posted February 25, 2006 12:27 PM              

Poll: Americans See Iran As Enemy No. 1

By GEORGE GEDDA, Associated Press Writer
Fri Feb 24, 4:14 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Iran has replaced Iraq as the country Americans consider to be their greatest enemy, according to a Gallup Poll. Canada and Great Britain were ranked as America's best friends.

The percentage of Americans with a positive view of France and Germany has moved up sharply since 2003, the poll said, when the two allies challenged President Bush's Iraq policy.

Thirty-one percent of Americans gave the nod to Iran as the worst enemy in polling of 1,002 adults between Feb. 6-9.

This represented an increase from 14 percent last year, and appeared to reflect growing American concern over the potential for the Islamic republic to acquire nuclear weapons.

Twenty-two percent listed Iraq as the worst enemy, the same total as a year ago.

Although Iraq has an American-backed government, anti-Americanism in the country is widespread, demonstrated in attacks by insurgents against U.S. troops.

Behind Iran and Iraq was North Korea, with 15 percent saying it was this country's greatest enemy. North Korea is considered by many to be a danger because of its threats to use the nuclear weapons it claims to possess.

The margin of sampling error for the telephone poll was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The Gallup poll also measured whether people viewed other countries favorably or unfavorably.

Almost nine in 10 viewed Canada as "very favorable" or "mostly favorable," with Great Britain getting about the same rating.

Almost eight in 10 felt that way about Japan and Germany, almost seven in 10 felt that way about Israel, Taiwan, the Philippines, India and Mexico

France has rebounded nicely with a 54 percent favorable rating compared with only 34 percent having a favorable view just before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which France strongly opposed. Forty percent of Americans now have an unfavorable view of France.

Like France, Germany is held in higher esteem nowadays than it was in 2003 when it joined Paris in the anti-war camp.

posted February 25, 2006 07:11 PM              

I can't speak for all Americans but we've been just a bit nervous about Iran since the 70's. Obvious reasons we probably don't need to drag out now.

I realize there exists a wide gulf between the Iranian people and their government and for the most part I don't hold their government against them. In fact, The Iranians seem quite liberal compared to other countries in the area. And I hold my government partly to blame for the recent election of Ahmadinejad. We had a window of opportunity there with Khatami and we didn't take it.

How do you feel about Iran?

posted February 25, 2006 08:58 PM              

Ok...so this goes back since the around 70s.

posted February 25, 2006 10:45 PM              

i dont know about you but i usually run after i shove a pointy stick into a bee's nest......(which i havnt done since i was a kid and i got stung!!)

posted February 26, 2006 12:10 AM            

This is your chance to tell us exactly what those high tech weapons were. So, if there's any substance to you allegations, you will be able to list the weapons...by category and designation which you claim the US supplied Saddam in the 80's.

For example...Aircraft, F-4's and F-105's

1. Aircraft
2. Tanks
3. Artillery
4. Mortars
5. Missiles
6. Antitank
7. Machine Guns
8. Assault Rifles
9. Antiaircraft Guns
10.Armored Personnel Carriers
11.Helicopters

You should also be able to tell us what became of those high tech weapons...since none of those US armaments were found when coalition forces invaded Iraq in 1991. In fact, what was found were French and Soviet Union weaponry.

posted February 27, 2006 07:33 AM              

You might be interested in this: it outlines the kind of relationship that Reagan (apparently "The greatest US citizen" according to a poll posted on one of jwhop's threads) fostered with Saddam Hussein through Donald Rumsfeld. Strange then that Reagan should be considered 'a great American' when it appears it was due to his involvement (and Donald Rumsfeld's) that the threat of Saddam Hussein was created. It is a little hypocritical to sanction someone's military shopping spree, and even gift wrap the goods for them only then to turn around and accuse them of shop lifting! That's a poor metaphor I grant you but you get the idea.

"Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan’s Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. According to a February 13, 1991 Los Angeles Times article:

“First on Hussein's shopping list was helicopters -- he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved.”

In 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department—in the name of “increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market”—pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam “transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military.”

In 1988, Saddam’s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they “believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs.”

In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House.

Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq’s use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an ABC news special.

Eight years later, Donald Rumsfeld signed on to an “open letter” to President Clinton, calling on him to eliminate “the threat posed by Saddam.” It urged Clinton to “provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish.”

In 1984, Donald Rumsfeld was in a position to draw the world’s attention to Saddam’s chemical threat. He was in Baghdad as the UN concluded that chemical weapons had been used against Iran. He was armed with a fresh communication from the State Department that it had “available evidence” Iraq was using chemical weapons. But Rumsfeld said nothing.

Washington now speaks of Saddam’s threat and the consequences of a failure to act. Despite the fact that the administration has failed to provide even a shred of concrete proof that Iraq has links to Al Qaeda or has resumed production of chemical or biological agents, Rumsfeld insists that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

But there is evidence of the absence of Donald Rumsfeld’s voice at the very moment when Iraq’s alleged threat to international security first emerged. And in this case, the evidence of absence is indeed evidence.

posted February 27, 2006 08:11 AM              

"November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14] "

And now the link to the whole article... http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

posted February 27, 2006 08:29 PM              

how could he not know?

it doesnt surprise me that theyre trying saddam for an earlier crime in the hopes of executing him before any mention of Birjinni and Halabja.....

heres some more .......

******

The Teicher Affidavit

7. CIA Director Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure
that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to
avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war. Pursuant to the secred NSDD, the United
States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis
with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military
intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third
country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military
weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational
advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat. For example,
in 1986, President Reagan sent a secret message to Saddam Hussein telling
him that Iraq should step up its air war and bombing of Iran. This
message was delivered by Vice President Bush who communicated it to
Egyptian President Mubarak, who in turn passed the message to Saddam
Hussein. Similar strategic operational military advice was passed to
Saddam Hussein through various meetings with European and Middle Eastern
heads of state. I authored Bush's talking points for the 1986 meeting
with Mubarak and personally attended numerous meetings with European and
Middle East heads of state where the strategic operational advice was
communicated.

9. The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director
Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin
military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda
and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew
of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military
weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.

11. One of the reasons that the United States refused to license
or sell U.S. origin weapons to Iraq was that the supply of non-U.S. origin
weapons to Iraq was sufficient to meet Iraq's needs. Under CIA DIrector
Casey and Deputy Director Gates, the CIA made sure that non-U.S.
manufacturers manufactured and sold to Iraq the weapons needed by Iraq.
In certain instances where a key component in a weapon was not readily
available, the highest levels of the United States government decided to
make the component available, directly or indirectly, to Iraq. I
specifically recall that the provision of anti-armor penetrators to Iraq
was a case in point. The United States made a policy decision to supply
penetrators to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC
files will contain references to the Iraqis' need for anti-armor
penetrators and the decision to provide penetrators to Iraq.

13. The United States and the CIA maintained a program known as
the 'Bear Spares" program whereby the United States made sure that spare
parts and ammunition for Soviet or Soviet-style weaponry were available to
countries which sought to reduce their dependence on the Soviets for
defense needs. If the "Bear Spares" were manufactured outside the United
States, then the United States could arrange for the provision of these
weapons to a third country without direct involvement. Israel, for
example, had a very large stockpile of Soviet weaponry and ammunition
captured during its various wars. At the suggestion of the United States,
the Israelis would transfer the spare parts and weapons to third countries
or insurgent movements (such as the Afghan rebels and the Contras).
Similarly, Egypt manufactured weapons and spare parts from Soviet designs
and porvided these weapons and ammunition to the Iraqis and other
countries. Egypt also served as a supplier for the Bear Spares program.
The United States approved, assisted and encouraged Egypt's manufacturing
capabilities. The United States approved, assisted and encouraged Egypt's
sale of weaponry, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.

14. The mere request to a third party to carry out an action did
not constitute a "covert action," and, accordingly, required no
Presidential Finding or reporting to Congress. The supply of Cardoen
cluster bombs, which were fitted for use on Soviet, French and NATO
aircraft, was a mere extension of the United States policy of assisting
Iraq through all legal means in order to avoid an Iranian victory.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1413.htm

*********

International Signal and Control

International Signal and Control (ISC) was a U.S. defense contractor based in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, involved in the maufacture of night vision systems, missile and navigation components, fuses, power supplies for proximity fuses, and grenade technology.

ISC was involved in two major indiscretions, for which CEO James Guerin received a 15 year prison sentence:

* It defrauded and caused the collapse of the British company Ferranti, which acquired it in 1987.
* It exported classified military technology to South Africa, which was then forwarded to third counties, notably Iraq.

Exports to South Africa and Iraq

ISC technology, principally weapons fuses, were exported to Iraq via South Africa, allegedly1 with the knowledge of U.S. intelligence agenices and in violation of United States and United Nations sanctions. U.S. intelligence agencies were involved in the setting up of electronic listening posts in South Africa with ISC technology. In 1977 these operations were officially cancelled due to sanctions but allegedly continued.2

Another link to Iraq was the supply of the specifiations for the MK-20 Rockeye cluster bomb through Chilean defence company Carlos Cardoen, which was able to build an almost identical weapon.3 In 1992 Guerin pleaded guilty to exporting classified military technology. These weapons were to aid Iraq in its fight with Iran but prosecutors at Guerin's trial alleged that some were inevitably used against U.S. and allied troops in the Gulf War.

In 1994 Bobby Ray Inman was withdrawn from consideration as Bill Clinton's first Defense Secretary due to his links to ISC. Inman was a member of the "shadow board" of the company which was either negligent or approved the exports.
http://www.answers.com/topic/international-signal-and-control

posted February 28, 2006 09:10 PM              

quote:

---

But why do Americans believe that Iran is NOW their number one enemy in 2006?

---

posted March 01, 2006 02:26 AM              

Seriously.

Because Irani Shiite muslims in general not only despite arabs, but also despise sunnis, *in particular* Wahabis.

Thats why they *opened fire* on the Kaabah in Mecca on Hajj once. No one can forget that. The most holy place in muslim history was gunned at, people were killed inside the Kaaba, which has been a war free zone since Mohammad (peace be upon him) conquered Mecca.

Lets also not forget the animosity between Khomeini and the Fahd reign. The Iranis disagreed to even use the Qurans translated from Mecca.

Their thoughts on religion are probably closer to Catholicism than to Sunni Islam. I kid you not. I even had a Arabic era Islamic studies Irani shiite PhD professor who said so in no unclear terms herself. The 'crucifixion' of Qarbala and the images of the imams as saints , according to her, was the premise that a lot of mourning was based on. Also according to her, the beating while mourning was akin to the 'blood of christ' concept in Christianity. Sunni Islam and in particular Wahabism has little to NOTHING in common with Shiism. Al Qaeda is a Wahabi sunni group....Iran supports groups like Hamas on the other hand.

posted March 01, 2006 07:56 AM              

That's makes me reeeaaaal angry!
I'm gonna go beat me up a Sikh now!
They's still Muslim, right?!?
At least dey A-RABS!

posted March 01, 2006 06:49 PM              

*Scratches head. can't remember ever considering Iran to be an enemy or even voting in a poll stating I do.

*Rolls eyes.

Everything in the media is such bull****.

posted March 02, 2006 08:28 PM              

quote:

---

How exactly is Iran a threat to America? What have they done?

---

quote:

---

But why do Americans believe that Iran is NOW their number one enemy in 2006?

---

Daydreamer, I don't think you'll find a answer here that will satisfy you. I was quite serious when I brought up the American hostages. That shocked my country in ways it's hard to express. The images from that time period are still firmly in the American consciousness. To wave it away as something that happened a long time ago and has no relevance to this poll, shows a lack in understanding American fears - and fear was the real subject of that poll. All countries need a bogeyman - many mid eastern countries have the American Satan, America had the big bad Soviets for a long time and now we have the crazy mid-eastern fundementalists. That all began with Iran. The probable fact that Ahmadinejad took part in taking those hostages, obviously hates America, and will soon have a nuclear weapons if he doesn't already, doesn't exactly make a lot of us feel good about Iran in that all important here and NOW.

You never shared your feelings about Iran.