ForumGarden

Americans Would Back Military Action in Iran Dispute, Poll Says



Jan. 27 (Bloomberg) -- A majority of Americans would support the U.S. taking military action against Iran if it continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons.



A Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll taken this week shows 57 percent expressed support while 33 percent said they would oppose military action against Iran. Ten percent were unsure. The poll of 1,555 adults was conducted Jan. 22-25.



LINK

No. We cant manage what we have on our plate now. More war is just more war.

Nomad wrote: No. We cant manage what we have on our plate now. More war is just more war.
That's your reason? We're just too busy right now, maybe later?

Lol... your just trying to goad me because thats not what came out of my mouth.

Im an idealist. I still think theres a better solution to the worlds problems than war. Like umm I dont know talking. (just to over simplify) But in a nutshell we are as barbaric as we ever were. We have the potential to reach a higher level of existence................like I said Im an idealist. More war is just more war.

ArnoldLayne wrote: Very much agree ( Man in general not Americans )


Thats what I meant and the more we use war as a solution to our problems the more it perpetuates itself. We and I do mean Americans have become lazy. We want to see results but we dont really want to get involved, I mean we have our own personal problems to tend to right ?

Thing is we dont have strong leadership. You have to have world thinkers in power to alleviate the same mistakes we keep making. What we do now doesnt work anymore, its gotten too big. If we attack Iran once again we are attacking the entire Arab population. Not smart. (Not to mention interfering with fueling Chinas economy)

I think world crisis's es ees heee will determine the quality of leadership we get to choose from the pool.

It happened during the Civil War and again with WW 2. The uncertainty of our survival brought out the best leadership available.

What would Lincoln do I wonder ?

Nomad wrote: Thats what I meant and the more we use war as a solution to our problems the more it perpetuates itself. We and I do mean Americans have become lazy. We want to see results but we dont really want to get involved, I mean we have our own personal problems to tend to right ?

Thing is we dont have strong leadership. You have to have world thinkers in power to alleviate the same mistakes we keep making. What we do now doesnt work anymore, its gotten too big. If we attack Iran once again we are attacking the entire Arab population. Not smart. (Not to mention interfering with fueling Chinas economy)

I think world crisis's es ees heee will determine the quality of leadership we get to choose from the pool.

It happened during the Civil War and again with WW 2. The uncertainty of our survival brought out the best leadership available.

What would Lincoln do I wonder ?
Lincoln would break whatever rule needed breaking to accomplish his ends, but that's another thread.



I was surprised about your response because it just looked like you would support military action if we had the resources.



And you haven't voted.

If what you meant was my thoughts on strong leadership, Im not referring to military might or genius. I meant a leader that can bring people together, forge a new path through the art of reason and determination not to give up, because after all its our childrens world. Does that sound corny or trite ? No matter, we have a responsibility to do better.

sixyearsleft wrote: What makes me laugh is that they ask the uniformed public difficult question without facts, only the powers at be are fully aware of the facts, energy resourses are dwindling and countrys are trying to find new ways to light up there citys, and give electricty to there ppl, and to have polls like this just feeds the hysteria machines that is political propaganda,




Theres truth in this statement. How often are people persuaded by the swing of the majority ? Like I said I think most of us are apathetic and lazy. How many people research voting history on a candidate before casting their own votes ? How many people are truly aware of the intricasies of what it means to have nuclear capabilities in Iran ? What I mean is to really understand it you would have to be a student of Middle Eastern politics, that would require no small amount of effort. To flippantly declare "Iran ! Off with their heads" is unrealistic and a very very dangerous mindset.

Am I the only one who sees the timing of all of this kind of fishy?



I mean, 9/11 came out of the blue (pardon the pun); we tracked Al Queda to Afghanistan & attacked them. Fine.



When Afghanistan was just getting mopped up, suddenly Iraq was back on the radar. ( :yh_hypno I command you: Forget that Al Queda fled to Syria.)



We attack Iraq.



Now that elections are done, suddenly Iran is a threat?!?



I'm sorry. I have to see lots & lots more before I support military action against Iran, and can't imagine supporting unilateral action without Iran attacking us first.

Are you suggesting we are getting systematically sucked in ? Theres a bigger picture at hand ? A combined effort in the Middle East ?

Nomad wrote: Are you suggesting we are getting systematically sucked in ? Theres a bigger picture at hand ? A combined effort in the Middle East ?
I'm sayin' if Bush even hints at unilateral pre-emptive action, it's time for our own regime change.



BTW this is not a change of position on my part. This is a torturous decision for me, to be sure, but I spoke first about my skepticism back on June 4, 2005. LINK

Accountable wrote: I'm sayin' if Bush even hints at unilateral pre-emptive action, it's time for our own regime change.



BTW this is not a change of position on my part. This is a torturous decision for me, to be sure, but I spoke first about my skepticism back on June 4, 2005. LINK




Bush gets a free ride for the duration of his term. Cheney is the secret madman. Very furtive and clandestine that one.

sixyearsleft wrote: Bush told Blair after 9/11, that he was gonna go for 3 countries, Afghanistan, Iraq the third one is unknown as of yet.Hopefully it's music.





Get it? :wah:

No, lets just sit back and let them nuke Israel. Let someone else be the aggressor for a change. We should go to the UN and let them know what we think might happen. We also should have a plan of action if they decide to go into Iran. We all know they are going to say no and have a lets just see what happens attitude. No one wants to see Israel get attacked but if that's what it takes for people see how other countries are, so be it. We can't be a world babysitter. When all is said and done, Israel will be there or it won't be. At least everyone would know what our stance is and that we went with there plan of action for a change.

Something needs to be done about that Iranian madman. The Special Forces, Seals or Marine Recon could get the job done. Easy in - easy out.

PlowBoy wrote: Something needs to be done about that Iranian madman. The Special Forces, Seals or Marine Recon could get the job done. Easy in - easy out.
And which Iranian madman would that be?

sixyearsleft wrote: That's the craziest thing i've ever read


The crazy thing is that's what they want to do. They did say they want to wipe them off the map.

By the way, you weren't suppose to take me literally.

sixyearsleft wrote: You cant just let the UN sort it out, whether you like it or not, America is the world's leading Superpower, the use of such weapons must go against the grain of most citizens of the United States, the World must not let this happen, and America must be one of the front runners.
I don't recall ever seeing your opinion of our involvement with Iraq, but that's exactly what has us on the bad side of half of Europe now.



Yes we can let the UN sort it out. That's allegedly their reason for existence.



No, America does not have to be one of the front runners. Let France handle this one.

So we go into Iran after WMD's and we find out it was all a ploy to get us to attack under false pretense. Where will that leave us? In the same place we are now, trying to dig us out of a hole we put ourselves in and having the world look at us as a bulling nation. And why be part of the UN if we don't follow their rules. You say don't let the UN sort things out but that's why we are there so we all can come to an agreement. Then follow through with the plan all the nations agreed to.

Well look at it this way, would it be cheaper to cleanup nuclear fallout or pay for a full fleged war. Probably doing cleanup, so let go that route. We will be paying for one of them anyway. (just joking)

It's all about the oil bourse. The motive for attacking Iraq was confirmed when the US immediately restored the oil to US dollars and out of euros. Now Iran is pricing oil in euros and they become the next urgent target. If oil reserves stop selling in US dollars it is predicted that the entire US economy will collapse. Pretty scary stuff for a country thats been getting a free ride for a long time.

Why is Hugo Chavez such a bad guy? He barters for oil directly instead of buying US dollars from the WB.

http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html

Howdy do? FR.

Looking for a good fight? :yh_giggle

Missed you too.

You have to promise to read the site link I left about it. Read it's not about the oil it's about what currency the oil is being priced in.

Tell me, how do we stop the US from using nuclear weapons?

From what I understand other countries don't perceive this to be as big a threat. I may be wrong. I've got it in mind that Scott Ritter predicted a case would be built against Iran a long time ago. When predictions like that come true I need counterfacts to be pointed out to me.

For Ritter background see here.

edit to add-

answer: I didn't think the question was that good

(not that I mean any disrespect by that)

spot says:

"Iran has never enriched any uranium beyond the reactor grade. It has the capacity to produce one weapons'grade bomb every 14 years, if it started to enrich to weapons grade, but it has never stepped that way. The broken seals were only on the reactor grade enrichment facility."

I believe those are accurate numbers.

As for fear factor, the US wins for scariest country. :yh_dance

No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program

Uranium Traced to Pakistani Equipment

By Dafna Linzer

Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, August 23, 2005; A01



Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined.

"The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions," said a senior official who discussed the still-confidential findings on the condition of anonymity.



(hmmmmm. has anyone thought of attacking Pakistan?)

From Asia Times

Yet, irrespective of Ahmadinejad's missteps, a legitimate question is whether the Iranian decision to resume scientific research on the enrichment process calls for such dire reactions. It is worth noting the admission of many nuclear experts, including Mike Levi of King's College of London, that "it is impossible to enrich uranium to weapons grade in bomb quantities using the pilot facilities that the Iranians have".

...

Despite recent US assurances about their benign intentions in Central Asia and the Caspian basin, Russia continues to be worried about the national security threats posed by America's military expansionism.

(looks like other countries do have some concerns...but not so much about Iran )

Good night.

Accountable wrote: America does not have to be one of the front runners. Let France handle this one. Rotating leadership. Good idea, especially since France has questioned our leadership style in the recent past. Let's see if they can "put their money where their mouth is." :rolleyes:

koan wrote: It's all about the oil bourse. The motive for attacking Iraq was confirmed when the US immediately restored the oil to US dollars and out of euros. Now Iran is pricing oil in euros and they become the next urgent target. If oil reserves stop selling in US dollars it is predicted that the entire US economy will collapse. Pretty scary stuff for a country thats been getting a free ride for a long time.



Why is Hugo Chavez such a bad guy? He barters for oil directly instead of buying US dollars from the WB.



http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html
Hey Far! good to see you back.



Koan,

Interesting premise. I would expect all the EU members to be screaming this at the tops of their lungs. Why aren't they, d'ya think?



And exactly what do you mean "getting a free ride for a long time"? Odd, coming from a Canadian.

ArnoldLayne wrote: Us Brits dont have the Euro so we aint screaming haha
:eek: That fits the conspiracy perfectly. That's why you're willing to side with us against your EU competition. Cad!

ArnoldLayne wrote: We'd side with the Martians if it p****d off the French
:yh_rotfl









...... :-2









:mad: HEY!

There is no doubt that the US the west whatever, would win a war against Iran. They would either have to totally destroy the country or invade.

If you invade Iran it will be a long drawn out war with the whole country against you casualties will be enormous on both sides in a war that was started because you thought they might have WMD's. It's like iraq`all over again, we must invade because they pose an imminent threat and have WMD's and by the way it will be a quick war won easily because we are so overhelmingly strong.

Conventionally Iran isn't strong enough to pose a military threat and even if it has nuclear weapons how is it going to deliver them? If it does and there is no evidence that it does have them and is attacked it will use them without a doubt.

Warfare should be the last resort when all else fails and those who you are warring against has actually attacked you. Like Iraq iran had nothing to do with 911. Since the shah was overthrown the only war Iran has been involved in is the one against Iraq when Iraq was the west's ally and started the war.

A war against terrorists can't be won by conventional armies. Going in mob handed against someone not connected to the terrorists for a reason that most see as iunjustified just gets them more support. The whole middle east would explode in warfare.

The oil supplies would be cut off and the american aconomy would go in to such a decline that it would be a pryyhic victory. You might end up controlling the oil but at what cost.

If opec decides to cut the oil supply as Iran wants it to you are stuffed, if you invade then what do you think they are going to do. More to the point how likely would an uprising in Saudi be if Iran is attacked.

Iran decides to deal in euros instead of dollars and so does Russia and China then the US economy is so linked to the oil dollar economy you should really ask yourselves if warfare is the best way to secure the resources america and I suppose the west needs for its economy. All china has to do is sit back and watch as you go bankrupt.

If you want to be consistent then Israel should be forced to give up its nuclear weapons.

You can't preach we are going to war to spread democracy then turn around and complain that the people of country have elected a government you don't like. i.e. hamas in palestine. The regime in iran has`popular support Left to their own devices the regime in Iran would probably moderate over time, the best way to keep keep extremists in power is give them an outside enemy to stir up patriotic fervour against. Even the most ardent political opponent to a regime will their country if it is attacked by outsiders.

If Iran does develop nucler weapons then if even the stupidist fundamentalist would realise that using them would mean their complete destruction. If they have one the most likely target is Israel. They also know that if thy had them now they wouldn't be getting threatened by the west which is a pretty good incentive to get hold of them.

Oil is going to run out, when other countries start their own nuclear programmes how are you going to stop them.?

The US seems to have an administration that believes they are so powerful that militarily no one can touch them That's unbdoubtedly true, but economics in warfare is as important as military might.

Who will benefit from going to war against Iran?

Forget the military action bit, that just makes it sound like one of a number of options easily achieved. You are talking about full scale warfare that will tie up troops for many tryinhg to control a country that doesn't want them there.

Who in this situation is behaving in militaristic fashion, who is the aggressor