View Full Version : Zogby: Majority Favor Strikes on Iran
trickblue
10-30-2007, 08:03 AM
Interesting...
Zogby: Majority Favor Strikes on Iran
A majority of likely voters - 52 percent - would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53 percent believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.
The survey results come at a time of increasing U.S. scrutiny of Iran. According to reports from the Associated Press, earlier this month Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program and Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of "serious consequences" if the U.S. were to discover Iran was attempting to devolop a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration also announced new sanctions against Iran.
Democrats (63 percent) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51 percent) and Republicans (44 percent) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71 percent), than Democrats (41 percent) or independents (44 percent). Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election and women (58 percent) are more likely than men (48 percent) to say the same – but there is little difference in support for a U.S. strike against Iran among these groups.
When asked which presidential candidate would be best equipped to deal with Iran – regardless of whether or not they expected the U.S. to attack Iran – 21 percent would most like to see New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the country, while 15 percent would prefer former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and 14 percent would want Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain in charge. Another 10 percent said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would be best equipped to deal with Iran, while Republican Fred Thompson (5 percent), Democrat John Edwards (4 percent) and Republican Mitt Romney (3 percent) were less likely to be viewed as the best leaders to help the U.S. deal with Iran. The telephone poll of 1,028 likely voters nationwide was conducted Oct. 24-27, 2007 and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.
Clinton leads strongly among Democrats on the issue, with 35 percent saying she is best equipped to deal with Iran, while 17 percent would prefer Obama and 7 percent view John Edwards as the best choice. Giuliani is the top choice of Republicans (28 percent), followed by McCain (21 percent) and Fred Thompson (9 percent). One in five independents chose Clinton (21 percent) over McCain (16 percent) and Giuliani (11 percent). Clinton was the top choice among women (24 percent), while 14 percent would be more confident with Giuliani in the White House and 11 percent would prefer McCain. Men slightly prefer McCain (18 percent) to Clinton (17 percent) on this issue, while 15 percent said Giuliani is best equipped to deal with Iran. The survey also shows there is a significant amount of uncertainty if any of the long list of declared candidates would be best equipped to deal the Iran – 19 percent overall said they weren’t sure which candidate to choose.
There is considerable division about when a strike on Iran should take place – if at all. Twenty-eight percent believe the U.S. should wait to strike until after the next president is in office while 23 percent would favor a strike before the end of President Bush’s term. Another 29 percent said the U.S. should not attack Iran, and 20 percent were unsure. The view that Iran should not be attacked by the U.S. is strongest among Democrats (37 percent) and independents, but fewer than half as many Republicans (15 percent) feel the same. But Republicans are also more likely to be uncertain on the issue (28 percent).
As the possibility the U.S. my strike Iran captures headlines around the world, many have given thought to the possibility of an attack at home. Two in three (68 percent) believe it is likely that the U.S. will suffer another significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil comparable to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 – of those, 27 percent believe such an attack is very likely. Nearly one in three (31 percent) believe the next significant attack will occur between one and three years from now, 22 percent said they believe the next attack is between three and five years away, and 15 percent said they don’t think the U.S. will be attacked on U.S. soil for at least five years or longer. Just 9 percent believe a significant terrorist attack will take place in the U.S. before the next presidential election.
BrAinPaiNt
10-30-2007, 08:34 AM
Let Israel do it...I think they have some exp in that area.
Doomsday101
10-30-2007, 08:44 AM
Let Israel do it...I think they have some exp in that area.
They will if we don't and with good cause, they know who the 1st target would be.
iceberg
10-30-2007, 08:47 AM
Let Israel do it...I think they have some exp in that area.
that's my thought. just tell them we don't care what they do, just protect yourself from the obvious threats iran has offered.
on the flip side, a majority favored invading iraq also. we're a fickle bunch when it's not easy or over by the nightly news.
iceberg
10-30-2007, 08:48 AM
They will if we don't and with good cause, they know who the 1st target would be.
damn skippy. iran has already said they'll nuke israel as soon as they can. the US has a "oh you're kidding" policy which is stupid with proven fanaticals.
I think if Israel does it, we completely lose whatever ground we've gained with countries like Egypt and Lebanon, etc.
The threat hasn't cowed Iran, so it seems the last resort just might have to be force, but most Americans favoring it, does not mean it's the best course of action.
It'd be best not to happen with this administration, because this administration is obviously lacking in the handling of such things.
damn skippy. iran has already said they'll nuke israel as soon as they can. the US has a "oh you're kidding" policy which is stupid with proven fanaticals.
On the public surface, maybe, but not in reality. America has positioned itself to completely ruin Iran militarily.
Sasquatch
10-30-2007, 08:52 AM
Stop the insanity.
zrinkill
10-30-2007, 09:11 AM
The minute anyone really thinks Iran has nuclear weapons ..... Israel will bomb them.
Its really that simple.
The U.S. is the best friend Iran has right now ...... and they do not even know it.
jterrell
10-30-2007, 09:18 AM
As soon as an Iranian nuke heads toward Isreal we blow it out of the sky then let loose with our own.
We don't need pre-emptive strikes.
Reagen might have ended up very mentally diminished as President but not all his policies failed.
I say send Rambo and Chuck Norris into Iran to get the head cleric in charge. :laugh2:
jterrell
10-30-2007, 09:20 AM
On the public surface, maybe, but not in reality. America has positioned itself to completely ruin Iran militarily.
Thats what that base in Iraq is all about.
If they do anything we hit them so hard they go back into the middle ages; where they pretty much reside religiously now anyways.
iceberg
10-30-2007, 09:38 AM
Thats what that base in Iraq is all about.
If they do anything we hit them so hard they go back into the middle ages; where they pretty much reside religiously now anyways.
funny how things can turn, huh? bush used whatever excuse he had to apparantely to get into iraq, afganastan was easy. he named iran at the time on the axis of evil and yea, we took the "low hanging fruit" per se and now iran *is* surrounded.
they've got a problem they're not even fully aware of i'd bet.
vta - you say not to let bush do it cause of past mistakes, who would you want in charge when bush steps down to finish this fight?
iceberg
10-30-2007, 09:40 AM
Stop the insanity.
and if we stop, what will iran do? if we just pack up, go home and pretend the world loves each other in blissful harmony, what in the name of god will iran do?
follow through on what they said they'd do. nuke israel and we'd not be far behind.
the world is an evil place sassy. the old head in the sand sing kumbaya just doesn't work outside of fiction.
burmafrd
10-30-2007, 11:28 AM
amazing how many "useful fools" (as Lenin called them) are around who actually think nice words will deter fanatics.
Doomsday101
10-30-2007, 11:45 AM
and if we stop, what will iran do? if we just pack up, go home and pretend the world loves each other in blissful harmony, what in the name of god will iran do?
follow through on what they said they'd do. nuke israel and we'd not be far behind.
the world is an evil place sassy. the old head in the sand sing kumbaya just doesn't work outside of fiction.
I agree. It is easy to sit there and say make love and not war and all this other non-sense then there is the real world and you have a country in Iran that has made it perfectly clear what their intentions are in regards to Israel. They want them wiped out and nothing short of that will ever be acceptable. Israel takes a hell of a lot of blame for their actions because they retaliate but then they are surrounded by those who would wipe them out if not for the US and the fire power Israel has because of the US. Israel has been able to negotiate peace with countries like Egypt and Jordan over land disputes and I do think they want the same with Palestine but it is hard when you’re under constant attack. So yes if I'm in the shoes of Israel I'll do whatever I have to too make sure Iran does not get nuclear weapons
vta - you say not to let bush do it cause of past mistakes, who would you want in charge when bush steps down to finish this fight?
Regardless of what I want, the next President is either Hilary or Rudy.
I don't trust Hilary to be a wartime President; I know Rudy can be ruthless and would handle it better.
I like Rudy, I like what he did to NYC and organized crime, and he can run an administration. Will that make him a competent President overall? Not necessarily, but given that I really believe that these are the only two valid choices, I'd rather it be Rudy handling this situation. Hilary would make a good President in a time when there is no war.
As for Iran, they're well aware of the American military's where about's. That's why all the sabre rattling since 2003; a cornered rat will always bear it's teeth.
Mavs Man
10-30-2007, 12:07 PM
I say send Rambo and Chuck Norris into Iran to get the head cleric in charge. :laugh2:
That's what I've been saying all along. Make it a reality show or release it in theaters, use tickets/advertising sales to help balance the budget, and it's over in 100 minutes or less. Depending on how long the credits run. :D
Sasquatch
10-30-2007, 12:43 PM
amazing how many "useful fools" (as Lenin called them) are around who actually think nice words will deter fanatics.
If Iran were to attack Israel, the response would be swift and overwhelming. Not only that, but since there would actually be legitimate grounds for the assault, there would be the requisite political support to do the job properly.
It's called deterrence, I believe.
If Iran were to attack Israel, the response would be swift and overwhelming. Not only that, but since there would actually be legitimate grounds for the assault, there would be the requisite political support to do the job properly.
It's called deterrence, I believe.
Swift and overwhelming by whom? I think youre affording too much credit to most nations. It was evident when Hezbollah (Iran, in reality) crossed the border to kill a few soldiers and kidnap others, that the response was anything but.
The only response was to condemn Israel in the face of retaliation against a foe who hides behind civilians.
zrinkill
10-30-2007, 01:22 PM
The only response was to condemn Israel in the face of retaliation against a foe who hides behind civilians.
:bow:
Sasquatch
10-30-2007, 01:36 PM
Swift and overwhelming by whom? I think youre affording too much credit to most nations. It was evident when Hezbollah (Iran, in reality) crossed the border to kill a few soldiers and kidnap others, that the response was anything but.
The only response was to condemn Israel in the face of retaliation against a foe who hides behind civilians.
Aren't we talking about Iran using nuclear weapons to advance its evil designs? Isn't that the specter that the administration is using to whip up support for yet another insane military adventure?
Aren't we talking about Iran using nuclear weapons to advance its evil designs? Isn't that the specter that the administration is using to whip up support for yet another insane military adventure?
Yes, we are... You asserted that if Iran attacked Israel, the response would be swift and overwhelming. Again I'll ask, by whom and what will that response be?
It's not another insane military adventure, it's the same one.
They're connected.
Doomsday101
10-30-2007, 02:08 PM
Swift and overwhelming by whom? I think youre affording too much credit to most nations. It was evident when Hezbollah (Iran, in reality) crossed the border to kill a few soldiers and kidnap others, that the response was anything but.
The only response was to condemn Israel in the face of retaliation against a foe who hides behind civilians.
It would be a swift and overwhelming by the US if Iran were to use nuclear and I'm sure even our allies would back us.
zrinkill
10-30-2007, 02:11 PM
It would be a swift and overwhelming by the US if Iran were to use nuclear and I'm sure even our allies would back us.
Our allies would ...... France, Russia, and China would not.
Doomsday101
10-30-2007, 02:22 PM
Our allies would ...... France, Russia, and China would not.
Russia and China I agree. France maybe they did get involved with Desert Storm in 91 though it was limited. A nuclear attack I think they would.
Problem is if such an attack takes place it would be too late for Israel and they are not in any position to wait and see. They will take out any attempt in Iran developing nuclear weapons, that I have no doubt about nor would I blame them for doing it.
I think any responsible leader would do the same. Case in point Cuba when Russia was attempting to put short range missile there the US was not going to sit back and allow it to happen the consequences are just too high of a risk to take
Sasquatch
10-30-2007, 03:20 PM
France maybe they did get involved with Desert Storm in 91 though it was limited. A nuclear attack I think they would.
Sarkozy would most definitely involve France in a US-Israeli coalition against Iran in the event of a nuclear attack.
jterrell
10-30-2007, 04:07 PM
That's what I've been saying all along. Make it a reality show or release it in theaters, use tickets/advertising sales to help balance the budget, and it's over in 100 minutes or less. Depending on how long the credits run. :D
I say drop 100K convicted murderers off in afghanistan; each with a camcorder for sending to Fox for reality tv viewing.
They can form teams of ten and each win 1 million dollars for the head of Bin Laden.
That ten we allow back into the country.
The other 990K we leave and the money we save in food, clothing goes towards the rewards as would prfoits of the highest rated show on tv: american manhunt!
Chuck Norris and Rambo could co-host!!!!
BrAinPaiNt
10-30-2007, 04:13 PM
I say drop 100K convicted murderers off in afghanistan; each with a camcorder for sending to Fox for reality tv viewing.
They can form teams of ten and each win 1 million dollars for the head of Bin Laden.
That ten we allow back into the country.
The other 990K we leave and the money we save in food, clothing goes towards the rewards as would prfoits of the highest rated show on tv: american manhunt!
Chuck Norris and Rambo could co-host!!!!
http://www.homevideos.com/movies-covers/TheDirtyDozen.jpg
jterrell
10-30-2007, 04:19 PM
http://www.homevideos.com/movies-covers/TheDirtyDozen.jpg
In a nod to our Cowboys rookie draft class of 1975 I could expand my thinking to 1.2 million convicted murderers and make the teams 12 men strong!!!!
See, who said I wasn't a flexible thinker!!!
:)
arglebargle
10-30-2007, 05:29 PM
The problem with this 'Israel blasts Iran' plan is that there is no way that Israel planes can get to Iran without going through controlled airspace. They probably aren't going to be going through Turkish or Russian airspace. Pretty much every other avenue is controlled by American airpower. While it may play well domestically that 'We had nothing to do with it', everywhere else they will know that this will have had to be approved by the USA for armed jet fighters/bombers to get to Iran. And it would be a legit call.
The possibility is there that this will be done: Cheney wouldn't mind dumping this in the lap of the next administration, I am sure. Either via proxy Israel or in person. Just like Papa Bush dumped Somalia on Clinton.
Now the thought of Iran with a nuke certainly does not make me sleep easy. Religious zealots in power anywhere, are a dangerous thing. But I think you give a bit too much credence to the public pronouncements of the Iranian goof. He says what he does because it plays well with the middle eastern masses, and it riles their western foes. He's poking the bear. Newt Gingrich used to introduce resolutions calling for the suspension of the constitution, the rounding up of drug users, and putting them in concentration camps in various sports arenas. I never thought he was serious, he was just poking the bear. While I am sure the mullahs would love to make Israel disappear, I don't think they have a chance of doing it.
It's not that I think the Iranians are nice guys. I just think that the idea that we bomb their country and they just suddenly decide to play ball with us is foolish. I think their reaction would be widespread and nasty. The terrain in Iran is not good for us, our military is overstretched, the Iranians are not pushovers like the Iraqis, and they would have most of the masses of the middle eastern world on their side. Given the recent history of unrealistic decisions in the US, at the top, I suspect this sort of thing would boomerang on us badly.
It would be a swift and overwhelming by the US if Iran were to use nuclear and I'm sure even our allies would back us.
Do you think this is a deterrent to Iran?
arglebargle
10-30-2007, 06:03 PM
Do you think this is a deterrent to Iran?
Yes.
Though political leaders who think that the world is going to end soon are a bit scary.
An all out military assault would lose the people of Iran, and I'm sure this country doesn't want that. It's hard to tell exactly what the real plan is. Sanctions are not truly hurting Iran and threats have gotten us where we are now: Ahmadinejad's sabre rattling as a result of American's actions over the last number of years. He wants to hold the threat of striking Israel as a kind of collateral.
I don't think the plan is the same model as Iraq. Iraq was/is to get close and have a base, as is Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Turkey and the Gulf. Another reason it's drawn out is because it requires much better planning than stepping on Iraq as a launching pad.
Direct military conflict would surely draw a line in the sand with America, France, Australia and the UK as principles on one side, and China and Russia, as well as a number of other Mid East countries backing Iran. Working the fence riders is part of what has Rice traversing the Mid East on a regular basis. Summits with Egypt and our diplomacy with India are all part of it.
Bush did say a nuclear Iran risks WWIII. I know what that means. Not necessarily a nuclear war, but the very real prospect a number of nations allied against each other on a large scale. Putins surprise visit and warnings of military action against Iran isn't idle chatter, he knows where this could end up.
War with Iran won't be just another American military excursion that we can watch on CNN. They can and will extend a lot of damage beyond their own borders, as well as having big friends like China and Russia. I think it'd be nuts for Israel to act first, but I doubt they care what I think. Such an act could easily trigger a major domino effect.
It's going to take a better mind than what we have now to navigate this thing properly.
Yes.
Though political leaders who think that the world is going to end soon are a bit scary.
I hope you're right... but they don't appear to be giving any pause to their actions.
Doomsday101
10-30-2007, 07:14 PM
Do you think this is a deterrent to Iran?
I think taking out their nuclear reactors and military installations will slow them down. I'm not a war monger by any means but I do know that Israel can not afford to take the chance of having a nuclear Iran and I don't think we or are allies can afford the risk of a nuclear Iran who is one of the biggest supporters of terrorist in the world. I would compare this situation very simular to that of the Russian nuclear weapons in Cuba and we saw what the US did and how far we were willing to go to prevent this. For me the scary part is I always felt the Russians would never cross a certain line and frankly I don't feel that way about Iran I think they would do it
Sasquatch
10-30-2007, 07:24 PM
I hope you're right... but they don't appear to be giving any pause to their actions.
You don't think that might be because a country that routinely threatens them has invaded countries on either side of them and they know they only way to avoid an invasion is to possess nuclear weapons?
From what I've read, Iran is still years aware from being able to develop a functional nuclear device, so once again I am skeptical about the administration's dire warnings and the timing of the issue.
You don't think that might be because a country that routinely threatens them has invaded countries on either side of them and they know they only way to avoid an invasion is to possess nuclear weapons?
From what I've read, Iran is still years aware from being able to develop a functional nuclear device, so once again I am skeptical about the administration's dire warnings and the timing of the issue.
Stop acting like Iran is innocent. Had they any inclination to be honest and sincere in diplomacy, they might not have to face the consequences of their own bad choices.
There is another way to avoid such things as getting their *** kicked: reign in Hezbollah and make a sincere effort at diplomacy and stop making demands out of thick headed pride. The fact that they've instead turned to screaming about hidden Imams and blasting civilizations off the map should be enough to see that maybe America isn't always at the root of the problem.
Regardless of what you've read, Russia swooping in to help with reactors is good enough evidence to think sitting on your hands in procrastination is unwise.
Iran has proven enough times that it wil act with crude weaponry, why should anyone wait until they have something more sophisticated to hope they'll finally grow up?
I think taking out their nuclear reactors and military installations will slow them down. I'm not a war monger by any means but I do know that Israel can not afford to take the chance of having a nuclear Iran and I don't think we or are allies can afford the risk of a nuclear Iran who is one of the biggest supporters of terrorist in the world. I would compare this situation very simular to that of the Russian nuclear weapons in Cuba and we saw what the US did and how far we were willing to go to prevent this. For me the scary part is I always felt the Russians would never cross a certain line and frankly I don't feel that way about Iran I think they would do it
I think slowing them down simply equates to putting off the inevitable, which is why we're dealing with it now. Carter didn't have the sack, Reagen concentrated on the Soviets and their predecessors just basically ignored it.
This administration, whether handling it well or not, I think has it in mind to finally confront the issue.
There are no misconceptions about how our Government feels about a nuclear Iran. It's not bluster, they really are against it and I don't doubt that there is an intention to thwart it completely. I'm just unsure if it would be wise to have Israel do it.
Diplomacy doesn't work, threats don't work and sanctions don't work; they haven't been deterred yet.
Sasquatch
10-30-2007, 09:20 PM
Stop acting like Iran is innocent. Had they any inclination to be honest and sincere in diplomacy, they might not have to face the consequences of their own bad choices.
There is another way to avoid such things as getting their *** kicked: reign in Hezbollah and make a sincere effort at diplomacy and stop making demands out of thick headed pride. The fact that they've instead turned to screaming about hidden Imams and blasting civilizations off the map should be enough to see that maybe America isn't always at the root of the problem.
Regardless of what you've read, Russia swooping in to help with reactors is good enough evidence to think sitting on your hands in procrastination is unwise.
Iran has proven enough times that it wil act with crude weaponry, why should anyone wait until they have something more sophisticated to hope they'll finally grow up?
Iran isn't innocent nor is it the bugbear that we make it to be. Nor are we innocent. If we meddle in another country's affairs by supporting materially and technically dissenting elements, many times armed, would that justify a military strike against the mainland United States in your opinion? Because we've done just that on many occasions. The rationale is typical hypocrisy. It's a game that we ourselves engage in but we object when someone else does it.
Besides, what is Iran going to do once it gets nukes that keeps you up at night, VTA? We've seen the same fear mongering with the Indian sub-continent and with North Korea, and despite the racial, national, and religious prejudices behind these hysterical claims that so-and-so is unfit to possess a nuclear weapon, the fact remains that we are the only nation to have ever used them against a civilian population. And we did it twice.
arglebargle
10-30-2007, 11:20 PM
.... the fact remains that we are the only nation to have ever used them against a civilian population. And we did it twice.
Doesn't count. No one really knew much about them, or their very dangerous ongoing effects then. I am sure that Truman was not presented with detailed analyses of bomb radiation effects, etc. It was more like, 'One bomb, does the work of thousands!' The first nuclear bombings were done without full knowledge of the danger or repurcussions.
Now the next person who approves such a thing, has no such defense, and should have the entire weight of history dropped on their scrawny little necks....
Iran isn't innocent nor is it the bugbear that we make it to be. Nor are we innocent. If we meddle in another country's affairs by supporting materially and technically dissenting elements, many times armed, would that justify a military strike against the mainland United States in your opinion? Because we've done just that on many occasions. The rationale is typical hypocrisy. It's a game that we ourselves engage in but we object when someone else does it.
Besides, what is Iran going to do once it gets nukes that keeps you up at night, VTA? We've seen the same fear mongering with the Indian sub-continent and with North Korea, and despite the racial, national, and religious prejudices behind these hysterical claims that so-and-so is unfit to possess a nuclear weapon, the fact remains that we are the only nation to have ever used them against a civilian population. And we did it twice.
I don't know what a bugbear is, but I know what Iran is and so does our government and the normal people who live there. Iran brings it's own troubles on itself by meddling in affairs that don't concern it. Israel does not care for Iran and wouldn't acknowledge it's existence if Iran kept to itself.
American 'meddling' has been due to direct conflicts of it's own interests and, what I suspect you're alluding to, due to the Cold War.
Iran's attack on U.S. Servicemen in Saudi Arabia was not a defensive action, or an act of protecting a resource, it was a petulant act of vengeance.
You must have me mistaken with someone else, I'm not losing any sleep. I can simply recognize a situation and the proper context of it without interjecting my own emotions into it.
zrinkill
10-31-2007, 07:22 AM
I don't know what a bugbear is
http://www.geocities.com/i_ate_breakfast/bugbear.jpg
they are good enemies for a 2nd level party. :)
Now let me save you some time arguing with Sassy.
in Sassy's eyes ......
U.S. = the Bad guys who rape defenseless countries for their resources.
Terrorist = misunderstood peace lovers just trying to protect themselves.
http://www.geocities.com/i_ate_breakfast/bugbear.jpg
they are good enemies for a 2nd level party. :)
Now let me save you some time arguing with Sassy.
in Sassy's eyes ......
U.S. = the Bad guys who rape defenseless countries for their resources.
Terrorist = misunderstood peace lovers just trying to protect themselves.
Hey look, it's a Persian Warlord...:eek:
Wow, I had no idea a bugbear really was something. I thought it was a 'figger' of speech.
zrinkill
10-31-2007, 07:29 AM
Hey look, it's a Persian Warlord...:eek:
Wow, I had no idea a bugbear really was something. I thought it was a 'figger' of speech.
It is also used in place of the word bogeyman by people who want to sound sophisticated ..... Sassy was just being Sassy.
Sasquatch
10-31-2007, 09:02 AM
http://www.geocities.com/i_ate_breakfast/bugbear.jpg
they are good enemies for a 2nd level party. :)
Now let me save you some time arguing with Sassy.
in Sassy's eyes ......
U.S. = the Bad guys who rape defenseless countries for their resources.
Terrorist = misunderstood peace lovers just trying to protect themselves.
First part of the post is excellent. :laugh1:
Not so high on the second part. :P
Doomsday101
10-31-2007, 09:07 AM
I think slowing them down simply equates to putting off the inevitable, which is why we're dealing with it now. Carter didn't have the sack, Reagen concentrated on the Soviets and their predecessors just basically ignored it.
This administration, whether handling it well or not, I think has it in mind to finally confront the issue.
There are no misconceptions about how our Government feels about a nuclear Iran. It's not bluster, they really are against it and I don't doubt that there is an intention to thwart it completely. I'm just unsure if it would be wise to have Israel do it.
Diplomacy doesn't work, threats don't work and sanctions don't work; they haven't been deterred yet.
I agree I would rather Israel not be the ones to act. I would hope the world reacts and handles the situation of stopping Iran from developing Nuclear weapons. My only point is if the world does not stop Iran Israel will. They have the most to lose by inaction.
Sasquatch
10-31-2007, 09:15 AM
Hey look, it's a Persian Warlord...:eek:
Wow, I had no idea a bugbear really was something. I thought it was a 'figger' of speech.
By the same token, couldn't I respond "Heavens to Murgatroyd , it's a Persian Warlord, a veritable existential threat to the people of the United States. Take us to DEFCON 1 and scramble the bombers." Exit stage left and leave the next administration to deal with the fallout.
trickblue
10-31-2007, 09:22 AM
By the same token, couldn't I respond "Heavens to Murgatroyd , it's a Persian Warlord, a veritable existential threat to the people of the United States. Take us to DEFCON 1 and scramble the bombers." Exit stage left and left the next administration deal with the fallout.
http://www.davidandrewjohnson.com/archives/snagglepuss1.jpg
By the same token, couldn't I respond "Heavens to Murgatroyd , it's a Persian Warlord, a veritable existential threat to the people of the United States. Take us to DEFCON 1 and scramble the bombers." Exit stage left and leave the next administration to deal with the fallout.
Hey I already said I think it's going to take someone more competent than this admin to handle it...
I don't favor laying a wallop on Iran, even if they deserve it.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.