Zogby has found that 52 percent of the electorate is OK with going ahead and escalating our confrontation with Iran:
A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S.
military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53%
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.
So it’s time to scramble the bombers, right?
Well, not really — unless you, like the anti-Iraq-war people, believe we should decide whether to fight or not based upon polls of a given moment. I am not of that persuasion. The initial popular support of the Iraq invasion did not validate it, nor did later popular disenchantment invalidate it.
Related Posts
Brad,
Come-on man! That SOB in Tehran wants nothing more than to destroy America and Israel. If we don’t take care of him now before Bush leaves office do you really think Hillary Clinton will? I know you think she’s some sort of savior for the Democratic Party, but when are you lefties going to catch a clue and realize it’s not Presidents who lose wars but rather — nations? As someone who has been there, got two T-shirts (Gulf War & OIF) and loves this country more than my life I can promise you one thing — if we lose this war against terrorism our nation is screwed! We have to fight and kill the enemy now before they get any stronger. If that means pissing off some leftists like Hillary whose only concern is her damn power — well that’s too bad. She can kiss my *’ss! My country and my kids mean more to me than fulfilling her communist-leaning, selfish ambitions. Wake up America! We MUST win this war and quit playing damned politics. This nation is better than that!
You must have me confused with somebody else there, Scott.
FACT: Iran has oil just like Iraq. Bush’s wars in the Middle East are about oil and world conquest.
FACT: The first Gulf War, in 1991, was about oil. It was about restoring the status quo, maintaining stability, keeping the oil flowing. It was consistent with our policy toward the mideast over the past half-century. It’s why we didn’t go ahead and topple Saddam then, even as he lay helpless before us, his army in shambles: It would have been destabilizing, and might have threatened the oil supply.
FACT: The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a radical departure with all that. It was intentionally destabilizing; it was about upsetting apple carts. It essentially said, to hell with the oil supply; we’ll worry about that later.
This is obvious. It’s one of the main gripes that anti-war people have — that the invasion upset everything and created new dangers.
In light of that, some people say it was about oil. I find it hard to understand how people can be so confused about what is right in front of them. Of course, there are the extreme fantasists who believe it was all about driving up oil prices for the short-term gains of a few, but that is ridiculous on its face. For one thing, George Bush lacks the subtlety for that. It presupposes that his gross incompetence, which he demonstrates on a host of issues, foreign and domestic, is an elaborate act. It presupposes that Bush is a genius, calmly manipulating a situation that only APPEARS to be chaotic and out of control.
So make up your mind. Either it’s not about oil, or Bush is a genius.
And world conquest? Please. That sound you hear is Alexander, Napoleon and Hitler laughing their heads off. If this is an attempt at world conquest, it’s the most pathetic one ever tried, and the world is entirely safe from such a fate. For future reference, here’s a hint: Attempts to conquer the world are proceeded by a military buildup, not a drawdown.
The invasion of Iraq in 1993 was a radical departure with all that.
-Brad
Who invaded Iraq in 1993?
Come on Brad, the latest Iraq invasion was planned well before 9-11 in order to secure oil supplies for Bush’s oil buddys. It didn’t go as planned and now we’re stuck with the consequences. Let’s not confuse intent with reality. The pretense given for this imperialistic oil grab was a security threat, WMD and all that. Of course that was a big fat lie. So what we have now is a highly destablized region, high oil prices, thousands of American solidiers dead, tens of thousands injured, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian slaughtered (many at the hands of Americans), hundreds of billions of dollars in resourses squandered and a very much more dangerous world to live in. All because Bush was too damn stupid to realize his quest for oil was a pipe dream.
And now we’re planning yet another invasion. Just wait until you see the price of oil once we start bombing Iran, a nation that spends less than 1% of what the U.S. spends on the military. That’s right folks, less than 1%; about the same as Sweden. It’s all driven by fear. Fear that some boogey man will get us. The terrorists are no real threat to us. They claim a pitiful few number of American lives each year. And even that number is largely because of the arrogant foreign policy attitude that we ram down the throats of the world.
The neocons continue to fool people into believing we’re at risk. And we continue to squander resources that could be spent on a host of programs that might actually benefit Americans. Yet because of the fantastic marketing of fear the neocons continue to pilfer huge profits while gullible people tremble in fear of a threat that simply does not exist. Wake up America. The GOP is bad for our health, bad for our security and bad for our future. The Democratic party offers some hope for a sane future. Otherwise get ready to open up those wallets and pay, pay, pay.
Thank you, bud, for that perspective from an alternative universe…
Folks, here’s a great example of how we should not believe everything we see in print. Brad writes: FACT, then proceeds to scribble an OPINION. Fact is he didn’t even get the year of our invasion correct. (Since Brad loves to push my buttons for mispelling it’s instructive to point out his mistakes). Of course the whole 2003 invasion cannot be proven to be about oil as I believe or long-term region building as Brad suggests. The claims at the time were that it was simply about short to medium term security issues. I think we can all agree on at least that much. One administration official after another raised the spector of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear. For Brad and others to try and put some other intent on it is simply not credible. I’m simply speculating that a profit motive was behind the invasion. Since many have indeed made great profits since 2003 (Halliburton, Exxon) there is a very definite cause and effect link. To suggest for one nanosecond that this whole sordid affair is making us safer is simply beyond anything that can be defended intellectually.
Bud, the Democrats offer a future in which politicians buy votes with social programs and dip their hands in the till while the money is changing hands.
There’s no security in that, when the Democrats’ view of the military is something between disgust and hate.
And Hubert, didn’t we conquer the world entrepreneurially even before Reagan won the Cold War?
Thanks about the date thing, bud. I fixed it. Old guys like me have trouble remembering the century.
And did anyone ELSE not understand my use of the “FACT” device as ironic, aimed at teasing a bit of the pomposity out of the immediately preceding, factually challenged, comment?
Even bud should see that the “FACT” in the preceding comment was an opinion. Right?