Bomb Iran, majority of Americans say

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth


Well you haven't seen anything yet, till it's on our own land. IMO it will be. Just give it time.

Originally posted by Shar
Well you haven't seen anything yet, till it's on our own land. IMO it will be. Just give it time.

It may be. However, God bless any nation that is dumb enough to invade a country where ninety-five percent of the civilian population owns firearms. Anyway, yeah, you're probably right, it most likely will come here to the states.

We will engange Iran with force to stop their "nuclear program", and in turn it will start WWIII. But has anyone noticed that many officials don't even blink to that WWIII? Sure they put on a front like it matters but...It makes me wonder, why are we not so visible scared of Russia and China, both ready to lunge forward with nuclear power? It is widely believed that with the start of WWIII, the end will come in just a few days, as enough nuclear weapons will be launched there will be nothing left. What have all these privately funded underground rogue agencies been developing over the years? Does the US have a secret weapon, or secret weapons that prove nuclear warheads insignificant? There are many documented CIA papers that show encounters of UFO's with military craft / nuclear bases, both of which claimed were able to disable multiple nuclear warheads, and upon giving chase to a UFO, the attack systems on an advanced military aircraft were disabled and shut down upon approach to this object. Have we collected and gathered this UFO technology from crashes and other incidences and put 60+ years of study into them? If so, imagine the possible advancement in this area. Have we a way to disable nuclear weapon systems in mid-flight? I once read that because based on extraterrestrial technology recovered, for every 1 year public technology advances, underground military technology advances a whopping 40 years. Not saying this is the case, but food for thought.


Just realized I got carried away and should have posted this on another thread. sorry!!

[edit on 30-10-2007 by VveaponS2K]

Originally posted by Becker44
Good points Wylly,

Little tough for many of these pollsters to get a much bigger sampling. In your opinion how many people should be surveyed in order to have a clearer picture of the American sentiment?

I truly agree the sampling is small. We can look to many polls which have been incorrect. Remember the exit polls from the last presidential election? Talk about being way off!

I just don't know how to get a better sampling.

Becker

Honestly, I don't know how anyone could think a poll made up of just over 1000 voters -- can possibily paint an accurate picture of what the general concensus is, of the American populous. For all we know, the majority of the voters were purposely picked from a particular area -- where the larger percentage are not the brightest, or are just blind 'patriots', if you will.

If their goal was to get an accurate 'sampling', then it's up to them to go get the work done! A hell of a lot more voters, from all over the country -- left/right balanced to the BEST of their ability. By doing an half assed job as they did, and then having the nerve to present it as if it represents the whole of the nation... ESPECIALLY when it can be a factor, no matter how small, to whether or not a WAR is started? ......I'll just refrain from writing my thoughts about "Zogby" -- and leave it at that.

[edit on 30/10/07 by Navieko]

reply to post by Navieko


But this goes to my point Navieko. There was such a slant to your post that I wouldn't need to poll you to find out how you feel.

I think if you run in a certain circle, read predetermined news and websites, eventually you'll think everyone thinks like you and thus you become the majority.

I think the hard-core anti war crowd represents no more than 10% of the U.S. population. It seems many on here want polls conducted until one comes out that fits their agenda.

We have to be fair on both sides.

Becker

reply to post by Becker44


If you're willing to accept this poll as an accurate sampling, maybe you should see the many other polls that show that more than half the 'population' think the Iraq war was a mistake. I somehow find it hard to believe that these same people would want to go to war with Iran, when they believe the war with Iraq is unjustified -- and it's not as if the reasons for going to war are any different.

The Zogby polls historically are usually biased towards liberal causes and politicians, so I suspect if this poll is inaccurate then true number supporting a bombing of Iran is actually higher.

I wouldn't be surprised if many Americans, particularly from the older generations, have hidden anti-Iran sentiments, stemming not from current events but something that happened nearly thirty years ago. The 1979 Iranian Revolution and Hostage Crisis came as nothing less that a shock to the Western World. It may not be rational to seek revenge, but that's how some people's minds operate.

I always find it quite laughable when either side has to resort to the "You call that a Poll?" response. That large of a sample is statisically large enough to draw results from. You may not agree with the results of the poll but they are usually valid when done by a unbiased polling company that does an accurate sampling. Next I bet we will hear how Zogby is a right wing polling company. I wonder what those who dismiss this poll as irrelavant will do when the Democrats in the Senate and House vote for action on Iran. Regardless of what you think and they say, politicians do look at polls

Also all this WWIII should stop. If, and thats still a BIG if, it comes to armed conflict between the US and Iran it will not be WWIII regardless of what Bush or anyone else says. Iran is not a Superpower and will not have the backing in any real way of any existing Superpower. China, Russia and India will not back Iran vs the US. If one of those countries has to choose between trade and relations with the U.S. or Iran, they will choose the U.S. Sure they will say the right things , but when push comes to shove, Iran will be without the benefit of real military support from any major country.

reply to post by IAmTetsuo


I'm sure that is part of the equation, I don't think you will find many Americans alive in 1979 that don't expect some level of payback, revenge whatever you may call it, against Iran for the taking of our Embassy there. We haven't forgotten.

In fact you could very well contend that America's military focus on defending the Saudi oil fields was designed more against Iranian aggression than Iraqi. It just happened that the doctrine and strategy worked just as well for Iraq in Gulf War I. Iran has always been the major threat the US military has gameplaned against in the M.E. Iraq was a distant 2 till it invaded Kuwait.

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by IAmTetsuo

 

Iran has always been the major threat the US militry has gameplaned against in the M.E. Iraq was a distant 2 till it invaded Kuwait.

Funny, Iran is not a threat to Britain. Maybe because so many of them live here, and most now identify themselves as British. Honestly, leave them alone, if they get a nuke and get the bright idea of throwing it at someone? They'd get killed by their own. Let them do their own thing, do your own thing, and on diplomatic levels, they are extremely co-operative.

[edit on 30-10-2007 by redled]

reply to post by redled


I agree they were so cooperative when they kidnapped those sailors. Darn nice of them to return them wasn't it? You make my points for me.

reply to post by pavil

Well, those sailors did not complain about their treatment. No complaints were upheld, anywhere. There is a difference between symbolic politics and actually trying to get things done. I go for the latter, and that does not imply appeasement.

Originally posted by redled
Well, those sailors did not complain about their treatment. No complaints were upheld, anywhere.

We had a blindfold and plastic cuffs, hands behind our backs, heads against the wall. Basically there were weapons cocking. Someone, I'm not sure who, someone said, I quote, 'lads, lads I think we're going to get executed'.

We were blindfolded, our hands were bound, we were forced up against the wall. Throughout our ordeal we faced constant psychological pressure.

From there we were rushed to a room, quick photo and then stuffed into a cell and didn't see or speak to anyone for six days.

.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6533287.stm" target="_blank" class="postlink">news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 31-10-2007 by pavil]

reply to post by pavil


Admittedly not nice, but no guantanamo, which has to be the standard in all of this.

reply to post by redled


Well if you believe your sailors, then getting blindfolded and lined up against a wall and made to believe you are about to be shot is fine to you.

These were Soldiers as defined in the Geneva convention. They were in uniform and Identified themselves as such. What exactly was correct about Iran seizing them in the first place even?

reply to post by pavil

From their point of view it is far less than Guantanamo. I was very much against the taking of British sailors, but noticed it was more a humiliation for our government.

WOW . . . ok for one thing it would be very stupid for IRAN to use nuclear weapons on ISRAEL. People who did not skip geography should know that Iran is very close to Israel and israel is surrounded by MUSLIM NATIONS ! If Iran was to back the palestinian cause and "nuke" or my personal fav. "wipe israel of the map" then it would be killing many muslims in palestine, southern lebanon, and parts of syria. Depending on the magnitude of the attack it might even risk the lives of its own people.

plus who are we to trust BUSH with nuclear weapons and not Iran ? again i will remind people that the only nation to have used weapons of this power was the one and only US of A. WWII. Bush waged a war on "weapons of mass destructions" americans believed that, while watching CNN their favorite new network, and supported their president ! in the end. Iraqis are living worse off than before, they never know if they will make it through the day or if they will have food tomorrow. TALENTED AMERICAN MEN were lost for no reason what so ever ! they couldve been deployed in darfur or somewhere in africa to help stop genocides. but saddam's regime , yeah that's brutal ! Let's raise the national security color to red, i think it goes well with our flag.

I cannot wait till 08 elections when the idiot , the one and only behind "OPEC ( APEC)" and "Austrian troop ( Australian) " G W Bush.


another thought:

ok let's say the US attacks Iran, YAY ! but wait WITH WHAT FORCE/RESOURCES ? The war in Iraq/afghanistan is still going on. Reducing force there will cause great harm on the remaining troops. And all this "progress" thus far will be gone with the lives of US troops.

just as i've always said, the majority of americans are stupid. bombing iran... or any other country for that matter really won't change the state of affairs in an effective manner.

there is a heavy tide within iran that's calling for change. however, america's browbeating of iran has really slowed down this democratic movement by legitimizing the claims made by the ruling powers there.

a more democratic nation isn't born through all out war these days... there are far too many opportunistic forces at work for that to happen

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
just as i've always said, the majority of americans are stupid. bombing iran... or any other country for that matter really won't change the state of affairs in an effective manner.

That would require invasion by ground troops, overthrow of the government, and occupation. And look how well it worked in Iraq, i.e. not at all.

there is a heavy tide within iran that's calling for change. however, america's browbeating of iran has really slowed down this democratic movement by legitimizing the claims made by the ruling powers there.

Thta tide isn't that heavy. For every Iranian who wants change, there is at least one more willing to strap on a bomb, and die for the glorious Emperor (make that Head of State or Supreme Leader for Life). But maybe in a few decades the tide will grow, with more and more citizens realizing that the Islamic paradise they always wanted is not such a pradise at all - and that running a country is hard work and needs more than just zeal, rabid rhetoric, and tribal "legitimacy".