Pew: Majority backs force to disarm Iran of nukes

posted at 12:55 pm on October 6, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

While Barack Obama busies himself with outstretched hands to Iran and canceling data collection on their human-rights abuses, the country he leads has a far different idea of how to deal with the mullahcracy’s drive to get nuclear weapons.  A new poll by Pew Research shows that a large majority of Americans approves of using force to end the Iranian nuclear program if Iran won’t end it themselves.  That includes a majority of Republicans, independents — and Democrats:

The public approves of direct negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, although most Americans are not hopeful the talks will succeed. And a strong majority – 61% – says that it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action. Far fewer (24%) say it is more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran, if it means that the country may develop nuclear weapons.

There is broad willingness across the political spectrum to use military force to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Seven-in-ten Republicans (71%) and two-thirds of independents (66%) say it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons even if it means taking military action. Fewer Democrats (51%) express this view; still, only about three-in-ten Democrats (31%) say it is more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran, if it means Tehran may develop nuclear weapons.

While most Americans approve of direct negotiations with Iran to end the threat, almost two-thirds say it won’t work anyway:

Yet while the public supports nuclear talks with Iran, a clear majority (64%) says they will not work in getting Iran to give up its nuclear program, compared with just 22% who say they will work.

The public also overwhelmingly approves of tougher economic sanctions against Iran; fully 78% approve while just 12% disapprove. But again, most Americans (56%) say that tougher economic sanctions would not work in getting Iran to drop its nuclear program.

Direct talks, tougher negotiations, and the use of force all get relatively consistent support from Americans regardless of political affiliation.  It shows a rather remarkable consensus that supports Barack Obama on the question of diplomacy, but opposes the use of appeasement and shows far less optimism than the administration has thus far shown for its attempts to open Iran to talks.   What’s more, the numbers do not differ much between those who have followed the issue closely and those who have not.

My friend Eric Black thinks this is a worrisome trend.  However, I think it demonstrates a realistic assessment of the situation on a bipartisan basis.  As John McCain said repeatedly on the campaign trail, the only thing worse than military action against Iran is allowing the mullahs to get their hands on nukes.  North Korea provides a bad enough security risk, but at least Kim Jong-Il isn’t a millenial fanatic who thinks that a nuclear Armageddon will bring about worldwide Kim-ism.  Iran also controls two significant terrorist organizations (Hamas and Hezbollah) who would use nukes against Israel and the West without the launch of a single missile, making it even more dangerous.

However, military action against Iran should be a last-case, no-choice scenario.  Iran is not Iraq, in several respects.  When Israel took out the reactor at Osirak that would have fueled nuclear weapons for Saddam Hussein, it was located in a fairly remote area of the Iraqi desert.  The Iranians have dispersed their program in reaction to that attack.  On top of that, Iran has a military that can defend its nation effectively and launch counterattacks if desired.  Its terrain is nothing like the flat expanses of Iraq, making it especially difficult to control after an initial attack.  Iran can also close the Straits of Hormuz very quickly, cutting off a large percentage of the world’s oil and creating an economic crisis instantly.

We need to try to stop the mullahs from getting the nukes, preferably by having the Iranians depose the mullahs and operating as a true democratic republic rather than ruled by non-rational, millenial fanatics.  Unfortunately, Obama is going in the wrong direction on that score as well.  Will Americans begin to lose patience with a President as out of step with them on this key foreign-policy issue?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Wow is right!

Even dems are waking up. Just not the nutty ones.

upinak on October 6, 2009 at 12:58 PM

And how many Chinese heads of state were polled? Because that is the only one that matters.

LevStrauss on October 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Unfortunately Obama and the UN don’t see a threat from a nuclear Iran, so they’ll do nothing until Iran starts launching nuclear missiles at Israel.

UltimateBob on October 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Hey the economy sucks. Lets start a war. It worked just fine last time.

The Calibur on October 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Unfortunately Obama and the UN don’t see a threat from a nuclear Iran, so they’ll do nothing until Iran starts launching nuclear missiles at Israel.

UltimateBob on October 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Then they will applaud…

Kuffar on October 6, 2009 at 1:00 PM

Makes no difference. Despite his satellite dishes for ears, Obama doesn’t hear the opinions of people. He only cares about his own agenda.

Daggett on October 6, 2009 at 1:00 PM

My friend Eric Black thinks this is a worrisome trend.

Your friend also seems to think that it’s more important to avoid military action than prevent a state-sponsor of terrorism from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Cap’n, you need new friends.

amerpundit on October 6, 2009 at 1:02 PM

I can’t believe I actually miss Bill Clinton. At least he cared about public opinion enough to modify his policies somewhat.

Daggett on October 6, 2009 at 1:02 PM

This is such a simple problem to solve. Iran wants nuclear weapons. We have an overabundance of them. Perhaps we could send them a couple. Airmail (airburts)!

Tommy_G on October 6, 2009 at 1:03 PM

No, no, no. Not “the country he leads”, it’s “the country that elected him President”.

cpr on October 6, 2009 at 1:03 PM

The American public is more willing to give war powers to a President who will not use them (Obama) than a President they know will (Bush).

Now that we have a weakened Carteresque Obama, his saber rattling means nothing.

portlandon on October 6, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Hey the economy sucks. Lets start a war. It worked just fine last time.

The Calibur on October 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Are you talking about how World War II pulled the country out of the Great Depression by jumpstarting the manufacturing sector and opening up positions for jobs? Oh, wait, you were being sarcastic. I don’t think that’s on most of the minds of people who would support military action.

amerpundit on October 6, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Too late – ‘I won’.

Vashta.Nerada on October 6, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Don’t worry. Obama will go over and kiss the Sauidi Prince’s..err…ring again. That will solve everything.

kingsjester on October 6, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Iran can also close the Straits of Hormuz very quickly,

1. Not so quickly.
2. They depend on the Strait to ship their oil.
3. That would anger Iraq, Kuwait, Dubai, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, who also depend on the Strait.
4. Not likely with a couple of U.S. aircraft carriers parked there.

John the Libertarian on October 6, 2009 at 1:06 PM

I can’t believe I actually miss Bill Clinton. At least he cared about public opinion enough to modify his policies somewhat.

Daggett on October 6, 2009 at 1:02 PM

lol, He was a democrat, but at least he was our democrat :)

WitchDoctor on October 6, 2009 at 1:06 PM

It’s like ‘Thelma and Louise’, except we’re all in the backseat.

Vashta.Nerada on October 6, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Hope and Change.

mankai on October 6, 2009 at 1:09 PM

My friend Eric Black thinks this is a worrisome trend

It is worrisome in this point, people are fed up with non-action, and they will take most any actions just to get something done.
People are sick and tired of Obama’s campaigning…he needs to start making decisions and lead, that is lead the people in the direction they want to move in.
Bipartisan, border security, less government, improved economics…basically everything he has failed to do, but promised.

right2bright on October 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM

In the next terrorist attack that may involve the use of nukes, Odinga has assured us that our emergency aid workers will get all the tools and support they need to help the victims. We can all rest easy.

He also promises to stop Iran’s nukes, unless they flatly refuse at which point he’ll aggressively send them flowers and welcome them to the club of nuclear nations.

thinkagain on October 6, 2009 at 1:11 PM

amerpundit on October 6, 2009 at 1:03 PM

You’d be correct. But whose mind is it on? The answer is the people in government and in the media. And they’ll do the best they can to get the eyes off the unemployment and deficit numbers, and onto a new enemy of the state. Or a new flu pandemic. Or a new Federal Reserve induced stock market “rally.”

The Calibur on October 6, 2009 at 1:12 PM

This is where polling really falls short in real life. I agree with the majority. It won’t work.

However, ask if people are truly willing to take a military risk that could well end up in yet another war zone?

Different answer. I don’t feel optimistic about the outcome of the negotiations. I personally would negotiate, however, because we don’t seem to have much oomph* left for war right now. We’re broke. We’re war-weary. And we’re not seeing a lot for the effort.

I’m just hoping Iranian people do oust the more right-wing element.

AnninCA on October 6, 2009 at 1:13 PM

It’s like ‘Thelma and Louise’, except we’re all in the backseat.

Vashta.Nerada on October 6, 2009 at 1:09 PM

More like “Roman Polanski’s Bathtub”, except without the quaalude.

LibTired on October 6, 2009 at 1:15 PM

And how many Chinese heads of state were polled? Because that is the only one that matters.

LevStrauss on October 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM

If one can bomb Serbia without Chinese or Russian approval, surely one can bomb Iran without them.

runner on October 6, 2009 at 1:15 PM

CNN in the cafeteria printed effectively “Al Qaida in disarray” “non-operational”, with Mr. Obama’s picture, at about 11:35 AM CDT.

So – No need to continue in Afghanistan? or
Sadly, a challenge and an invite?

tomg51 on October 6, 2009 at 1:15 PM

PEW LIES

/sarc

nolapol on October 6, 2009 at 1:18 PM

It’s like ‘Thelma and Louise’, except we’re all in the backseat.

Vashta.Nerada on October 6, 2009 at 1:09 PM

More like “Roman Polanski’s Bathtub”, except without the quaalude.

LibTired on October 6, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Ouch

Double Ouch

nolapol on October 6, 2009 at 1:19 PM

If there’s one thing politicians understand, it’s that such polls are completely undependable. If things are seen to have gone well, then the numbers in support would go way up. If things go poorly – and there are a thousand ways that could happen or be seen to have happened – then it will be harder and harder to find anyone who ever thought it was a good idea, and most of them will adopt a “well what I really meant was something else” position.

I wonder what the polls would say if the question was “is it worth killing x Iranians, suffering y counterattacks around the world and throughout the region, paying z for a gallon of gas” (fill in the variables) to delay the Iranian program?

CK MacLeod on October 6, 2009 at 1:21 PM

I’m just hoping Iranian people do oust the more right-wing element.

AnninCA on October 6, 2009 at 1:13 PM

I think Ann’s finally on to something….someone whisper in the Won’s ear that the Mullahs are beimg arrested by white Cambridge policemen, quick!

dmh0667 on October 6, 2009 at 1:24 PM

I am begining to think that Barry wants his “friends” to have nukes.

farright on October 6, 2009 at 1:24 PM

CK MacLeod on October 6, 2009 at 1:21 PM

How about the poll question asks how they would feel if a nuclear bomb went off next to the Washington monument and on Wall Street and 5 million Americans were killed, due to the Obama “administration”‘s gross corruption and incompetence in allowing Iran to build a nuclear bomb and pass it on to Al Qaeda?

NoDonkey on October 6, 2009 at 1:24 PM

It’s like ‘Thelma and Louise’, except we’re all in the backseat.
Vashta.Nerada on October 6, 2009 at 1:09 PM

That’s funny, scary and depressing all at the same time.

Juno77 on October 6, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Thug cancels committee on monitoring thugs in Iran.

American majority provides reality check. Maybe there is a little hope.

Schadenfreude on October 6, 2009 at 1:24 PM

If one can bomb Serbia without Chinese or Russian approval, surely one can bomb Iran without them.

runner on October 6, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Things have changed from then, and not in our favor.

LevStrauss on October 6, 2009 at 1:25 PM

People see that Obama is a weak President.
People see that Obama is trying to move the US away from being the world leader.

People are more and more realizing perhaps it was a mistake to have Obama as President.

albill on October 6, 2009 at 1:26 PM

Obama is first a Citizen of the World, then second, President of the United States, and as such will never do anything against the Mullocracy in Iran.

PatriotRider on October 6, 2009 at 1:26 PM

What the….?

Are Americans schizophrenic?

terryannonline on October 6, 2009 at 1:26 PM

I’m just hoping Iranian people do oust the more right-wing element.

AnninCA on October 6, 2009 at 1:13 PM

You are aware that the Mullahs and Dinner Jacket agree with Michael Moore regarding capitalism, aren’t you?

Socialist theocrats are not the equivalent of Republicans, life isn’t that simple.

NoDonkey on October 6, 2009 at 1:26 PM

I’m just hoping Iranian people do oust the more right-wing element.
AnninCA on October 6, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Notice Ann’s sly little tie-in there?

Libs are libs.

Bishop on October 6, 2009 at 1:28 PM

I’m just hoping Iranian people do oust the more right-wing element.
AnninCA on October 6, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Notice Ann’s sly little tie-in there?

Libs are libs.

Bishop on October 6, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Newsflash: Obama could care less what the people of America want or think.

He thinks he knows better and can do better, on every given issue.

bridgetown on October 6, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Gallup has zer0bama back down to 50% today in their rolling tracking poll. Matches his lowest yet. Keep talking, Barry!

SouthernGent on October 6, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Religous nutbags with nukes.
What could go wrong?

Badger40 on October 6, 2009 at 1:31 PM

He thinks he knows better and can do better, on every given issue.

bridgetown on October 6, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Glad to see his hippie mom pumped the little dope full of self-esteem, it’s really paying off.

NoDonkey on October 6, 2009 at 1:31 PM

I’m just hoping Iranian people do oust the more right-wing element.

AnninCA on October 6, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Another reason I hate this right\left dichotomy. This government is a statist government. They have no love for liberty.

WashJeff on October 6, 2009 at 1:32 PM

The World is laughing so hard at Obama, it doesn’t matter what he says. The World knows that he is a liar, says whatever he thinks makes him sound all Presidential. The World also knows that he is an empty suit. Does anyone really think that Iran is worried about Obama or what Obama says, and,by extension, the USA?

Obama couldn’t be more of a clown if he wore a big red nose, oversized shoes and a water squirting flower on his lapel.

PappaMac on October 6, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Obama is first a Citizen of the World, then second, President of the United States, and as such will never do anything against the Mullocracy in Iran.

PatriotRider on October 6, 2009 at 1:26 PM

+10
The Iranian people may be tired of this crap & overthrow the Mullahs, but Islam will just producer more Bin Ladens & ImaDinnerJackets.
Freedom does not go with Islam.
The Koran is full of nast evilness.
As long as the Muslims of the world leave me the heck alone, I don’t care if they rot in their backwater, ignorant, violence-infested villages.
When they start threatening my way of life-I got a problem.
It will never end, you all must know that.

Badger40 on October 6, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Things have changed from then..
LevStrauss on October 6, 2009 at 1:25 PM

Right, September 11, 2001 happened since then.

runner on October 6, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Badger40 on October 6, 2009 at 1:37 PM

It will end when Muslims get as indifferent about their religon as Christans are about theirs.

The difference is that the world could use more committed Christians.

NoDonkey on October 6, 2009 at 1:39 PM

I personally would negotiate, however, because we don’t seem to have much oomph* left for war right now.

Hmmmm…. somehow I though the negotiations only worked if they were backed by the real threat that we would be willing to go to war.

BTW — we are at war, “oomph” or not.

zenscreamer on October 6, 2009 at 1:42 PM

The Dems are only saying yes b/c they have their guy in office while the Republicans want to protect America no matter who is in office.

lavell12 on October 6, 2009 at 1:44 PM

It will end when Muslims get as indifferent about their religon as Christans are about theirs.
NoDonkey on October 6, 2009 at 1:39 PM

I’m not quite sure it’s indifference they need.
Christianity has some violent aspects to it-but Jesus was a pretty peaceful kind of guy.
In fact, just about everything Christians have as a basis for their beliefs has an anticounterpart to it in the Koran.
So you are right in that the world needs more committed Christians. Bcs REAL Christians are peaceful, generous, & loving people capable of forgiveness when warranted.
That does not sound like any practicing Muslim to me.
And when I say practicing I mean those who use the whole book, not throwing out inconvenient parts.

Badger40 on October 6, 2009 at 1:45 PM

By the way…..Isn’t Hillary Clinton the secretary of state?

Is it odd, or is it just me, that we never hear from her?

Wasn’t Condi Rice also in that position? I remember hearing from her quite often. Same with C. Powell…..M.Albright…

Just seems strange to me.

bridgetown on October 6, 2009 at 1:45 PM

I should add that Muslims I have known are generous & loving: to each other. Not us unbelievers.

Badger40 on October 6, 2009 at 1:46 PM

DEMOCRATS FAVOR THE USE OF FORCE!

…check the expiration date (until the second day of hostilities)

Basilsbest on October 6, 2009 at 1:46 PM

I’m just hoping Iranian people do oust the more right-wing element Obama baiting, going to do whatever they want because a leader like President Reagan isn’t in the White House, totalitarian government.

AnninCA on October 6, 2009 at 1:13 PM

FIFY

Khun Joe on October 6, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Just seems strange to me.

bridgetown on October 6, 2009 at 1:45 PM

That’s bcs Condi had a work ethic. She didn’t want thye position to further her political career in the way Hillary wants to.
Hillary is probably trying to keep tabs on Bill.
I’m sure that’s a full time job.

Badger40 on October 6, 2009 at 1:47 PM

I should add that Muslims I have known are generous & loving: to each other. Not us unbelievers.

Badger40 on October 6, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Let me also add to your thought here. Muslims who are kind to ‘us’ infidels are actually taught to be that way, to LIE. Scary religion there.

bridgetown on October 6, 2009 at 1:47 PM

And for the record-no I don’t hate Muslims.
I just don’t particulary trust the ones that believe in the Koran.
Bcs 1st comes Saturday & then comes Sunday.

Badger40 on October 6, 2009 at 1:49 PM

bridgetown on October 6, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Funny how that’s hardly ever mentioned-how they are allowed by their holy book to lie, cheat, & steal when making deals with unbelievers & that’s OK.
Just not with each other.
And that it’s OK to kill all who will not convert or submit.
Wow.
Sounds pretty evil to me.

Badger40 on October 6, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Badger40 on October 6, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Yep, realities are hardly ever mentioned.

I liken it, also, to the leftist movements in this country. The truths are not mentioned. Everything is stealth mode.

Evil is as evil does.

bridgetown on October 6, 2009 at 1:56 PM

All this poll says is that when Israel does our job and attacks Iran, that scum Obama, is going to have to support them unless he’s willing to cripple himself politically by opposing them.

elduende on October 6, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Ed, you’re such an alarmist. You say “Majority backs force to disarm Iran of nukes” but you fail to remind us that the “majority” aren’t Ivy League grads, and therefore don’t know best.

CarolynM on October 6, 2009 at 1:57 PM

NoDonkey on October 6, 2009 at 1:24 PM

The Iranian nuke obliterating Wall St is a bit of a stretch, and of course Obama and anyone else involved will also have to consider how letting Iran go nuclear might affect his numbers, but the point wasn’t that a “fair” poll or any poll should determine policy. It’s that a politician won’t take much comfort from or feel much fear about today’s numbers when formulating a policy. It’s tomorrow’s numbers that will matter.

Put differently, was there a grown-up voter 11 months ago who didn’t know or shouldn’t have known that McCain = this poll’s majority position and Obama = the minority position?

CK MacLeod on October 6, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Ed, you’re such an alarmist. You say “Majority backs force to disarm Iran of nukes” but you fail to remind us that the “majority” aren’t Ivy League grads, and therefore don’t know best.
CarolynM on October 6, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Heh. I love your sarcasm. Sadly, it’s true. We must not do anything about them there nukes until Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd say so.

NathanG on October 6, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Wow! Finally, something we all agree upon…except, of course, The President of the United States. O, my!

Halli Casser-Jayne
http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com

The CJ Political Report on October 6, 2009 at 2:04 PM

CarolynM on October 6, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Of course, we must wait to see what our elite press say before we really respond…

right2bright on October 6, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Time to throw some naplam:

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD257909

I told ya the Twelvers weren’t playing around.

All hail Smart Powaah!

CPT. Charles on October 6, 2009 at 2:28 PM

However, military action against Iran should be a last-case, no-choice scenario. Iran is not Iraq, in several respects. When Israel took out the reactor at Osirak that would have fueled nuclear weapons for Saddam Hussein, it was located in a fairly remote area of the Iraqi desert. The Iranians have dispersed their program in reaction to that attack. On top of that, Iran has a military that can defend its nation effectively and launch counterattacks if desired. Its terrain is nothing like the flat expanses of Iraq, making it especially difficult to control after an initial attack. Iran can also close the Straits of Hormuz very quickly, cutting off a large percentage of the world’s oil and creating an economic crisis instantly.

We’ve passed the point of being able to physically eliminate the Iranian nuke program. But why should it be our target?

As I posted earlier, the oil fields of Iran, their oil tanks, pipelines, pumping stations, etc, cannot be hidden.

We can always blow them up.

Military action has a lot of advantages (again, repeating myself):

1. It’ll show who needs the oil more – those buying it or those selling it.

2. It’ll show all the OPEC nations that their oil is not a shield against civilized justice.

3. It’ll defund the Iranian nuke program and all military efforts – the tip of the spear may do the damage, but it’s the shaft that gets the tip to the target.

4. It’ll give us a new reason to drill. (Which is why the Dems won’t do it.)

5. It’ll keep Iran down until we let it up. Iran won’t be able to rebuild without our permission – they can keep building it and we can keep destroying it – we’ll see who gets tired first.

We can attack at any time or circumstance at our choosing. Iran declared war thrity years ago and has never let up. Let’s accept their declaration and give it meaning.

As to Iran holding the Hormuz – good luck. Aside from making enemies of all their neighbors, they won’t last long against us.

I’m not talking about invasion – no need for a big effort here. Let’s just eliminate the oil production infrastruction, deal with their pathetic military and then ignore them until they try to rebuild something.

When you go to war, you don’t fight it as you find it, you shape the battlefield to your advantage.

Cricket624 on October 6, 2009 at 2:37 PM

Just another reminder of how far outside of the mainstream of American thought is our idiot President, O’Bozo.

Jaibones on October 6, 2009 at 2:54 PM

Of course, we must wait to see what our elite press say before we really respond…

right2bright on October 6, 2009 at 2:16 PM

As well as waiting to see where Hollywood’s moral compass points…

CarolynM on October 6, 2009 at 3:02 PM

bridgetown:

Muslims who are kind to ‘us’ infidels are actually taught to be that way, to LIE.

A Muslim brought in some food for for me at lunch today: rice, peppers, mushrooms, salmon, etc. It was awesome. Do you think there was some evil dust in it that will make me wage jihad?

dave742 on October 6, 2009 at 3:08 PM

While Barack Obama busies himself with outstretched hands to Iran and canceling data collection on their human-rights abuses, the country he leads has a far different idea of how to deal with the mullahcracy’s drive to get nuclear weapons.

No kidding. The Precedent is the enemy. Period. Everyone knows this. That Traitor Tour where he ran around bad-mouthing our nation was just a start for the moron in the White House. The Precedent is going to set another precedent – being the first Commander-in-Chief to be found guilty of treason (unless rational states just decide that the federal government has been allowed too far out of control to ever rein in, again, and secede to carry on the spirit of the US (as this US is heading down the socialist/collectivist hellhole).

The Traiotr-in-Chief can only give so much aid and comfort to the enemy before he is finally called on it, or the US dissolves.

progressoverpeace on October 6, 2009 at 3:13 PM

It’s not all Muslims, but radical ones who take the Koran at its word. These Muslims do not attempt to put extra meaning in the fairly clear language of the Koran and use that as their base of belief and worldview.

But even with that, there are more ambiguous ideas in the Koran that can mean one thing or another.

Take Jihad as an example.

Some like to believe it is just an internal struggle or an expression of a struggle with faith, not an external, violent war against all non-believers.

The problem, though, is when it comes to other ideas in the Koran such as dhimmi (what a non-believer is and who must not only have be in a lower position than a Muslim, but must pay tribute of some kind to the Muslim rule in power).

Such things give credence to the more aggressive, violent, external interpretation of Jihad and, thusly, make the fundamentalists appear to be the more correct interpretors of the religion.

There is a reason why Christians have a hard time actually living let alone thriving under Islamic ruled countries.

TexasDude on October 6, 2009 at 3:21 PM

You think if Obama was as dumb as lowly me he might realize the circumstances before all of us?

heshtesh on October 6, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Take Jihad as an example.

Some like to believe it is just an internal struggle or an expression of a struggle with faith, not an external, violent war against all non-believers.

TexasDude on October 6, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Not really. That’s like saying that some Jews or Christians believe that the Messiah is an internal state of peace that they strive for. Jihad is war. Nothing in islam is internal or individual. Islam has no real use for the concept of the individual. That’s why muslims are forced to kiss the ground five times a day, to pound into their brains how worthless and dispensable they are. Think about it. Kissing the friggin’ ground, five times a day, every single day. And it’s only five because Mohammed bargained allah down from something like 35 times a day. No joke. The name, “islam” means “submission” for a reason. Individualists do not submit. They choose.

You have been taken with Western excuses for islam and lies about jihad. There is nothing individualistic in islam, and the idea that jihad is individualistic is just far outside of the reasonable. Jihad is the violent sacrifice of the individual to the group. Nothing else.

I understand the point you were trying to make, but you need to be very careful not to try and analyze islam with a Western perspective. Islam is as non-Western as anything. We are individualists. Islam is all about tribalism. We use guilt – a private, individual mechanism that is totally dependent on the individual. They use shame – a public, collective mechanism that the individual has little control over. Islam is a mindset that most Westerners cannot really comprehend – except for our collectivists leftists, who are into tribalism and hate our individualistic characteristics. That’s why lefties have an affinity to islam and jihadis.

progressoverpeace on October 6, 2009 at 3:44 PM

Cricket624 on October 6, 2009 at 2:37 PM

And what’s the plan to deal with the Russians that help them refine their oil, provide them natural gas, provide them information to further their nuclear weapons? Russia will not sit idly by when Israel hits Iran.

mimi1220 on October 6, 2009 at 3:45 PM

TexasDude on October 6, 2009 at 3:21 PM

BTW, I hope I didn’t come across as attacking you, or anything, Tex. I just wanted to make a point about the “jihad as internal struggle” idea we hear these days, and used your comment as the jumping off point. I never heard anyone address that “internal jihad” idea (in public) and really wanted to get the argument out there.

progressoverpeace on October 6, 2009 at 3:54 PM

I wonder what the polls would say if the question was “is it worth killing x Iranians, suffering y counterattacks around the world and throughout the region, paying z for a gallon of gas” (fill in the variables) to delay the Iranian program?

CK MacLeod on October 6, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Don’t forget to round out the poll…..

A, How mwny Americans, Europeans, Arabs, etc, would you be willing avoid from incineratition by atomic terror attack?

B, How much would kike to appease Iranian domination of the Gulf States and control of the Persian Gulf giving the Mullahs carte blanche to dictate what you Pay at the pump?

C, How many Iranian men, women, and children are you willing to tolerate being subjugated an autocratic theocracy willing & capable of the most despicable acts against their people in order that they can spread their barbaric subugation to the rest of the world?

Archimedes on October 6, 2009 at 3:55 PM

We need an Alpha male, stat! Ironically, the only ones around seem to be female. What gives?

jimmy2shoes on October 6, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Cricket624:

It might be enough if WE just blockade the Strait of Hormuz. IIRC Iran only produces 25% of their gasoline requirement internally. A year or so ago Saudi Arabia announced, seemingly out of the blue, that they could pump an extra 1 – 1.5 million barrels a day if need be. This happened during a period of heightened attention to Iran’s nuclear program. I later decided they were sending a public signal that they would step up to help replace Iran’s contribution to the world’s oil supply if needed.

mimi1220:

If the U.S. moves against Iran, Israel won’t have to. If there were any way Russia could supply any significant part of Iran’s gasoline requirement, they would be doing it now.

Russia doesn’t like it when we take action to protect our own interests. Do you want to live your life according to what Russia does and doesn’t like? I don’t. Do you want a Middle East with nukes under every sand dune? That’s what you’ll have if Iran is not disuaded from their bomb, because the Sunni states like Saudi Arabia will nuke up in a hurry. Iraq would have been the death of the non-proliferation regime if we hadn’t acted. Now Iran is the threat. If you care about nuclear proliferation, how do you expect to stop it without enforcement? Oh, just send a strongly worded letter? That’s the ticket!

JackOkie on October 6, 2009 at 4:09 PM

Are you talking about how World War II pulled the country out of the Great Depression by jumpstarting the manufacturing sector and opening up positions for jobs? Oh, wait, you were being sarcastic. I don’t think that’s on most of the minds of people who would support military action.

amerpundit on October 6, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Not just opening up. Whole new industries, supplies, labor, were invented and with all of it, supply barely caught up to demand.

Blacksmith8 on October 6, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Not just opening up. Whole new industries, supplies, labor, were invented and with all of it, supply barely caught up to demand.

Blacksmith8 on October 6, 2009 at 4:15 PM

I would add that the production required by the war effort was a coherent policy, unlike general government expenditures, which tend to be incoherent and wind up not building anything sustainable. That’s the point you made but I just wanted to throw that wording in. It’s interesting that just about the only governemtn spending that ever delivers anything of lasting value to society is defense spending, because it has a larger purpose driving it, unlike other government spending, which tends to be just for the moment.

progressoverpeace on October 6, 2009 at 4:19 PM

When they start threatening my way of life-I got a problem.
It will never end, you all must know that.

Badger40 on October 6, 2009 at 1:37 PM

It’s the verse of the sword. You know as well as I, it only ends one way.
 
FREEDOM!

Blacksmith8 on October 6, 2009 at 4:22 PM

And what’s the plan to deal with the Russians that help them refine their oil, provide them natural gas, provide them information to further their nuclear weapons? Russia will not sit idly by when Israel hits Iran.

mimi1220 on October 6, 2009 at 3:45 PM

Yeah, they will sit idly by. And, I’m not talking about Isreal – it’s the US that should hit Iran.

The Russians still cannot contend with us militarily. And besides, they have their own interests. They are oil producers and, as soon as Iran’s production goes up in flames, the price of oil will rise as well until new production comes on line. Russia profits.

Now, we will have to suck up much higher fuel costs for a spell. This is war, after all.

Cricket624 on October 6, 2009 at 4:28 PM

JackOkie:

I suppose you could cut off Iranian oil shipments at sea via Hormuz or, given the power and reach of the US Navy, any location, really. But that’s a ticklish situation that has to be managed over time and your opponent gets to devise ways around it or develop measures to test and weaken your will. You seldom see such blockades working out in history without the attendance of considerable violence.

By contrast, Iran is at war with us today, we just tend to ignore it. Let’s show them some respect and answer their call. We shouldn’t patronize them – what are we, racists?

And, the beauty of this approach is that we don’t invade, occupy or nation-build. Shoot it up. Move on.

Oil is an easy target that they cannot hide. They depend on it. Terrorists depend on it. Arab nations use oil as a shield against western justice.

What do you think would happen in the other nations if we smashed Iran’s shield?

Cricket624 on October 6, 2009 at 4:39 PM

The cipher in the oval office is not going to do a thing, not one thing to stop Ah-need-ah-dinner-jacket, the notorious kidnapper, torturer, and negotiater from assembling, or using nuclear weapons. Accept it. He won’t.
 
OTOH Akbar Obooboo, the Kenyan son, will not do a thing to stop Israel from protecting themselves with or without provocation. He just doesn’t have it in him.
 
There’ll be the strongest of messages maybe even tense discussions at the insecurity council, but no actual action.
 
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER believe what Barry Dunham says.
ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS believe what Barry Soetoro does.
 
FREEDOM!

Blacksmith8 on October 6, 2009 at 4:44 PM

Obama… Clueless in D.C.

The first CIC who has to be dragged to the front of the fight and forced to lead.

Pathetic.

profitsbeard on October 6, 2009 at 4:57 PM

Weren’t Democrats against attacking Iran not too long ago because Bush was lying about their nuclear ambitions? Funny how that works, isn’t it?

xblade on October 6, 2009 at 5:08 PM

Sooner or later, something will have to give. I keep hoping that there will be a regime change in Iran that will make a military strike unnecessary.

Terrye on October 6, 2009 at 5:13 PM

How much of this majority wants us out of Iraq and Afghanistan I wonder?

Dr. ZhivBlago on October 6, 2009 at 5:14 PM

The Calibur on October 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Actually it worked for WWII. Sorta. But FDR gave us the permanent “voluntary” income tax to pay for it.

dogsoldier on October 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM

These pulse 360 ads are really annoying. My adblocker isn’t working.

iamse7en on October 6, 2009 at 6:30 PM

Nuke iran and call it done..

huckelberry on October 6, 2009 at 8:13 PM

There’s still 31% well mannered americans that would sooner file peacefully into gas chambers than make trouble in line.

Reality Check on October 6, 2009 at 10:27 PM

The simplest solution with the least amount of bloodshed:
[seriously] Deploy an Electro Magnetic Pulse Bomb over Iran. As I understand it, those devices detonate as the result of a nuclear chain reaction, BUT they explode at such a height that they do not incinerate, nor kill or injure, the population. In fact, as I understand it, virtually no one – except for those with pacemakers [or who may be flying planes at that moment] will be killed.
However, what EMP’s DO accomplish is significant. Every single electrical device in Iran would be utterly destroyed. Every electrict shaver, automobile, light, computer, traffic signal, generator, turbine, etc. etc. would be shorted out of business. The tools needed to repair these facilities would likewise be inoperable. Then the only sanctions that need be imposed is a complete ban on the importation of candles and wax.
The mullahs would have their wish: Their country would be moved into the 7th century in one second.
The oil fields would still exist. The infrastructure would exist. But anything utilizing electricity would be completely out of business.
Then – so what if their nuclear development sites are underground or above ground? They may have their own separate generators, but – in short order – absolutely no one could drive food to the employees. No outside power generators could assist. No phone calls could be made – no cell phones – no refrigerators would work – no dang nothin’ will work.
Then – bingo – the electronics for their surface to air missiles and all their jets are fried as well. Following that – at leisure – the US and/or Israel – can target and bomb the hell out of every facility. They can bring in choppers, land battalions if they wish, and manually destroy them. The army of Iran would be trying – literally – to ‘hoof it’ to defend these remote locations in the mountains. It would be weeks before anyone could deliver a message by any means other than shouting to one’s neighbor.
The government would undoubtedly fall. It would wreak havoc. A tribal society would result.
But, so what? The Mullahs are planning a genocide of Jewish people and of Western Civilization.
In fact – an EMP attack could have other valuable consequences: A second one could wipe out all of Paksitan’s electricity and every device as well. Then – again: Bingo!
They all get their wishes: Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan become the equivalent of America’s tourist sites of Plimoth Plantation, or Jamestown or Sturbridge Village tourist sites. The only difference: Instead of actors portraying the people of the past, the entire populations of these countries would be magically transported to the tribal period of history they most revere.
Imagine the school field trips: “Hey boys and girls! You wannah see how people lived in the stone age and bronze age? Well – we’re going on a field trip by air. Bring your cameras!”
Maybe I’m the looney tune here. But the effects of EMP’s are well known. To say that – at best – a military attack can only delay the mullahs is a crock of bull. We can leave these barbararous states in a situation that will set them back a century. Plus – we can then land all the mobile troops we need to utterly destroy every single bit of nuclear technology – no matter where hidden – before they can get a freakin’ platoon [on foot or donkey back] to combat us. That’s enough of a delay for me. Would we suffer? Yep – oil prices would skyrocket. But – if we have the national will to vote for the right politicians, we have enough oil shale, natural gas, and regular oil available to cook right along for decades. For those find my idea reprehensible, I suggest this: We issue one warning to Iran’s people. You have by a specified date or one or two weeks to overthrow your government and allow us to assist in destroying your nuclear capabilities with our technical teams. If you dont’ – start pricing camels in the newspapers while they can still run the electric printing presses.
Jim Anderson

Jim Anderson on October 7, 2009 at 1:11 AM