I wonder how many of those in favor of doing so realize what would happen if we/Israel did? Here is an interesting rumination (from two years ago!) about the implications.

Nearly half of likely voters think the United States should be willing to use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, according to this week’s The Hill Poll. Forty-nine percent said military force should be used, while 31 percent said it should not and 20 percent were not sure.

Sixty-two percent of likely voters said they were somewhat or very concerned about Iran making a terrorist strike on the United States, while 37 percent said they were not very concerned or not at all concerned about it.

Nearly half — 49 percent — of likely voters also said they opposed cutting military spending to balance the federal budget, while 40 percent said it should be reduced.
[…]
The findings were based on a nationwide survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted Feb. 2 by Pulse Opinion Research, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

As for not cutting military spending, apparently those against it are expecting another WWII-type war to break out. Or don’t want to lose their military contract money.



  1. Animby says:

    I’d prefer to see data that wasn’t two years old. Om any case, a lot of people say we shouldn’t take any action until we know for sure Iran is building a bomb. The same people didn’t accept that Iraq had WMD even though it was undisputed he had used biologicals (i.e. gas) on dissident populations. Do we really need to wait until they vaporize Tel Aviv?

    Iran has launched a satellite, that means they have ICBM capability. We used to take comfort that we were only listening to the religious ravings of a puppet president but now even the current Ayatollah is saying it is Iran’s Islamic duty to facilitate the appearance of the 12th Imam by killing every Jew on the face of the earth and that would necessitate destroying the USA, also.

    During the Cold War. we held the USSR in check with a policy of Mutual Assured Destruction – appropriately acronymed MAD. The fear of death kept things in check. Well, we know that wouldn’t work with a theocracy that believes death is a wonderful ambition!

    I am not a warmonger. I’ve fought in wars, lived in wars and seen the human and economic devastation is brings with it. But I am of the opinion that sooner is better than later when it comes to Iran.

    On the other hand, a quick nuclear war would certainly end our concerns of global warming…

    • jpfitz says:

      “But I am of the opinion that sooner is better than later when it comes to Iran.”

      Bush doctrine all over again. You get your intel from where? You really believe what your reading or watching is the truth. Just kill all the Iranians and all is good. We don’t learn from history do we, even if the history is from yesterday.

  2. Cap'nKangaroo says:

    My question is, of those for bombing, who volunteers to be in the first wave. And in all the subsequent bombing waves to follow.

    Does anyone seriously think there will be only one raid to destroy all the disparate facilities and Iran will throw up their hands and say “We give up, we won’t try to reconstitute the program.”

    • Yes. If you recall in June of 1981, Israel bombed an Iranian nuclear power plant about to go online. I guess they forgot too.

      • Cap'nKangaroo says:

        As pointed out by JetMech further down, it was an Iraqi nuclear power plant, not an Iranian power plant.

    • dusanmal says:

      First, volunteers will be on US soil or at most in one of the oceans launching missiles. Not a single human needs to step on or fly over Iran for this purpose. If ethics or morality of that is in question – I am sure people would be lining up to press the button.

      Second, it is time for US to rethink its military strategy of nation rebuilding and “proportional” warfare. War is war, not a PC feel good meeting. Iran will for certain launch nuclear weapons to kill in case they get them, they fight their fights as they mean it . Hence we have enemy attempting to load a gun pointed at us. The only proper way to attack Iran in such situation is to go for a kill. That means to use our strongest weapons and to strike with meaning and intent to kill and kill fast. 20-30 nuclear weapons on the ground and 2-3 EMP pulses would ensure Iran will not be a problem for millennia. Side effect – potential opponents with similar mindset will be quiet for at least a generation.

      Will weaselly politicians in power ever dare to do so? Maybe Israelis.

      As for war a-la Vietnam, Iran, Afghanistan … to build nations and use “proportional force” – no, no one should volunteer and any politician promoting it should be pulled down from his place. Same as for idiots who claim that it is OK for Iran to build whatever they want and/or want to “negotiate” with them – this is a battle of civilizations and the only possible negotiation is a-la Bruce from 5th Element. Iran and extreme Islam could care less for destruction, lives and prosperous future of human kind. They are ready to trade Islamic domination for a stone age at any second.

      • Phydeau says:

        Lovely. Use nukes to stop a nation from getting nukes. Because using nukes is wrong.

        Listen to yourselves, people.

  3. Mextli: ABO says:

    I think Daklan’s last two paragraphs sum up what we need to do IF we ever decide upon military action.
    Not saying we should but he basically says flatten the place without mercy then take complete control. If we don’t feel its worth a commitment like that then stay out of there.

  4. JohnnyBGoode says:

    Yet another place we don’t need to be. Way to go Bush III (Obama).

  5. Yaknow says:

    ‘Kill all Jews and annihilate Israel!’ Iran’s Ayatollah lays out legal and religious justification for attack.

    Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei spoke to worshippers at Friday’s prayers in Tehran. He said the US sanctions against Iran would backfire and increase the resilience of the country to pursue its ambitions.

    “From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this”
    – Khamenei

    “[Israel] cancerous tumour that should be cut and will be cut”
    – Khamenei

    All that tells me A) two years polls mean zip now. B) We all know if they succeed in their ambitions and nuke Israel, they will not stop there. By no means will other world powers sit on their hands and not nuke them in return. Military spending comes down to the cost of a missile and firing it.

    • Dallas says:

      Yak,
      Your last paragraph makes no sense. I’m gonna have to place you in the semi-loon department. See if you can find it.

      • Yaknow says:

        Dallas, thanks for rolling out the welcome wagon. I guess your remarks are a sign of my posting validation?

        Btw, did you know that President Barack Obama ordered a freeze on all Iranian government and central bank assets held in the US or any foreign branch of a US entity? And Iran has put a stop to the talks with the UN on nuke power? And there is talk in Washington about using nuclear weapons and Iran in the same sentence? The subject now is whether or not anyone can talk sense into these Iranian nut cases who what to destroy the world and themselves, because of their religion. Public opinion on military spending, well, is passe and simply mute…now.

        • Yaknow says:

          Let me say, the world isn’t going to let Iran achieve its ambitions. If they do as much as point a nuke anywhere, the world (especially Israel) isn’t going to be held hostage. The instant (if they develop) a nuke missile(s) leaves the ground Iran will end up a pile of radiated rubble in the sand. It is just the facts.

  6. Publius says:

    Iraq + X + Afghanistan

    Solve for X

    (Hint: 3 in a row)

    Extra credit: Define and discuss the term Manifest Destiny

  7. Hmeyers2 says:

    I’d rather the US government and the international community mull over these issues than pedestrians on forums.

    I just don’t think arguments from the point-of-view of ignorance have any merit and that includes public opinion.

    So I don’t believe anyone with a non-inteliigence agency type of background has any sort of basis to discuss the consequences or non-consequences of Iran having a nuclear weapon.

    • Animby says:

      So what’s your problem, H? Essentially every western government thinks it would be a bad thing for Iran to have a nuke. The UN thinks it would be a bad idea for Iran to have a nuke. The only real disagreement is what to do about it.

  8. jpfitz says:

    Vote Ron Paul, the only person speaking the truth about the U.S.’s abdicable intentions toward Iran. Be a patriot and speak up, act out and engage, let’s not be fooled again. The threat of Iraq was a lie so is the threat of Iran. Quell the drums.

  9. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and philosophy of History Buff says:

    Ok–so some people think they know history well enough to divine what the right response to Iran is. Like it was a chess board with all the pieces revealed, all the moves agreed to, just play your best game?

    Others think History is more like Chess. Some of the cards revealed, not all of them. All the rules known, but none followed if the opportunity arises.

    Others think History is more like Chicken. Driving towards each other and who blinks first.

    But my own curiosity is peaked by the notion that there is Kool aid on one unidentified side or the other. How does that work again? The suggestion is that ONE position is so clear that all other interpretations are nuts.

    Uncle Dave: what is the one true position regarding Iran?

    • Animby says:

      Wow! I don’t want to play chess with you. The game I learned always has all the pieces revealed and you never have “Some of the cards revealed, not all of them.”

      Mix metaphors much, Bob?

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and philosophy of History Buff says:

        Thats an obvious typo. The first paragraph was about Chess, the second was meant to say Poker. War can be like sometime too. The perfect idea/plan and then somehow its all fubar on execution.

        There are tons more (THERES your mixed metaphor) games to theory on (THERES grammar for emPHAsis). I enjoyed Stratego for awhile. Risk is still my favorite “if” the rules are changed just a bit so no one can win as long as the weak players bond together to stop the strongest player. A game of shifting loyalties.

  10. spreeuw says:

    last numbers were only 17% wants it in the USA, and 45% in judistan

  11. Chris Mac says:

    there is nothing to bomb there

  12. Chris Mac says:

    plenty O targets in NK though

  13. Chris Mac says:

    and we need a base in iran to hit nk…. 20 years ago

  14. Animby says:

    Rick and Chris : You know, the big difference between N Korea and Iran? The leaders of NK want to live and be materialistic and have the population adore them.

    The leaders of Iran think going to heaven is a wonderful choice and especially if they can take out infidels to get there.

    NKorans fear death and the afterlife. Iranians hope to be martyred so they can live forever in splendor with 72 virgins to suck their dick.

  15. Chris Mac says:

    has it really come to that? alot of big screen tv’s think they can fight their way out..

    facebook is not a teleporter

  16. orchidcup says:

    Sixty-two percent of likely voters said they were somewhat or very concerned about Iran making a terrorist strike on the United States, while 37 percent said they were not very concerned or not at all concerned about it.

    And none of these ignorant voters have the facts or the intel to support their “belief.” Could it be possible these voters accept the propaganda that is shoveled down their throats on a daily basis?

    It is probably a bad idea to take a popular vote to decide matters of foreign policy.

    If Israel perceives a real nuclear threat from Iran, they are a sovereign nation and they should respond appropriately.

    There is no reason to drag any other country into the conflict.

    Let them duke it out, and there will either be peace or annihilation. Either way, Iran is no more a threat to the U.S. than Iraq ever was.

  17. Cursor_ says:

    So once again the poorly educated in history American people think it is a good idea to go after Iran.

    Just like we made the problem of Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama, El Salvador, Haiti, Vietnam, China, USSR, Japan, Germany and on and on. Now we have to take care of what we did militarily.

    Doomed to repeat history due to ignorance.

    Well you all go on and have yourselves a good time. I’ll be investing in body bag companies this time.

    Goin home in a body bag do dah do dah.

    Cursor_

  18. JetMech says:

    For you history buffs. The Israelis bombed the French-built Osirak nuclear reactor 18 miles south of Baghdad Iraq’s capital in June 1981.

  19. sargasso_c says:

    I have said before, Syria is the key to containing Iran. So much that Iran is sending troops to help the Assad regime quell the civil war. Current US strategy in the region is highly effective. Ground sea and air presence and a slow and steady tightening of the hold while smiling sweetly.

    • Yaknow says:

      I heard that the world isn’t helping out the Syrian rebels. Now the world could be secretively supporting rebels which includes us. In that sense military spending for the US does play a part, in the relation that the key to containing Iran is through Syria. Like or not, these countries are an issue and they are not going away. As a result that demands an increase in military spending. Ironic those polled feel a threat, yet want to cut spending to balance the budget. I guess they really don’t feel truly threatened?

  20. Chinkaderro says:

    Technology brought to them by Russia & China, With Love of course..

  21. GregAllen says:

    A war with Iran could be the end of America. Foolish wars are what bring he great empires down.

    But Americans don’t know that because we don’t do history.

    Heck, we have already forgotten what a disaster the war with Iran was.

    About our only hope is to warn about $5 a gallon gas.

  22. GregAllen says:

    Goodness. It’s too early.

    … we have already forgotten what a disaster the war with _Iraq_ was.

  23. McCullough says:

    Wouldn’t it be great if we all got to vote on whether to attack Iran. And the ones who vote yes will be required to volunteer to go.

    Bet that would shut people up fast.

    • Dallas says:

      All we have to do is (1) return the draft and (2) require war bonds for funding.

      The result is, Teapublicans would fear having THEIR kid taken off the tennis team and require to serve. Secondly, the cost of war won’t be put on the China MasterCard .

    • Yaknow says:

      Attack Iran….hmmmm…..well that was the thought of many especially the Bush Admin. after 9/11 But, we attacked Afgan and Iraq. Does anyone remember the Shaw of Iran. Or say the Ayatollah Khomeini. Yea, lots of people wanted to bomb Iran then too. Did it happen, no. Has the US ever attacked Iran. Nope. As a result of Afagn. and Iraq, and our history with Iran. I doubt very much this fear of going to war with Iran is realistic. No one is talking about an US invasion force. We have been there and done that else where. Lesson learned. Is there a real possibility Iran will be wiped off the face of the earth. Yep, if they build nukes. The US may not be the ones to do it. So, this idea if we go to war with Iran we will lose….hmmm…. is simply being out of touch with the reality of the situation.

      The UN doesn’t want Iran packing nukes, most of the world doesn’t either-it’s just not about us and them.
      That is clear by the years of Iran’s nuclear program being sabotaged. The world sees Iran as a dangerous threat to the world’s existence. And as long as the world impedes their attempts to build the bomb, things will be business as usual. So, all those shaking in fear thinking Nostradamus is right can relax. But if it goes the other way, it will be the end to an ancient civilization by the hands of its religious leaders.

      Too bad Iran is being lead by a bunch of religious wackos. They give me good reason in my mind why the importance for separation of Church and State is a good idea.

  24. Gary, the dangerous infidel says:

    If Iran is attacked by an external power, either Israel or the U.S., the response of the Iranian people will be similar to our own response when we were attacked on 9/11. The reaction will be unpredictable and largely irrational as they rally around a government charged with their defense, but one that doesn’t always tell them the truth.

    • Joe says:

      And our govt. telling us
      “There are nuclear weapons of mass destruction in Iraq” is telling the truth?? Sounds like we aren’t much different.

  25. Guyver says:

    As for not cutting military spending, apparently those against it are expecting another WWII-type war to break out. Or don’t want to lose their military contract money.

    Being a smaller military, we rely on technology to level the playing field. Technology will always come at a substantially higher cost. Trying to maintain a technological gap over those we engage with militarily will never come at a cheap price. The question will always be how much is “as required” while we try to balance things out with future needs due to forecasted deficiencies.

  26. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and philosophy of History Buff says:

    Sure seems to me we have a bunch of old Generals posting here. Some say it expressed, in others its assumed, that “war is war.” Standard WW2/Iraq type war. But all I’ve heard put on the table is a surgical intervention to knock the Nuke Program back or out of commission?

    “Technically” I would think that economic sanctions would be “an act of war” but whether true or not in any real sense we are “at war” with Iran right now.

    There is no causation in the rolling horror called History, although what’s his name just wrote a book detailing how that horror has been getting ((Nail Ferguson?) less and less over time. Dithering aside: no causation. Every act, failure to act, is more part of random chaos–no one knows what will happen other than the status quo changing.

    its all “very philosophical” in my book. I’d rather die from some action of my own than sit around passively and allow other peoples’ mistakes to rule my world. Case in point: Iran. You have to be an idiot to think they aren’t a threat to Israel==and whether or not they “are” Israel thinks so, so THAT is the reality in whatever game we are playing. So==what odds give you the best chance to celebrate your grandkiddies birthday? Iran with a bomb, or Iran without a bomb?

    We aren’t talking certainties here, moves on the Chess Board, we are talking Risk tolerance and Self Actualization. “You can’t fire me, I quit!” It happens. some people don’t care about unemployment insurance.

    Same with War. If I was Israel, with a Treblinka Tattoo on my Fathers forearm, I’d be God-Damned before I’d let some jew hating bastards blow me up, or even threaten me that way. I’d take those bastards out or die trying and be PROUD of it.

    I don’t understand at all why the Jews put up with the missile attacks as they do. Imagine some Indian Reservation in the USA missile attacking us in the same manner? How long would that last?They also sue and agitate from time to time for the Right of Return. Ha, ha. Yes, “the Right” of Return.

    Land is held thru no rights at all: just Power. Power used to take it in the first place, or keep it in the second. No rights at all. Stop using power, and you stop having land. No exceptions.

    All the signs are there that Israel is ramping up. All we need is some new vocabulary to placate the retards. WMD is already there, but we need something leading edge to capture the idea that the threat of developing WMD is just as actionable. Maybe connect it to unelected religious nutbags for good sectarian squeal. The Apocalyptic Cabal of Isolated Sufis need to be hit with a Reality Stick. Well, we have time to work on that. Not War unless it devolves to that. Surgical Intervention. The carnage level to be set by the Ayatollah’s response. Just how crazy are they?

    Who here doesn’t think the Ayatollah is crazy?

    And how far should any crazy person be trusted to act rationally?

    Can you do the math, or are you crazy too?

    All you have to do is look. Just LOOK!!!!

    Stoopid Bastards.

  27. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and philosophy of History Buff says:

    #
    GregAllen says:
    2/7/2012 at 7:33 am

    Goodness. It’s too early.

    … we have already forgotten what a disaster the war with _Iraq_ was. /// Iraq was a disaster only financially. It met our highest interest at the time. Notice the USA has not been hit by any Nuke from Iraq? THAT was the objective, and it was secured. Having written, the hand of History moves on. Retards and simps to wring their hands just as you have done.

    #
    McCullough says:
    2/7/2012 at 9:08 am

    Wouldn’t it be great if we all got to vote on whether to attack Iran. And the ones who vote yes will be required to volunteer to go. //// You’ve posted that a number of times. Voting on war in such a manner would have us occupied by Mexico in about 20 years. Would it be Great? YES–if I were an Ayatolla who took my orders directly from God. Hoomans don’t operate by voting. We would have died in the caves were it so. Lots of pain and agony the way we team up and let the war mongers have their way. But the only real choice is whether you want to be the Hunter or the Prey.

    You are right though. “If” – “Then” But your scenario works only if EVERYBODY plays the game the same way. Part of WWW is that different groups play different games. You don’t want to play liars poker with others playing 7 card, while others are playing 3 card monty with a zip gun in their lap.

    You really are being so naive as to be irrelevant. “If everyone had to vote…….” Ha, ha. Ok==I’m just not in the mood for slap stick this early in the War.

    Bet that would shut be people up fast. /// Yea, or not.

  28. msbpodcast says:

    North Korea usually counts on its “million man march” (which means 1 person in 25 is in the active military,) slogging barefoot, hungry and naked through the snow to smother any opposing forces* . (That’ll last right up until the forces encounter the opposition and then they’ll get lost in the first grocery store they come across.)

    Iran has three components, the Iranian citizenry mostly young people who make up their 99%ers, the politicians who kick, scream and otherwise make idiots and fools of themselves and are their version of the 1%ers and the clerics who are the ones who count.

    *) North Korea is unusual in that the 99%ers are actually the 74%ers who live in agrarian squalor and the 25%ers who live in urban squalor or in barracks. Then we have the normal 1%ers who kiss the appropriate ass, and then there’s Kim Jong Un and his retinue of military cadré who use chap-stick on their hemorrhoid cushions.

  29. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and philosophy of History Buff says:

    Whats North Korea got to do with anything?

    I guess they have been mentioned, usually along: NK is crazy too and they haven’t Nuked anyone. Why shouldn’t we trust Iran to act the same way==as we would if we had hereditary leadership enslaving us all?

    Has NK ever said their stated goal was to wipe SK off the face of the Map? I haven’t followed that relationship close enough to know, but it seems to me that NK only arms itself to prevent others from invading.

    How long would NK last if it started such crazy talk? If it had a religious component claiming end times ascension to Heaven based on wiping Japan off the map?

    Anybody got a number? Nice round integer?

    Or does every case of crazy deserve to be analyzed on its own? You gotta be crazy not to recognize that we are all the same in certain respects but that sameness gets expressed in different ways. And what is the hooman race but an incongruent mess of one kind of crazy contesting with another kind of crazy each in their own way thinking they “deserve” whatever it is they think they want?

    Silly Hoomans. You don’t have to think Korean, or know History. Just know yourself. Ask yourself==what would I do If I were f*cking nuts?

    Ha, ha.

  30. LibertyLover says:

    For those of you who think bombing Iran is the answer:

    http://amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Consequences-American-Empire/dp/0805075593


1

Bad Behavior has blocked 5138 access attempts in the last 7 days.