Poll: What should the US do about Iran

[Mazer]

Sub-question: If Iran does attack someone, Israel, Iraq, the US, or anybody, how should the US respond?

They haven't started a war yet, and as far as anybody knows neither have we. My own feelings are that an invasion of Iran, either preemptive or reactive, wouldn't work, and I think the administration knows this and they'll be looking for alternatives. Perhaps a naval blockade at the Strait of Hormuz, or more likely a series of air attacks coordinated with Israel's air force. I don't know what's possible, I'm not a military strategist, I just know that successfully invading Iran is impossible.

At this point in time I would favor diplomatic solutions to Iran's threat over military solutions. This situation seems to mirror Sino-American relations back when the reds took over China and started their nuclear arms program. We couldn't stop them then, but as years went on our relationship with China improved to the point now when China is actually helping us fight terrorism. As it stands now China may be a great ally in our efforts to contain Iran, and if we can solve this confrontation peacefully then Iran may one day occupy the position China now holds in United States diplomacy.

[Mazer]

Here are a few polls taken over the last few years on this and related issues. So far it appears that Napsterites are far more likely to support diplomacy than the average American.

[JackSpratts]

i'm not sure what this tells us about american's feelings. there's only one post-election poll in that list and it doesn't address what people want done about iran.

stretching the post-election definition to include a poll taken a few weeks before the election, i find only one, a suspect push poll.

the question in that one isn't about all the options one might consider, like diplomacy, sanctions or blockades, but only what military options you support from its limited list.

for instance one could have an opinion about a military strategy, pro or con, but strongly prefer a non-military solution, or vice-versa. the poll does not reflect that distinction. perhaps it's deliberate.

the next newest poll is seven months old and public opinion has shifted too much for that to be relevant.

they quickly go back even farther, all the way to 2003.

it's january 2007. america just seated a new congress. bi-partisan elected officials, civilians and generals alike are highly dubious of bush and his plans to escalate his disastrous involvement in iraq. our congress is asking real questions for the first time in five years. the answers they're receiving are illuminating. iran itself is questioning it's own belligerence. things are shifting, and the debate is not the same as it was even six weeks ago.

if you were to ask americans today what if anything should be done about many countries, including china, korea, iran, darfor, syria, pakistan etc, i have a pretty good idea what the results would be and i doubt military action would top the lists.

- js.

[RDixon]

Military action of any type with this current inept and totally incompetent crew running the military absolutely guarntees disaster.
The best course of action for America is no action.
The do something even if it is wrong policy directly led to the humilating loss in Iraq.
85 % of the world's population is now pointing and laughing at us, saying, "we told you so" but you wouldn't listen.

We Americans are not so keen on losing another one so quickly.

Before you ask: No I do not believe the Bush admin can win a war with Iran.

[Mazer]

I wouldn't have asked such a question. In this thread I'm just trying to take a pulse.

And anyway, you voted for diplomatic action rather than no action in the poll. I kinda figured your words were all frills and no knickers.

I offered that list of polls as a basis for comparison, not to make any specific point. Concerning the way Americans feel about the new congress, other polls on that site indicate that the public wants the Democrats to resolve the war in the Middle East but they're not so sure the Democrats can actually accomplish anything.

[Sinner]

<snip>

The U.S. continues to use its dominant position in the world financial markets, to block Iranian attempts to maintain and improve its oil industry. Foreign companies interested in helping Iran maintain oil facilities, find themselves unable to arrange the financing. As a result, oil production is slowly declining, while local consumption (and very cheap prices) continues. At the current rate, Iran will have little, or no, oil to export in ten years. This kind of "weapon" does not work quickly, but it does work surely. Nuclear weapons could give the Iranians some muscle to help them block this stranglehold the U.S. has on them. It's not just the corruption of the religious dictatorship that is ruining the economy, its also the difficulty of bringing in foreigners to help fix it. With the threat of American financial regulators eventually nailing them, few foreign firms are willing to take the risk.

<snip>

[multi]

fuck me

I get paid out if i ever copy and paste with out a link

stuckup assholes wander in here and make the rules but rarely follow them..

[Sinner]

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/arti...0711822335.asp


Does your mom know you are using her computer???

[albed]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Sub-question: If Iran does attack someone, Israel, Iraq, the US, or anybody, how should the US respond?

Iran's been attacking the U.S. and Israel for decades with terrorism and you can see the response: resolutions and boycotts. They've grown to view the U.S. as weak and timid and won't change their ways until they get a hard punch in the nose.

[multi]

yeh .. right

no wonder you tried to sneak that one past
you moronic little child

[RDixon]

Originally Posted by albed

Iran's been attacking the U.S. and Israel for decades with terrorism and you can see the response: resolutions and boycotts. They've grown to view the U.S. as weak and timid and won't change their ways until they get a hard punch in the nose.

history of late shows both the us and israel doing a hell of a lot of attacking but iran has not attacked another country in more than 250 years.
yet idiots who know jack squat think that lies can be truth if they just repeat them enough times.
evidence or proof not required; just say it over and over and soon it becomes true.
fools.

[miss_silver]

Think Israel will be busy for a little while with that sex scandal...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...d/4496397.html

Israeli President Moshe Katsav shouts during a press conference at his Jerusalem residence, Wednesday, Jan. 24, 2007. Katsav, facing charges of rape and abuse of power, asked parliament Wednesday to temporarily remove him from office in an effort to blunt growing calls for his resignation, but hotly denied the accusations and charged Israeli media with a "witch hunt" against him

While

...and Olmert is under investigation for his role in the sale of a government-controlled bank.

It is rumored that he is steping down tonight before he get's impeached.

It should give Iran a small break.

[RDixon]

I don't see Iran quaking in fear of either the USA or Israel.
They seem to me to be well prepared to defend their soverignty.

And with the incompetent asswipes running the US military right now, why should they be afraid?

The best army in the world is no better than a girlscout troop without strong and effective leadership.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by RDixon

The best army in the world is no better than a girlscout troop without strong and effective leadership.

I'm sure these were Saddam's dying thoughts.

[RDixon]

Originally Posted by Mazer

I'm sure these were Saddam's dying thoughts.

That is relevant to my statement in no way shape or form.

Question: Do you believe the current leadership of the US military including the Commander-in-Cheif are providing strong and EFFECTIVE leadership?

Yes or no.

[Mazer]

Yes.

They're just doing a bad job of making that fact widely known. Hey, I have no problem if the commander-in-chief is more concerned with doing his job well than making it look like he's doing his job well. Some politicians never stop campaigning, never stop checking the polls, never realize that our nation is a republic and not a democracy. Bush ain't like that, and that's either his greatest strength or his greatest flaw depending on who you ask. For me, it just means he's got guts, and that's what a good president needs most. So he and his people come off looking like bad decision makers. So what?

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Yes.

They're just doing a bad job of making that fact widely known. Hey, I have no problem if the commander-in-chief is more concerned with doing his job well than making it look like he's doing his job well. Some politicians never stop campaigning, never stop checking the polls, never realize that our nation is a republic and not a democracy. Bush ain't like that, and that's either his greatest strength or his greatest flaw depending on who you ask. For me, it just means he's got guts, and that's what a good president needs most. So he and his people come off looking like bad decision makers. So what?

well ok, so they make gutsy bad decisions. not sure what is admirable about this - gutsy and dumb is still dumb.

[miss_silver]

[JackSpratts]

at some point pr ends and reality begins. it's a point we've long since met. they come off looking like bad decision makers because their decisions are in fact, bad. bob gates, no panty waist apologist he, acknowledged this in the senate hearing.

are we winning the war?

no sir.

were we led to believe then that the combined might of the us armed forces, along with many of her allies, couldn't beat a country like iraq? hardly. so what's so special about this war? constant bungling from the bad deciders destroyed whatever advantage we may have once had.

that they keep making these decisions doesn't make them noble. it makes them pathological.

- js.

[Mazer]

So what you're saying, Jack, is that this war was winnable at the outset, but sometime after the invasion the initiative was lost and then the war became unwinnable. And because of this the president should ignore the mandate of the people who reelected him. He shouldn't take the power shift in congress as a hint to improve his strategies, rather he should just give up 'cause that's what a good politician does. Retaking the initiative, making this war winnable again, is far less important than saving face. After all even a bungler gets lucky, and every decision he makes is a chance for him to get it right and turn it all around, and we can't possibly allow that to happen, can we?

No, I'm pretty sure the president's public image has gotten away from him and taken on a life of its own. How else do you explain all the people who would rather see the president impeached than see peace restored to the Middle East? I think deep down everyone wants the war to be won, I think that's what the recent election was all about. There just happens to be a whole lot of people who would hate for the man they voted against to accomplish anything positive. That they keep believing all of Bush's decisions are bad, even the good ones, makes them pathological.

We have to question whether the public thinks the war is being lost based on the testimony of experts like Robert Gates or based on the president's reputation. The latter is probably a greater factor than the former, which means that if we started winning this war only a minority of people would actually believe it. Just because the president is in denial doesn't mean the public isn't suffering from mass delusion.