and bombing. I am relatively certain a whole lot of the 56% who are ok with a no fly zone but also are NOT ok with ground troops, don't realize that. In fact it seems from reactions that even much of CONGRESS didn't realize that until Hillary and Gates testified on that point on the Hill.

And once we are in, it is hard to stay out (for our codependent congressmen) when other countries 'move on' to the 'next step'. And then we have broken it and 'need to fix it....'

[Fox McCloud]

so, what this says to me is that people are stupid or inconsistent:

56% support an act of war, but 76% oppose an invaded war.

What? Do people not realize that a "no fly zone" or a naval blockade is a historical act of war and that it necessarily leads to some further military action down the road?

[doodle]

What %age of Americans support this almost secret meeting betwwen Hillary and arab muslim leader:



Clinton Meets in Paris With Libyan Rebel Leader
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
Published: March 14, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/africa/15clinton.html


What %age of Americans support eviction of Palestinians from their legal homeland and their open ended oppression?

[Lucille]

so, what this says to me is that people are stupid or inconsistent:

56% support an act of war, but 76% oppose an invaded war.

What? Do people not realize that a "no fly zone" or a naval blockade is a historical act of war and that it necessarily leads to some further military action down the road?

Maybe they'll learn after we've waged another decade long nation-building war in Libya? Nah...

[Matt Collins]

Who cares? We are not a democracy.

[civusamericanus]

They are thinking of the running of an already ESTABLISHED no fly zone in Iraq. However, that came as a result of the Gulf war, and the air supremacy had already been achieved in that war. You have to knock out their air capability to do that, which requires repeated invasion and bombing. I am relatively certain a whole lot of the 56% who are ok with a no fly zone but also are NOT ok with ground troops, don't realize that. In fact it seems from reactions that even much of CONGRESS didn't realize that until Hillary and Gates testified on that point on the Hill.

And once we are in, it is hard to stay out (for our codependent congressmen) when other countries 'move on' to the 'next step'. And then we have broken it and 'need to fix it....'

No-Fly zone is the precursor to war, people will die, and money we don't hve will be spent.

Source for story below : http://ca.news.yahoo.com/libya-no-fly-zone-require-bombing-raids-us-20110301-085042-344.html
The general told a Senate hearing there should be "no illusions" about what would be required if the United States and its allies decided to ban Moamer Khadafi's warplanes from the skies. Enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya would first require bombing the north African nation's air defense systems, top US commander General James Mattis warned Tuesday.



"My military opinion is, sir, it would be challenging," Mattis said when asked about the difficulties of imposing a no-fly zone.

"You would have to remove the air defense capability in order to establish the no-fly zone so it - no illusions here, it would be a military operation.

[South Park Fan]

So public enemy #1 is now Gaddafi Noriega Hussein Milosevic Bin Laden Hussein Gaddafi?

[Stary Hickory]

I don't understand how people can be so stupid as to not understand what a no fly zone entails....we just don't tell them not to fly...we shoot down their aircraft. Violation of the no fly zone was really what was softly used as a justification for war with Iraq.

[Lucille]

Here's another poll:

Pew: Public Wary of Military Intervention in Libya (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?283549-Pew-Public-Wary-of-Military-Intervention-in-Libya)


The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted March 10-13 among 1,001 adults, finds that 63% say the United States does not have a responsibility to act in Libya; fewer than half as many (27%) say the U.S. has this responsibility...
[...]
Reflecting the public’s reluctance about U.S. involvement in Libya, barely half (51%) favor increasing economic and diplomatic sanctions against Libya. The public is divided over the possibility of enforcing a no-fly zone – 44% favor this action while 45% are opposed. Yet just 16% favor bombing Libyan air defenses – 77% oppose bombing the sites. And large majorities reject providing arms to anti-government groups (69%) and sending troops into Libya (82%).
[...]
Roughly half of Americans (51%) say that the best argument for not using military force in Libya is that U.S. military forces are already overcommitted. Far fewer (19%) say the best argument for not using force is that opposition groups in Libya may be no better than the current government or that Libya is not of vital interest to the United States (13%).

[Stary Hickory]

I hate the neocons who are even proposing another fiasco...they have YET to clean up the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan or figure out how not to bankrupt this nation. God damn neocons and leftie interventionists, whoever you are.....the American people and their livelihoods are not your "playthings" you don't get to live out your sick fantasies on our backs.

I think the people have had it with idiot warmongering politicians.

[Knightskye]

If the question was "Would you support bombing Libya's airports?" you would see a much higher percentage against the idea. Of course, that's what a no-fly zone would entail.