NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: I suspect that this rather high level of support includes a lot of people who would prefer that any "military action" take place without significant loss of life. But I still find it interesting that, despite reletively high levels of dissatisfaction with the percieved lack of progress in Iraq, a significant majority would back action against Iran.

Your thoughts on this?


57% Back a Hit on Iran if Defiance Persists (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fornpoll27jan27,0,5687029.story?coll=la-headlines-nation)


By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Despite persistent disillusionment with the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans supports taking military action against Iran if that country continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The poll, conducted Sunday through Wednesday, found that 57% of Americans favor military intervention if Iran's Islamic government pursues a program that could enable it to build nuclear arms.

Support for military action against Tehran has increased over the last year, the poll found, even though public sentiment is running against the war in neighboring Iraq: 53% said they believe the situation there was not worth going to war.

The poll results suggest that the difficulties the United States has encountered in Iraq have not turned the public against the possibility of military actions elsewhere in the Middle East.

Support for a potential military confrontation with Iran was strongest among Republican respondents, among whom 76% endorsed the idea. But even among Democrats, who overwhelmingly oppose the war in Iraq, 49% supported such action.

In follow-up interviews, some respondents said they believed Iran posed a more serious threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq did.

"I really don't think Saddam had anything to do with terrorism, but Iran, I believe, does," said Edward Wtulich, of Goshen, N.Y. He was among the 1,555 adults who participated in this week's survey, which has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. "Iran has been a problem, I think, for years," Wtulich said, "and we've known about it."

Wtulich, a registered Democrat and retired manager for the New York City Housing Authority, said he supported taking a hard line with Iran despite the strain of the Iraq war on the U.S. military.

"It makes me scared," he said, "but we may not have a choice."

Experts said the public's views on Iran appeared to have hardened in part because of the more aggressive anti-Western posture of Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Elected last year, he has riled the international community with remarks denying the Holocaust and with declarations that Iran will defy European and U.S. pressure and continue to pursue efforts to enrich uranium.

His comments have fostered an impression of him as "very reckless, a real rogue, as opposed to simply a populist," said political science professor John Mueller of Ohio State University, who is an authority on wartime public opinion.

Mueller said that Americans' rising support for confronting Iran was "impressive," especially considering their misgivings about the war in Iraq, and that their support suggested "concerns about the new president." But he added that poll respondents are often more inclined to voice support for military intervention when the question is framed broadly and the potential for casualties is unclear.

"You always get higher support for things like 'military action,' because that could just mean bombing, as opposed to sending troops or going to war," Mueller said.

Poll respondents expressed a strong preference for the United States working with allies to fight international law violations or global aggression.

Iran has insisted its nuclear program is solely for energy production. But the United States and other Western governments suspect Iran's program is aimed at developing weapons.

European nations that have negotiated with Iran over its program want the matter referred to the United Nations Security Council. Iran has indicated it might be open to a compromise in which Russia would provide enriched uranium to Iran, for use exclusively in energy reactors.

The American public's position on Iran appears to have hardened over the last year, a period marked by an increasing international focus on Iran's nuclear program. When a similar question was asked in a Times poll last January, 50% favored military action against Iran.

Regarding Iraq, the latest poll shows that although most Americans remain disenchanted with the war, opinions have stabilized, at least for now. The percentage saying they believe the situation in Iraq was not worth going to war over dipped slightly, to 53%, compared with 56% in a survey a year earlier.

When asked who was winning the war in Iraq, 33% said the United States, 7% said the insurgents, and 55% said neither side was winning.

Americans remain divided over how long U.S. forces should stay in Iraq: 40% believe the United States should remain in Iraq for "as long as it takes," 36% want U.S. troops withdrawn within a year, and 14% support immediate withdrawal.

Respondents were also divided, largely along party lines, over whether the Iraq war is really part of Washington's war on terrorism; 51% say it is, 46% say it is not. President Bush has repeatedly cast Iraq as the central front in the war on terrorism. But many of his administration's prewar claims about Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda have turned out to have been overstated or based on unreliable intelligence sources.

The poll also found that 32% of Americans believed that terrorism around the world had increased because of the Iraq situation, 17% believed it had decreased, and 47% believed the problem was about the same.

Well, iran is a bit different from Iraq. The main difference is that iran is insane.

Didn't We "Favor" An Attack On Iraq/Afghanistan?

Of course, one of the key items noted in the article was:

"You always get higher support for things like 'military action,' because that could just mean bombing, as opposed to sending troops or going to war," Mueller said.


I wonder what the poll would have resulted with if it had asked instead about "invasion and occupation for the purposes of regime change"?

Odd.

People are more scared of lunatics developing the bomb (i.e Iran).... then they are of lunatics who have the bomb (i.e North Korea).

Strange priorities....

Odd.

People are more scared of lunatics developing the bomb (i.e Iran).... then they are of lunatics who have the bomb (i.e North Korea).

Strange priorities....

If You Read My Post In The "How Old Are You" Thread, You Would Know That I Find Most People To Be Very, Very, Unintelligent. Frankly, I Think We Should Just Screw The Laws Of War And Go On A Conquering Spree!

If You Read My Post In The "How Old Are You" Thread, You Would Know That I Find Most People To Be Very, Very, Unintelligent. Frankly, I Think We Should Just Screw The Laws Of War And Go On A Conquering Spree!
Why do you capitalize every word?

Why do you capitalize every word?

Because It Makes Me Feel Happy. This Is All I Will Say.

Well, iran is a bit different from Iraq. The main difference is that iran is insane.
Virtually all fundamentalists are "insane." The dissonance between what they choose to believe and what reality actually is drives them in that direction.

Either the poll is flawed or most americans are defenitely stupid.

Either the poll is flawed or most americans are defenitely stupid.

The Latter.

The one thing I learned when taking a statistics course was, "Never believe a poll or statistic."

Seriously, if they didn't want your support, the poll would never have mentioned the 57% at all.

The one thing I learned when taking a statistics course was, "Never believe a poll or statistic."

Seriously, if they didn't want your support, the poll would never have mentioned the 57% at all.

Because It Makes Me Feel Happy. This Is All I Will Say.
It makes you seem..... 'slow'.

Here's what'll actually happen:

1. Everyone does nothing at all.
2. Israel bomb the hell out of Iran's nuclear facilities.
3. The rest of the world condemn it but fairly quietly.
4. Sanctions against Israel are proposed at the UN (again)
5. The US vetos the motion (again)
6. The Middle East becomes even more destabilised.

Odd.

People are more scared of lunatics developing the bomb (i.e Iran).... then they are of lunatics who have the bomb (i.e North Korea).

Strange priorities....

Hmm...there's a question. Why would we NOT want to declare war a lunatic with a nuke; and instead attack the country trying to get one. Think carefully and I'm sure you'll come to this one.

Either the poll is flawed or most americans are defenitely stupid.

Or both.

The Latter.

I never did buy that line "Oh we like you. It's just Bush we hate."

Hmm...there's a question. Why would we NOT want to declare war a lunatic with a nuke; and instead attack the country trying to get one. Think carefully and I'm sure you'll come to this one.

Yes good logic there.
I'm afraid of the big bad bully sawing a branch of the tree so he can carve a bat out of it.....

...instead of the bigger badder bully standing beside him with an aluminum bat in his hands.

Good call.

I'm not in the business of believing what politicians say, and there is very little actual evidence that either the Ayatollah or President Ahmedinejad are indeed insane.

I dont believe iran is run by maniacs because the iranian leadership doesnt do maniacal things. As for what they say: ahmedinjad is a politician.

my thoughts are obvious.. what's good for Israel, the USA will do no matter what. whether i agree with that stance or not is another issue altogether. i feel sorry for all those american kids who volunteered because they wanted college paid for. they're screwed for the foreseeable few decades.. because of course after Iran there must be Syria.. then communist Korea tossed in for the hell of it.. we need some good excuse to do away with Palestine.. then.. then.. then.. i'm not sure it will ever end.

Yes good logic there.
I'm afraid of the big bad bully sawing a branch of the tree so he can carve a bat out of it.....

...instead of the bigger badder bully standing beside him with an aluminum bat.

Good call.

I suppose I am going to have to spell it out for you after all.

Kim Jong Il is a crazy guy who will probly try and nuke anyone who attacks him. Iran doesn't have a working nuke yet, ergo they can't nuke anyone who attacks them. 1 crazy w/ nukes is better than 2 crazies with nukes. And I might add the non-chalant attitude of many on this board (not necessarily you) towards nuclear proliferation is frankly disturbing.

Of course, one of the key items noted in the article was:
"You always get higher support for things like 'military action,' because that could just mean bombing, as opposed to sending troops or going to war," Mueller said.


I wonder what the poll would have resulted with if it had asked instead about "invasion and occupation for the purposes of regime change"?
Seconded. I'd like to know the questions the asked and thier sample selection.

It'd be nice with two invasions spinning thier wheels people'd be more cautious about advocating 'military action.' Besides, who do we have left to do that? The Boy Scouts? Salvation or Kiss Army?

Though maybe they are, anyone know what the percentage was in the build up to the last two?


Why do you capitalize every word?
It's like nature's way of saying, "Nothing to see here." Kinda like gun smilie abuse or any other forum quirk or mod. There are a few cats that do it on imdb (I don't post there, I just look at the posts to remind myself why I don't)

Experts said the public's views on Iran appeared to have hardened in part because of the more aggressive anti-Western posture of Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The public's views are founded about as much by knowledge of the situation as shit on a log. I would be suprised if most people that were poled knew where Iran was, what it's terrorist ties were, or even what the hell language they speak. The fact is the most persuasive thing this public has to lead it's nose is what it hears on the 5 minutes of news a day it watches.

If the reason for a war is an "imminent nuclear threat," what about North Korea, or Pakistan. Both were unstable countries before they had the nuke, we did nothing, and we still do nothing.

If the reason for a war is an "imminent terrorist threat," what about the Saudis, the Egyptians, or any of the host of north african countries that not only actively support terrorists in their countries, they create terrorist groups themselves.

This war would have nothing to do with an actual threat, just as the Iraq war had nothing to do with an actual threat. It would have to do with lord knows what, but my guess would be one of three things: political support (in times of crisis, most human beings cling to their leaders and are more likely to show blind support for their leaders (Read some Robert Putnam (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=Robert%20D.%20Putnam&rank=-relevance%2C%2Bavailability%2C-daterank/104-5469119-3330312)), Economic reasons (Iran shares more than 10% (http://www.iags.org/iran.html) of world oil reserves), or some sick twisted plot by aliens to force the human race to destroy itselves.

Most importantly, I don't want to sit in the desert for months for some war that isn't necessary.

Experts said the public's views on Iran appeared to have hardened in part because of the more aggressive anti-Western posture of Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The public's views are founded about as much by knowledge of the situation as shit on a log. I would be suprised if most people that were poled knew where Iran was, what it's terrorist ties were, or even what the hell language they speak. The fact is the most persuasive thing this public has to lead it's nose is what it hears on the 5 minutes of news a day it watches.

If the reason for a war is an "imminent nuclear threat," what about North Korea, or Pakistan. Both were unstable countries before they had the nuke, we did nothing, and we still do nothing.

If the reason for a war is an "imminent terrorist threat," what about the Saudis, the Egyptians, or any of the host of north african countries that not only actively support terrorists in their countries, they create terrorist groups themselves.

This war would have nothing to do with an actual threat, just as the Iraq war had nothing to do with an actual threat. It would have to do with lord knows what, but my guess would be one of three things: political support (in times of crisis, most human beings cling to their leaders and are more likely to show blind support for their leaders (Read some Robert Putnam (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=Robert%20D.%20Putnam&rank=-relevance%2C%2Bavailability%2C-daterank/104-5469119-3330312)), Economic reasons (Iran shares more than 10% (http://www.iags.org/iran.html) of world oil reserves), or some sick twisted plot by aliens to force the human race to destroy itselves.

Most importantly, I don't want to sit in the desert for months for some war that isn't necessary.

Good thing nobody important listens to you.

I suppose I am going to have to spell it out for you after all.

No, you didn't have to spell it out for me. I knew exactly what you meant. I also thought you where wrong. So I didn't entertain a wrong theory.


Kim Jong Il is a crazy guy who will probly try and nuke anyone who attacks him. Iran doesn't have a working nuke yet, ergo they can't nuke anyone who attacks them. 1 crazy w/ nukes is better than 2 crazies with nukes. And I might add the non-chalant attitude of many on this board (not necessarily you) towards nuclear proliferation is frankly disturbing.

1. Iran can do what it fucking well likes so long as it doesn't break the NPT and as of today, no evidence has been provided to show otherwise.

2. North Korea is a much more important issue to settle with because he has nuclear weapons. Its like a big elephant sitting in the corner but no one wants to point it out... :rolleyes:

COMMENTARY: I suspect that this rather high level of support includes a lot of people who would prefer that any "military action" take place without significant loss of life. But I still find it interesting that, despite reletively high levels of dissatisfaction with the percieved lack of progress in Iraq, a significant majority would back action against Iran.

Your thoughts on this?



WOW, who was polled on this, the white house?


'No you can't freely develope technology, we don't like you.'

'You have to renounce religion and insure that only the rich are considered intelligent. Oh, and you must also support segretgation and the superiority of the Jewish race.'

If the information I got is true, after the UN guy went to Iran, Iran agreed to get nuclear fuel from Russia.

Or both.

I'd say neither. Appeasing Iran in 2006 makes as much sense as appeasing Germany in the 1930s. Both have genocide (against everyone's favourite scapegoat, the Jews) in mind.

No, you didn't have to spell it out for me. I knew exactly what you meant. I also thought you where wrong. So I didn't entertain a wrong theory.



1. Iran can do what it fucking well likes so long as it doesn't break the NPT and as of today, no evidence has been provided to show otherwise.

2. North Korea is a much more important issue to settle with because he has nuclear weapons. Its like a big elephant sitting in the corner but no one wants to point it out... :rolleyes:
The message has been clear, you want a seat at the table, get yourself a bomb. Before you get the bomb, your fair game. After, you get to set terms. It's no wonder powers like Iran would want one.

my thoughts are obvious.. what's good for Israel, the USA will do no matter what. whether i agree with that stance or not is another issue altogether. i feel sorry for all those american kids who volunteered because they wanted college paid for. they're screwed for the foreseeable few decades.. because of course after Iran there must be Syria.. then communist Korea tossed in for the hell of it.. we need some good excuse to do away with Palestine.. then.. then.. then.. i'm not sure it will ever end.

The US has backed away from "Support Israel no matter what the cost" and slipped more into a relationship that amounts to "Eh, do what you want. If you need any more guns, you know our number."

American kids who volunteered for money for college aren't screwed for the forseeable future, they serve their country and if they really want out (If they were too stupid to realize they were joining the military not a college loan program) there are ways. Declare yourself a conscientious objector (possible dishonorable discharge, but hey no shooting) or say your gay (No question, and it's more often than not honorable discharge). And hey, if you stay in for 2 years you get to keep your college money.

Finally, maybe it's just my blind hope, but judging from the typical swing of elections in this country, I'd say the next president will likely be a democrat. Standard swing really.

The message has been clear, you want a seat at the table, get yourself a bomb. Before you get the bomb, your fair game. After, you get to set terms. It's no wonder powers like Iran would want one.

Pretty much, yeah.

No, you didn't have to spell it out for me. I knew exactly what you meant. I also thought you where wrong. So I didn't entertain a wrong theory.



1. Iran can do what it fucking well likes so long as it doesn't break the NPT and as of today, no evidence has been provided to show otherwise.

2. North Korea is a much more important issue to settle with because he has nuclear weapons. Its like a big elephant sitting in the corner but no one wants to point it out... :rolleyes:

Well what the hell would YOU do about NK that isn't already being done? Can I at least get an agreement that wrecklessly provoking an insane person with nukes is a bad idea?

Korrithor, could you clarify. you lost me there, bud.

Korrithor, could you clarify. you lost me there, bud.

Sure. There are two countries run by crazy people. Iran and North Korea. Iran is trying to get a nuke, North Korea already has one. My point is that we should attack Iran so they don't get a nuke and make the planet a worse place; and also that it is too late to attack North Korea because they already have a nuke, and, being crazy and all, are liable to use it. Sure, it would've been good to stop NK before they got a nuke, but arguing that point at this time is pointless.

Psychotic Mongooses disagrees with this and seems to be of the opinion that we should be paying more attention to North Korea. I asked what he would do about North Korea that is not being done now.

Well what the hell would YOU do about NK that isn't already being done? Can I at least get an agreement that wrecklessly provoking an insane person with nukes is a bad idea?
Is anybody who don't speack english insane?

Is anybody who don't speack english insane?

*Sigh* You're right. That's exactly what I think.

The message has been clear, you want a seat at the table, get yourself a bomb. Before you get the bomb, your fair game. After, you get to set terms. It's no wonder powers like Iran would want one.

*hands Cannot think of a name a cookie*

Sure. There are two countries run by crazy people. Iran and North Korea. Iran is trying to get a nuke, North Korea already has one. My point is that we should attack Iran so they don't get a nuke and make the planet a worse place; and also that it is too late to attack North Korea because they already have a nuke, and, being crazy and all, are liable to use it. Sure, it would've been good to stop NK before they got a nuke, but arguing that point at this time is pointless.
PROVE IT.


Psychotic Mongooses disagrees with this and seems to be of the opinion that we should be paying more attention to North Korea. I asked what he would do about North Korea that is not being done now.

Open the f***** s up- just like what happened to PR China in the 1970's. Stop the sabre rattling and swallow some pride. Its amazing what trade does to an impoverished shit hole.

PROVE IT.



Open the fuckers up- just like what happened to PR China in the 1970's. Stop the sabre rattling and swallow some pride. Its amazing what trade does to an impoverished shit hole.

What the hell do you mean "prove it"? You think I'm just making this up? Here you go, read up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.stm

I suppose you're right, Korrithor. We probably shouldn't look at political history when working on a problem today. That would be rediculous. I agree that attacking Korea would be a bad idea. On the other hand, what I don't agree with is that we have a country full of people commiting me and all my friends to shitty conditions and possibly death so that we can "make the world a safer place"

I'm not sure if many americans realize this, but the world is not, has never been, and will not be a safe place for a very long time. You have several countries with nuclear weapons (might I add, no one but us has ever used one offensively) trying to tell all those without that they can't even have nuclear power (which is cleaner, more effecient, and more economically sound than any other power source we have now).

The fact is this: There is no hard evidence Iran is working toward nuclear weapons. If there is evidence, we'd better be able to see it before we go marching across the border with rifles.

Yes good logic there.
I'm afraid of the big bad bully sawing a branch of the tree so he can carve a bat out of it.....

...instead of the bigger badder bully standing beside him with an aluminum bat in his hands.

Good call.

I don't agree with the particular poltics, but the logic is sound. I'm in my house and there are two maniacs on the loose. One has a gun and one is rooting around in my cellar attempting to find a gun. I'm gonna deal with the one in the cellar first because he's the easy target and that way I won't suddenly have another maniac with a gun on my back while I'm dealing with the first maniac with a gun.


Worst-case scenario #1 - I go after the maniac with no gun and the other maniac joins in and I'm fighting two maniacs with one gun.

Worst-case scenario #2 - I go after the maniac with a gun. Meanwhile the other maniac finds a gun and joins in. I'm fighting two maniacs with two guns.

Going after Korea has a more likely and much worse, worst-case scenario.

Seperately, I don't like political arguments from potential, because it opens up agression against just about anyone. Again, though, the logic as presented is sound.

Going after Korea has a more likely and much worse, worst-case scenario.

Seperately, I don't like political arguments from potential, because it opens up agression against just about anyone. Again, though, the logic as presented is sound.

Whoa whoa whoa... I never ever said anything about 'going after' Korea. At. All.

And using your example, the 2 guys join in against you. The only people that think of Iran and N. Korea as 'linked' are those who bought into the *deep booming voice* 'Axis of Evil'.... Why in the hell would they do anything together??

What the hell do you mean "prove it"? You think I'm just making this up? Here you go, read up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.stm

I see nothing there that says "IRAN HAS NUKES" or "IRAN IS 100% DEVELOPING NUCLEAR WEAPONS"

While I think what they are doing is foolhardy, and will probably not pay off in the end- they still have not broken any international law, or covenant they have signed.

Now, show me PROOF Iran HAS or IS DEVELOPING nuclear weapons? You cannot becuase it hasn't been proven yet, by anyone.

Whoa whoa whoa... I never ever said anything about 'going after' Korea. At. All.

And using your example, the 2 guys join in against you. The only people that think of Iran and N. Korea as 'linked' are those who bought into the *deep booming voice* 'Axis of Evil'.... Why in the hell would they do anything together??

I'm not suggesting the two maniacs are linked. I'm just saying that's the way the logic works. The easier target is the one that hasn't already accomplished getting the weapon you don't want them to have. That's why so many people focus on Iran instead of NK. Change my scenario to "now you're being threatened by two maniacs with guns instead of just one". While I don't agree with the conclusion the logic is sound. The flaw is that there is a value judgement missing that changes the entire argument. That value judgement is whether or not war is worth it.

I'm not suggesting the two maniacs are linked. I'm just saying that's the way the logic works. The easier target is the one that hasn't already accomplished getting the weapon you don't want them to have. That's why so many people focus on Iran instead of NK. Change my scenario to "now you're being threatened by two maniacs with guns instead of just one". While I don't agree with the conclusion the logic is sound. The flaw is that there is a value judgement missing that changes the entire argument. That value judgement is whether or not war is worth it.

Ok fair enough.

In my own personal opinion, I would be much more worried about N. Korea and extremists gaining govt. control in Pakistan then I am about the ramblings of the Iranains.

(Which is nothing new don't forget- rarely has a month gone by since the Revolution that some cleric or leader in Iran hasn't called for Israel to be destroyed/invaded/attacked or Death to the US blah blah blah,)

Your scenario is flawed in the fact that there are hundreds of guys down the street with slingshots, some of them have guns, and everyone with slingshots are shooting each other.

The guns are all still in the holster, some dark skinned fellow is rooting around in the trees trying to find something (is it a gun or a flashlight. We don't know but we heard from some one yesterday that it was a gun). so what do you do? Shoot the guy looking for the (gun/flashlight?)? No, you go around and try to get all the retards to stop shooting each other with slingshots.

...Of course the only problem with that is that you're pointing a slingshot at all of them while you try to stop them... Not to mention your gun in the holster.

Your scenario is flawed in the fact that there are hundreds of guys down the street with slingshots, some of them have guns, and everyone with slingshots are shooting each other.

The guns are all still in the holster, some dark skinned fellow is rooting around in the trees trying to find something (is it a gun or a flashlight. We don't know but we heard from some one yesterday that it was a gun). so what do you do? Shoot the guy looking for the (gun/flashlight?)? No, you go around and try to get all the retards to stop shooting each other with slingshots.

...Of course the only problem with that is that you're pointing a slingshot at all of them while you try to stop them... Not to mention your gun in the holster.

.....what....?

And with that I'm off.

And with that I'm off.
Damn you *shakes fist* :p

...what? My point is that these guys are not in your house with their guns. They are not pointing them at anyone, and you're not even sure if that guy is looking for a gun (researching for nukes) or a flashlight (maybe nuclear energy?)

There are not two guys with guns, and that's the flaw of that argument. Jesus, I guess analogies can't be used on this forum or people get confused.

and with THAT I'm off.

...what? My point is that these guys are not in your house with their guns. They are not pointing them at anyone, and you're not even sure if that guy is looking for a gun (researching for nukes) or a flashlight (maybe nuclear energy?)

There are not two guys with guns, and that's the flaw of that argument. Jesus, I guess analogies can't be used on this forum or people get confused.
It just wasn't that clear, thats all :(

If you think someone is looking for a gun (an illegal one I assume ;) )...call the police.

...what? My point is that these guys are not in your house with their guns. They are not pointing them at anyone, and you're not even sure if that guy is looking for a gun (researching for nukes) or a flashlight (maybe nuclear energy?)

There are not two guys with guns, and that's the flaw of that argument. Jesus, I guess analogies can't be used on this forum or people get confused.
Yeah, you're absolutely right ... you're the only intelligent one here. The rest of us are idiots. :rolleyes:

Yeah, you're absolutely right ... you're the only intelligent one here. The rest of us are idiots. :rolleyes:

Electrical sockets taste of sherbert if you lick them.:)

...what? My point is that these guys are not in your house with their guns. They are not pointing them at anyone, and you're not even sure if that guy is looking for a gun (researching for nukes) or a flashlight (maybe nuclear energy?)

There are not two guys with guns, and that's the flaw of that argument. Jesus, I guess analogies can't be used on this forum or people get confused.

I'm probably one of the few that understands your argument here. What's being said here is that we only have circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence which shows Iran is developing technology that could be used to make a nuclear weapon. That's the truth plain and simple. That alone is no real reason for any military action.

Even the temporary solution on the table is flawed. Allowing Russia to process the nuclear fuel and send it to Iran. Russia at one point was our enemy for a good 20-30 years. What makes you think they are the most trustworthy nation to take on the task of processing nuclear fuel. Especially true when you think about the fact that these countries most likely attained this technology from the Russians.

Maybe Americans have heard the Iran president's declaration about wanting to have a world without the USA or Israel, and realize that his bombs might make it over here?

And maybe they realize that while Saddam's WMD might have existed only in his head, Iran's consist of some definite hardware with an address where we can direct bombs?

As someone already pointed out, "military action" can consist of bombs from planes rather than boots on the ground.

Lets go!:sniper:

Well, the media has been playing the "Iran's dictator is crazy, see he's even a Holocaust denier!" slant for some time. No big surprise how popular he's become with the general US public.

Not that this particular poll is something I take seriously. I mean, I wasn't asked my opinion. So it's not fair to say this is what x % of Americans think is it? Unless we're doing the statistical bullshit trick where we calculate someone's thoughts rather than listen to 'em.

(Which is nothing new don't forget- rarely has a month gone by since the Revolution that some cleric or leader in Iran hasn't called for Israel to be destroyed/invaded/attacked or Death to the US blah blah blah,)

And you're not concerned about this at all? Besides, it's not just some random cleric, it's the President this time, and that is what has everyone worried.

The one thing I learned when taking a statistics course was, "Never believe a poll or statistic."

Did you know that 93% of quoted statistics are made up on the spot?

Electrical sockets taste of sherbert if you lick them.:)
<.<
>.>

no vay, donth... buth, my thounge huths now... :p

Russia at one point was our enemy for a good 20-30 years.

20-30? Last time I checked, immediatly after WWII-late 1980's was a lot longer than 20-30 years. Further, the main reason for the cold war was FEAR of their nuclear weapons. Now, if we allowed another ENEMY nation, who has proven itself to be unstable, to gain the technique for enrichment, then we have a dangerous enemy, one who both hates us, and would seek to use a WMD against us should they ever gain one. Further, they have received plans for a nuclear weapon, whether they asked for it or not, they have not stated that the papers have been thrown away.

Electrical sockets taste of sherbert if you lick them.:)
Heh!

If you put your tongue on a metal lamp pole in the middle of winter, you can get it loose during the Spring thaw. :D

One comment:
The USA has 6500+ nuclear weapons.
Iran is trying to get 1, possibly.

Doesn't that say something to you? The US is completely hypocritical on this issue, and if it's serious about making the world a safer place by preventing nuclear proliferation, then it should start disarming its own weapons. It isn't the cold war any more.

Odd.

People are more scared of lunatics developing the bomb (i.e Iran).... then they are of lunatics who have the bomb (i.e North Korea).

Strange priorities....

I don't think that's quite right. I'm defitiely more scared of the lunatics with the bombs already than of the ones who are just about to get it. It's just that we're much less likely to get blown to smithereens when we interfere with the ones who don't have them yet than the ones who DO have them, and are just psycholic enough that they would probably be willing to use them on us. BABOOM!

One comment:
The USA has 6500+ nuclear weapons.
Iran is trying to get 1, possibly.

Doesn't that say something to you? The US is completely hypocritical on this issue, and if it's serious about making the world a safer place by preventing nuclear proliferation, then it should start disarming its own weapons. It isn't the cold war any more.

Yeah, kinda scary that the only country that has ever used a nuclear weapon offensively has, I would estimate, far more than ten to one hundred times the nuclear arsenal than the stone-age countries they're attacking.

I'm personally more afraid of Bush than Jong-Il, but then again, I'm Canadian. (Although I know Americans who feel the same way.)

If you think someone is looking for a gun (an illegal one I assume ;) )...call the police.

Oh yes. We gotta call Team America, World Police. Complete tripe.

Let's see...

'OMG Iraq has WoMD!'
-four years later, after an invasion-
'Oops! My bad! HEY! LOOK! Iran has WoMD!'
-the US invades-
-the US has even more control of the world's oil, but has a rapidly dwindling military population-
'Oops! My bad! HEY! LOOK! Saudi Arabia has WoMD!'
-repeat ad nauseum-

And if you wanna be funny, toss in the US military getting killed off so badly that France invades and takes over.

And with regards to Jong-Il, how fucking hard would it be to send a team of four CIA operatives in to take him out? Or do they not do that anymore, in an effort to make the CIA softer, warmer and fuzzier?

... Oh. Wait. They still kidnap Canadian nationals. So much for that.

And with regards to Jong-Il, how fucking hard would it be to send a team of four CIA operatives in to take him out?

Harder than you think. CIA does not mean bulletproof, you know, and I'd say half if not more of the main purpose of North Korea's military is -to- protect their little dictator from just that sort of assassination attempt.

I think 57% of the american public is out of it's mind.

But I will give them the benefit of the doubt and say that there's a big difference between 'military action' and invasion.

I should also point out that the poll was of 1,555 people. And don't give me that "margin of error" crap! An individual's opinion is an opinion; if you don't ask it, you don't know it.

I hate statistics.

Here's what'll actually happen:

1. Everyone does nothing at all.
2. Israel bomb the hell out of Iran's nuclear facilities.3. The Isreal Strike provokes a War..
4. Iran Strikes Isreal and US Interets
5. Iran Military ,Infrestructure and Oil Fileds are blown to hell.
6. The price of Oil skyrockets.
7. General Motors Corp and Ford Motor Corp file for Bankrupcy.

And you're not concerned about this at all? Besides, it's not just some random cleric, it's the President this time, and that is what has everyone worried.
Not in the slightest, no.

Since 1979 and the Revolution- what pray tell has the State of Iran actually done to back up its usual (and now rather boring) rhetoric? Nada thing.

Oh yes. We gotta call Team America, World Police. Complete tripe.
I wasn't refering to the global situation, I was refering to the scenario ;)

One comment:
The USA has 6500+ nuclear weapons.
Iran is trying to get 1, possibly.

Doesn't that say something to you? The US is completely hypocritical on this issue, and if it's serious about making the world a safer place by preventing nuclear proliferation, then it should start disarming its own weapons. It isn't the cold war any more.

The US isn't threatening to wipe anyone off the face of the earth. The US has had thousands of nuclear weapons for 50 + years and has never tried to wipe any country "off the map". Iran doesn't even have nuclear weapons yet and they're talking about wiping out entire countries.

One comment:
The USA has 6500+ nuclear weapons.
Iran is trying to get 1, possibly.

Doesn't that say something to you? The US is completely hypocritical on this issue, and if it's serious about making the world a safer place by preventing nuclear proliferation, then it should start disarming its own weapons. It isn't the cold war any more.

Don't be foolish. The US isn't run by a overzealous psychot. iran is.

*high-fives Ceia*

Well, iran is a bit different from Iraq. The main difference is that iran is insane.No, the main difference is the spelling. N is simply more worth fighting than Q.

Not in the slightest, no.

Since 1979 and the Revolution- what pray tell has the State of Iran actually done to back up its usual (and now rather boring) rhetoric? Nada thing.

Nothing. Because they don't have nukes yet.

We should have gone into Iran a long time ago. Im all for it and proud to be American so if dont like it dont be jealous my chevy is better than what you drive. Everybody wants to be american and everyone wants to go to war with Iran!

We should have gone into Iran a long time ago. Im all for it and proud to be American so if dont like it dont be jealous my chevy is better than what you drive. Everybody wants to be american and everyone wants to go to war with Iran!
Very few people, anywhere, are jealous of a Chevy....

One comment:
The USA has 6500+ nuclear weapons.
Iran is trying to get 1, possibly.

Doesn't that say something to you?
Yeah, it says we are f*ing awesome! America f#%k yeah! even though we only have about 3000 nukes thanks to that stupid arms treaty with the commies

We should have gone into Iran a long time ago. Im all for it and proud to be American so if dont like it dont be jealous my chevy is better than what you drive. Everybody wants to be american and everyone wants to go to war with Iran!

Actually, I prefer my '97 Dodge Intrepid, thanks. DaimlerChrysler > Chevrolet.

And I'm proud to be Canadian.

If I wanted to be a troll like this guy, I could suggest that Canadians go south of the border, ransack pawnshops for weapons, and invade the northern states. Frankly, I'm not sure that all of them would resist.

:P

250% of Americans can support action against Iran--doesn't mean shit if we don't have the troop strength. (We don't.)

250% of Americans can support action against Iran--doesn't mean shit if we don't have the troop strength. (We don't.)
Perhaps you should actually, like ... you know ... READ the damned article:

Mueller said that Americans' rising support for confronting Iran was "impressive," especially considering their misgivings about the war in Iraq, and that their support suggested "concerns about the new president." But he added that poll respondents are often more inclined to voice support for military intervention when the question is framed broadly and the potential for casualties is unclear.

In other words, Americans just like it when shit is blown up. :rolleyes:

Don't you think it's time that some sort of war hit the States at home, so they learn to respect it a bit more? Seriously...why is it so difficult for some people to comprehend that people die when you go to war?

Perhaps you should actually, like ... you know ... READ the damned article:

Mueller said that Americans' rising support for confronting Iran was "impressive," especially considering their misgivings about the war in Iraq, and that their support suggested "concerns about the new president." But he added that poll respondents are often more inclined to voice support for military intervention when the question is framed broadly and the potential for casualties is unclear.
Why are you so pissy? Is it time for your lithium again? Your quote has absolutely no bearing on my comment. My point--which apparently soared over your head like a Barry Bonds homer--was that poll numbers mean the square root of jack fuck all if we don't have the troops to carry out what the poll is suggesting.

In other words, Americans just like it when shit is blown up. :rolleyes:

Don't you think it's time that some sort of war hit the States at home, so they learn to respect it a bit more? Seriously...why is it so difficult for some people to comprehend that people die when you go to war?

Likewise though, many people do not seem to comprehend that in many parts of the world, people die when you do not go to war. People don't get to see that on TV though.

In other words, Americans just like it when shit is blown up. :rolleyes:

Don't you think it's time that some sort of war hit the States at home, so they learn to respect it a bit more? Seriously...why is it so difficult for some people to comprehend that people die when you go to war?

What? Didn't you see The Matrix? Of course we love to blow shit up! (Just like al-Qaida!) It's what makes Americans Americans!

Very few people, anywhere, are jealous of a Chevy....

People who drive fords maybe - "Frequently off road dead"

Yeah, it says we are f*ing awesome! America f#%k yeah! even though we only have about 3000 nukes thanks to that stupid arms treaty with the commies

It's still plenty enough to say...detonate the sun.

It's still plenty enough to say...detonate the sun.

Or turn Jupiter into one?

What? Didn't you see The Matrix? Of course we love to blow shit up! (Just like al-Qaida!) It's what makes Americans Americans!
Well put, How can you not love America, we are great! And I dont know why someone was calling on a war to hit American shores, thats why we are fighting them over there, so we dont have to over here. G.W. Bush said that and he is wise man dispite his speaking abilities. At any rate its a true statement. I dont think we should just stop with Iran. We can bring back the draft, its worth it.

"Well put, How can you not love America, we are great!"

You want me to answer that??

So! How to the Iranian people feel about the possibility of being butchered, bombed, slaughtered, raped, abused, offended and subjugated to an American puppet regime?

Well put, How can you not love America, we are great! And I dont know why someone was calling on a war to hit American shores, thats why we are fighting them over there, so we dont have to over here. G.W. Bush said that and he is wise man dispite his speaking abilities. At any rate its a true statement. I dont think we should just stop with Iran. We can bring back the draft, its worth it.

NO PEACE UNTIL WE RULE ALL!

The US isn't threatening to wipe anyone off the face of the earth. The US has had thousands of nuclear weapons for 50 + years and has never tried to wipe any country "off the map". Iran doesn't even have nuclear weapons yet and they're talking about wiping out entire countries.

""Let us beware that while they [Soviet rulers] preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination over all the peoples of the earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.... I urge you to beware the temptation ..., to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of any evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong, good and evil." "

Reagan coined the term evil empire, relative to the USSR. I think its pretty clear what he wanted.

Then you have Bush, and his Axis of evil sayings, etc.

I've said it before, and I will say it again. There isn't much difference between the POTUS and the President of Iran. Bush talks about the axis of evil, the Iranians call america the great satan. Bush accuses the Iranians of trying to make nuclear weapons, the Iranians accuse the jews and usually the americans of greed, corruption, etc. Iran talks about wiping out the jews, and Bush talks about wiping out the terrorists.

Isn't it so much more dependant on your viewpoint on issues, and less one side being crazy, and you not? I hate how people automatically assume a contrary position = an inane or insane one.

Lets go!:sniper:

I do so love it when someone likes you comes along, says something like that, and thereby proudly informs the rest of us of just how low his intellectual abilities are...


Well, the media has been playing the "Iran's dictator is crazy, see he's even a Holocaust denier!" slant for some time. No big surprise how popular he's become with the general US public.


Quite so. It no longer even surprises me that so many people are eager to form a so-called "opinion" on the basis of a few minute report on the news. I suppose most people are just too intelectually lazy to look up facts and information for themselves, ascertain their thruthfulness from several sources and *gasp* actually think for themselves and develop their own informed, rational, thought out point of view on the topic.

That would be way, way too much to ask for. People seem to prefer having their opinions dictated too them, and for those opinions too be easy and simplistic, so they can cling to them without having to think too much.

Odd.

People are more scared of lunatics developing the bomb (i.e Iran).... then they are of lunatics who have the bomb (i.e North Korea).

Strange priorities....

Very strange as people are not afraid of other lunatics that not only have the bomb but have huge numbers of them and are refuse to get rid of them 'just in case'. (i.e the Bush administration) :p

"Well put, How can you not love America, we are great!"

You want me to answer that??

So! How to the Iranian people feel about the possibility of being butchered, bombed, slaughtered, raped, abused, offended and subjugated to an American puppet regime?
Yes, please do answer that for me. The US doesnt hurt anyone that doesnt threaten us and deserve it. They wont be subjugated by a puppet regime, they want a new government. We will be seen as good people setting them free. America is a great place that sometimes an unfair bad rap.

Yes, please do answer that for me. The US doesnt hurt anyone that doesnt threaten us and deserve it. They wont be subjugated by a puppet regime, they want a new government. We will be seen as good people setting them free. America is a great place that sometimes an unfair bad rap.

Sounds awfully familiar to that other place we thought wanted a new government. Not as though the iraqi government is a puppet regime, nor is the iranian government voted in by its people atm.

And of course, we only hurt people who deserve it.

Thats objective.

I'm personally more afraid of Bush than Jong-Il, but then again, I'm Canadian. (Although I know Americans who feel the same way.)


You're on a first-name basis with the guy? ;)

I've said this many times, but "Jong-Il" is his given name. "Kim" is his family name. If ever you're not sure, a slight clue is that his father was called Kim Il-Sung.

Koreans, like the Chinese and various others, put their family name first and their given name second.

(I suppose it doesn't help that there are NS issues where you receive advice from "Max Jong-Il" or some such, and that it's never be corrected...)

The US doesnt hurt anyone that doesnt threaten us and deserve it.

Please tell me you're being sarcastic. It's difficult to tell these days, when some people actually believe and express nonsense more extreme even than what others say sarcastically.

If you're being serious, then... My God. You deserve some sort of nomination for most simplistic-minded poster ever. Add to that wilful ignorance. I've never understood how people can choose to ignore facts simply in order to paint themselves a reassuringly simplistic, manichean little world that isn't too taxing on their limited brain power.

Though, wait... Perhaps their limited brain power explains it.

You're on a first-name basis with the guy? ;)

I've said this many times, but "Jong-Il" is his given name. "Kim" is his family name. If ever you're not sure, a slight clue is that his father was called Kim Il-Sung.

Koreans, like the Chinese and various others, put their family name first and their given name second.

(I suppose it doesn't help that there are NS issues where you receive advice from "Max Jong-Il" or some such, and that it's never be corrected... :roll:)

It appears that the given name of the father becomes the middle name of the son... correct me if I'm wrong....

Please tell me you're being sarcastic. It's difficult to tell these days, when some people actually believe and express nonsense more extreme even than what others say sarcastically.

If you're being serious, then... My God. You deserve some sort of nomination for most simplistic-minded poster ever. Add to that wilful ignorance. I've never understood how people can choose to ignore facts simply in order to paint themselves a reassuringly simplistic, manichean little world that isn't too taxing on their limited brain power.

Though, wait... Perhaps their limited brain power explains it.
We never hurt people intenationally, there is some accidential harm, but thats acceptable. Please show me one time the US has targeted civilians in the past 20 years.

It appears that the given name of the father becomes the middle name of the son... correct me if I'm wrong....

That's an interesting question. I'll have to look into that.

For now, I've just found what Wikipedia says on the topic, which may or may not be accurate:


Traditionally, given names are determined by a rule called dollimja, which originated in China. One of the two characters in a given name is unique to the individual and the other is shared by all people in a family of the same sex and generation, called the generation name.

While the traditional practice is still largely followed, since the late 1970s, some people have given names that are native Korean words, usually of two syllables in length to follow the old 2-character pattern.

That's an interesting question. I'll have to look into that.

For now, I've just found what Wikipedia says on the topic, which may or may not be accurate:

Ah. So Kim Jung-Il's son might have a given name comtaining the element "Il"?