Near-majority approves of military force against Iran to stop nuclear-weapon development

posted at 8:40 am on February 6, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

How far should the US go to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon?  A new poll from The Hill shows that 49% of Americans would support military action by the US to stop Iran from developing or acquiring a nuclear weapon, with only 31% opposed:

Nearly half of likely voters think the United States should be willing to use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, according to this week’s The Hill Poll.

Forty-nine percent said military force should be used, while 31 percent said it should not and 20 percent were not sure.

Sixty-two percent of likely voters said they were somewhat or very concerned about Iran making a terrorist strike on the United States, while 37 percent said they were not very concerned or not at all concerned about it.

If that sounds like a rejection of Ron Paul’s campaign platform on foreign policy, well, it is.  The same percentage willing to take on Iran to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon also opposes military cuts as a means for deficit reform, although 40% approve of the idea, making it a little more close. However, a clear majority approve of Ron Paul’s idea to reduce the American military in Europe and Korea, with 42% saying it should be reduced and another 10% who believe it should be eliminated altogether.

On the issue of attacking Iran, the demographics are interesting.  Among the youngest voting set that would have to disproportionately contribute to that effort (18-39YOs), support is almost exactly equal to the overall survey, 49/30.  In fact, there is almost no difference between any of the three age demos.  Income demos are all in favor of it by majorities or large pluralities; the most supportive are the under-$20K demo (53/32) and $40-60K demo (56/27).  There is no real difference between those with children at home (50/28) and those without (49/32).  Democrats narrowly support the idea (41/37) although self-described liberals (32/42) do not.  In fact, the only real partisan difference in the entire poll comes on those who approve of Barack Obama’s performance.  The more people approve of it, the less likely they are to support the idea of attacking Iran to stop the nuclear weapon.

Of course, this doesn’t address the question of whether Iran’s nuclear program can be stopped through military action in the first place (a very big question), nor how the Iranian people — who are the biggest threat to the mullahs at the moment — would react to a foreign attack.  It also fails to address if and how such an action would destabilize the region, and whether the US has the resources to launch and maintain a war against Iran with our efforts next door in Afghanistan still ongoing.  But if the Obama administration put together a credible plan to end the Iranian nuclear program through military intervention, the US would at least be open to the idea.

The Hill also asked about whether the US should establish a base on the Moon in the next decade.  Attacking Iran turns out to be a lot more popular, as support for Newt Gingrich’s proposal only comes to 20%, with 64% disapproving.  Disapproval stays in the 60s in all three partisan demos, and only finds a plurality for support in those unsure of their political philosophy (47/22).  It’s a losing proposal with every other segment.


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

Comment pages: 1 2

A few dozen bunker busters and maybe a tactical nuke or two and this problem is solved.

ObamatheMessiah on February 6, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Bomb,bomb,bomb,bomb,bomb,Iran.

docflash on February 6, 2012 at 8:49 AM

Military action should always be an option on the table. Not necessarily the first option but not replaced with Obama’s appeasement or Paul’s isolationism.

That being said, I’m not sure that the 49% would hold if it really looked like the nation was going to undertake military action in Iran after a decade of combat operations and Obama’s unconstitutional meddling in Lybia. More importantly, just how much more can we expect from the military? Our servicemembers and their families have endured multiple combat tours during the past ten years. We simply do not have a standing army capable of continuous warfare for prolonged periods of time.

Happy Nomad on February 6, 2012 at 8:51 AM

America…..F%&#ck YEAH!!!!

armedcitizen on February 6, 2012 at 8:51 AM

A few dozen bunker busters and maybe a tactical nuke or two and this problem is solved.

ObamatheMessiah on February 6, 2012 at 8:47 AM

And you know the formula by now. Those MOABs will not hit nuclear-related facilities. It will be announced that they only hit a hospital for orphans or something like that.

Happy Nomad on February 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM

+1 docflash

cmsinaz on February 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM

If that sounds like a rejection of Ron Paul’s campaign platform on foreign policy, well, it is

Uh huh.

So, why aren’t any GOP Congresscritters pushing for a declaration of war against Iran, then?

Hmmmm?

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM

That being said, I’m not sure that the 49% would hold if it really looked like the nation was going to undertake military action in Iran after a decade of combat operations and Obama’s unconstitutional meddling in Lybia.

Happy Nomad on February 6, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Pretty much. Knee-jerk reaction.

The way the question was asked would lead to the response the poll got.

Should US Be Willing to Use
Military Force to Prevent Iran
from Getting Nuclear Weapons?

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 8:55 AM

A few dozen bunker busters and maybe a tactical nuke or two and this problem is solved.

ObamatheMessiah on February 6, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Nuclear first-strikes?

Are you high?

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 8:55 AM

“It’s all the fault of the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!” – Ron Paul

NoDonkey on February 6, 2012 at 8:56 AM

That may be the most pointless question and survey I have seen in a long time. What in God’s name does it mean to support the use of “military force”? How about a real survey with questions like this:

Do you support the use of U.S. air strikes to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?

Do you support a ground invasion by U.S. troops to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Do you support the invasion and occupation of Iran if that is the only viable way to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons?

I suspect questions two and three would garner much less support than question one.

Mr. Arkadin on February 6, 2012 at 8:57 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UceGF3M56bE

Replace with Iran and Adhamdenimjad or what ever as needed.

armedcitizen on February 6, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Our cheapest fuel price is back up to $3.94/gal as of yesterday up here in NorCal……I expect it to be well over $4.00 soon with Cal’s fuel mixture change coming in the spring and the continued unrest with Iran…..AND Obama’s rejection of Keystone.

Rovin on February 6, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Of course, this doesn’t address the question of whether Iran’s nuclear program can be stopped through military action in the first place (a very big question), nor how the Iranian people — who are the biggest threat to the mullahs at the moment — would react to a foreign attack.

Too bad Obama was overwhelmed with trying to socialize the U.S. before he’d lose big in 2010. It would have been nice to make a full-court press on Iran in the summer of 2009 when we had the chance. What a phucking ideologue. I suppose government-run health care will be awesome when it’s used to address the needs of survivors of nuclear blasts on U.S. soil. This fiasco should prove that Obama’s administration cannot, in fact, chew gum and breathe at the same time.

I can’t explain Newt’s moon base, but it’s only a proposal–he didn’t sign into law and implement Romneycare. Some other guy did.

BuckeyeSam on February 6, 2012 at 8:58 AM

A few dozen bunker busters and maybe a tactical nuke or two and this problem is solved.

ObamatheMessiah on February 6, 2012 at 8:47 AM
And you know the formula by now. Those MOABs will not hit nuclear-related facilities. It will be announced that they only hit a hospital for orphans or something like that.

Happy Nomad on February 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM

You mean sick, blind orphans on crutches, of course.

Oh, The Humanity!

Laura in Maryland on February 6, 2012 at 9:02 AM

That the demographics of all the age groups was not disproportionate… is encouraging! No drones!

KOOLAID2 on February 6, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Mr. Arkadin on February 6, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Exactly. I wonder if the people who write these surveys are purposely vague, or if they don’t know how to write them well?

DrMagnolias on February 6, 2012 at 9:02 AM

That may be the most pointless question and survey I have seen in a long time. What in God’s name does it mean to support the use of “military force”? How about a real survey with questions like this:

Do you support the use of U.S. air strikes to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?

Do you support a ground invasion by U.S. troops to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Do you support the invasion and occupation of Iran if that is the only viable way to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons?

I suspect questions two and three would garner much less support than question one.

Mr. Arkadin on February 6, 2012 at 8:57 AM

And the fact that only answer three really stops them from getting nuclear weapons is what ensures that they are very likely to obtain nuclear weapons.

I read it somewhere earlier, and it struch a chord with me. I’ll paraphrase.

“Splitting the atom is no longer a secret. If you are going to insist on a military big enough to prevent any and every nation from getting the bomb that we don’t want to have the bomb, you are, by necessity, arguing for bigger government than we’ve ever seen.”

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Nuclear first-strikes?

Are you high?

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Not at all. Better to be first than last.
Anyways tactical nukes have very limited yield, can be fired from artillery pieces or used in small missles like a hellfire and can be very effective on a nuclear facility.

ObamatheMessiah on February 6, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Our cheapest fuel price is back up to $3.94/gal as of yesterday up here in NorCal……I expect it to be well over $4.00 soon with Cal’s fuel mixture change coming in the spring and the continued unrest with Iran…..AND Obama’s rejection of Keystone.

Rovin on February 6, 2012 at 8:58 AM

?????

Just filled up at $3.74/g here in Marin, and that was for Medium Grade.

You need to start going to ARCO and paying cash.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM

The “bubble-headed, bleach blondes on the evening news” can hardly wait.
They might get an education.
I suspect that this looming conflict won’t resemble the Gulf of Tonkin FUBAR.

Given time, the Persians might try an experiment in boldness, like sending one of their “motorcraft” after a Carrier Group, but I doubt it. They know what buttons to push and that includes the occupant of The White House.
“Tear down this wall”, should a conservative be elected (fat chance), the mantra would be:
“Open this straight, or we’ll open it for you!”
(in other words: Radio Free Tehran: “Duck and cover”)
Of course that takes ‘nads, so whatshisname from thugville won’t show up.

“War is too important to be left to the politicians.”
– Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper, USAF

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM

What’s the moon base got to do with this? Dig at Newt? It’s a dream. Iran’s a reality and a bad one.

gracie on February 6, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Not at all. Better to be first than last.
Anyways tactical nukes have very limited yield, can be fired from artillery pieces or used in small missles like a hellfire and can be very effective on a nuclear facility.

ObamatheMessiah on February 6, 2012 at 9:04 AM

It is perhaps the most iron-clad doctrine of the US that we are committed to no-first-strike with WMD’s. And it is doctrine for a reason.

You break that doctrine, you invite other nations to make nuclear first strikes on us. In fact, if you are the first to do it, you justify it for them.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Ed: “Let’s take a look at these polls so we can take a shot at Newt Gingrich.”

Ed, your endorsement of Santorum would be a lot more believable if you gave equal time for negative posts on Romney.

Al-Ozarka on February 6, 2012 at 9:07 AM

A majority approved of military force to stop Saddam’s WMD development as well. Apparently the American people never learn. Perhaps that is being too harsh, though, since now it is a near majority rather than a strong majority.

jamesjtyler on February 6, 2012 at 9:08 AM

“War is too important to be left to the politicians.”
– Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper, USAF

Karl Magnus on February 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Sure hope you forgot the /sarctag on that one.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 9:09 AM

“It’s all the fault of the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!” – Ron Paul

NoDonkey on February 6, 2012 at 8:56 AM

That is why I like Newt’s moon colony idea. We’ll get all the Ronulans up there, and then let the Somolis annex it.

Laura in Maryland on February 6, 2012 at 9:12 AM

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Magnus is just doing what is prudent to protect our precious fluids.

tom daschle concerned on February 6, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Nuclear first-strikes?

Are you high?

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Of course he is. And has been that way since high school history classes.

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Al-Ozarka on February 6, 2012 at 9:07 AM

WTF? Its a poll and Ed likes to post about polls.

He even left the part about a moon base till the end where most folks wouldn’t read it.

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Wiki on US Opinion of Invading Iraq

I found this to be of particular interest:

Before the invasion in March 2003, polls showed 47-60% of the US public supported an invasion, dependent on U.N. approval. According to the same poll retaken in April 2007, 58% of the participants stated that the initial attack was a mistake. In May 2007, the New York Times and CBS News released similar results of a poll in which 61% of participants believed the U.S. “should have stayed out” of Iraq.

For those of you wonder how we got our asses handed to us in 2006-08, and why our candidate field is so thin this year, I ask you to consider these numbers.

And also consider who amongst the field was warning you that this was going to happen.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Replace “Iraq” with “Iran” and “WMD” with “Nuclear weapons.”

Let the Israelis deal with this like they dealt with the Iraqi nuclear site in ’81. You know the attack that the UN and Reagan denounced.

Why must Americans pay for this?

Why must Americans men and women risk their lives?

Let the Israelis and or Europeans.

MoreLiberty on February 6, 2012 at 9:18 AM

If it looks like Obama is losing the election, an attack on Iran will be the “October surprise” in a last ditch effort to be re-elected.

Kaffa on February 6, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Ed, there you go again….why the hate for Ron Paul? You are masking your fear. For someone so good on so many issues, your utter lack of understanding on this one is shocking.
First the other half of the country does NOT want to start another war in Iran. Its math you know…. secondly, Ron Paul has never suggested that we just roll over and take an attack on our soil. EVER…. what Ron Paul would do ed, is go to congress and get a declaration of war. Stop being a retard.
//

standupandbecounted on February 6, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Anyways tactical nukes have very limited yield, can be fired from artillery pieces or used in small missles like a hellfire and can be very effective on a nuclear facility.

ObamatheMessiah on February 6, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Fit on a Hellfire? Are you serious?

Very effective on nuclear facilities? Are you still high?

Have you not been reading about how the Iranians have been building those facilities with an attack on them in mind?

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 9:23 AM

what Ron Paul would do ed, is go to congress and get a declaration of war.

standupandbecounted on February 6, 2012 at 9:19 AM

And I believe Ed is represented in Congress by one Michele Bachmann.

Ed, are you pushing your US Representative to file a declaration of war, in her role as US Representative?

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 9:23 AM

standupandbecounted on February 6, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Stand up and be…something, that’s for sure.

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 9:24 AM

If it looks like Obama is losing the election, an attack on Iran will be the “October surprise” in a last ditch effort to be re-elected.

Kaffa on February 6, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Which is why I really hope that the rumoured Israeli timetable is accurate.

OldEnglish on February 6, 2012 at 9:24 AM

“War is too important to be left to the politicians.”
– Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper, USAF

Karl Magnus on February 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Sure hope you forgot the /sarctag on that one.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 9:09 AM

I suspect that you’ve never seen “Dr. Strangelove: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb“. You know, Stanley Kubric, Peter Sellers, and the incomparable Sterling Hayden. Look it up.

For your edification:

“I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.”
– General Jack D. Ripper, USAF

Just change the bad actors with Islamists and you’ll git it.
It’s going to happen eventually. Maybe this time, the U.S. will fight to win. /sarc
Better?

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 6, 2012 at 9:29 AM

You need to start going to ARCO and paying cash.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM

There is a whole lot of NorCal north of SF John,….the Humboldt County environmentalist have a deal to barge in all of our fuel to keep the truckers off 101, costing us 30 cents a gal more, hence we pay the highest prices in the nation.

Rovin on February 6, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Karl Magnus on February 6, 2012 at 9:29 AM

I suspect that you’ve never seen “Dr. Strangelove: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb“. You know, Stanley Kubric, Peter Sellers, and the incomparable Sterling Hayden. Look it up.

Oh, I know it well. A little too well, as I once lived with an irrepressible Kubric fan (I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to watch Barry Lyndon).

It’s just that around here, there are those who would gladly quote a fictional, psychotic, sexually repressed general to bolster their foreign policy assertions.

You can never be too careful.

ust change the bad actors with Islamists and you’ll git it.
It’s going to happen eventually. Maybe this time, the U.S. will fight to win. /sarc
Better?

Much. Thank you.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Ron Paul has never suggested that we just roll over and take an attack on our soil. EVER…. what Ron Paul would do ed, is go to congress and get a declaration of war. Stop being a retard.
//

standupandbecounted on February 6, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Is it really ever necessary to call somebody else a “retard?” That is childish and offensive.

Small wonder you are a Paul supporter. When it comes to these issues he is an ignorant idiot. The way to ensure, as much as possible, we are not attacked on our soil is by the kind of global engagement that Paul wants to end in some sort of isolationist zeal. Do you really suppose Iran or one of our other enemeies would just leave us alone if we disengaged from the world? The fact of the matter is that getting a declaration of war for a domestic attack would be very easy, it is a no-brainer for Congress to approve military force when some American city is smoldering or there are hundreds of casualties.

I do agree with the idea that Congress gets a free pass with the War Powers act. However where I differ with Ron Paul and his idiot brigade is the fact that I think Congress should be held accountable for waging war. Paul pushes this point as a tool for appeasement no different than that practiced by Obama and the radical left.

Happy Nomad on February 6, 2012 at 9:34 AM

You break that doctrine, you invite other nations to make nuclear first strikes on us. In fact, if you are the first to do it, you justify it for them.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Iran has no qualms about using theirs first. We can stop them without resorting to nukes. It will require more effort than the Zero will employ.

His preference is diplomacy. That’s never going to work, but he’s hoping he can stall past the election or until the crazies in charge actually have a bomb. The Zero likes that idea.

dogsoldier on February 6, 2012 at 9:36 AM

There is a whole lot of NorCal north of SF John,….the Humboldt County environmentalist have a deal to barge in all of our fuel to keep the truckers off 101, costing us 30 cents a gal more, hence we pay the highest prices in the nation.

Rovin on February 6, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Yeah, there’s a lot of “there” up there.

But I thought that, much like we do with the spotted owl, the Left had long ago barbecued and eaten all the Right Wingers, making way for the grass growers and those too stupid to even make a living doing that.

Glad to hear I was misinformed.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Iran has no qualms about using theirs first.

dogsoldier on February 6, 2012 at 9:36 AM

And your evidence for this?

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 9:37 AM

I think I am more concerned with Obambi’s war on democracy and religion. Obambi is dangerous, so commencing any military action with him as CIC would be an horrible mistake.

rightoption on February 6, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Iran has no qualms about using theirs first.

dogsoldier on February 6, 2012 at 9:36 AM

And your evidence for this?

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Maybe he should have stipulated how they would use it first.

Like with their other home developed weapons, they give them to surrogates for a layer of “not me”.

When they get a nuke, it will be used.

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Well gee, after the media and even most conservative websites ignorant of recent history distorted Gingrich’s moon base program, it’s no doubt the public doesn’t support it.

Until 3 years ago, a program similar to Gingrich’s moonbase proposal WAS US POLICY!

Now stop this farce before you get Romney elected and he chooses Scott Brown for his VP.

HopeHeFails on February 6, 2012 at 9:46 AM

And your evidence for this?

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 9:37 AM

They said they would and we have every reason to believe them. cosmo is also correct.

They would be quite happy to vaporize Tel Aviv and start a war. They believe it will bring the White Imam.

To that I would add they have been at war with us since 1979.

I take it you think they won’t use it?

dogsoldier on February 6, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Well gee, after the media and even most conservative websites ignorant of recent history distorted Gingrich’s moon base program, it’s no doubt the public doesn’t support it.

Until 3 years ago, a program similar to Gingrich’s moonbase proposal WAS US POLICY!

Now stop this farce before you get Romney elected and he chooses Scott Brown for his VP.

HopeHeFails on February 6, 2012 at 9:46 AM

They prefer to give space up to the Russians and Chinese. Never mind it’s a great way to boost the economy. Americans need exceptionalism.

tinkerthinker on February 6, 2012 at 9:53 AM

And you know the formula by now. Those MOABs will not hit nuclear-related facilities. It will be announced that they only hit a hospital for orphans or something like that.

Happy Nomad on February 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM

The sign saying “baBY mIlk FacTorY” will prove it.

KW64 on February 6, 2012 at 9:53 AM

dogsoldier on February 6, 2012 at 9:52 AM

I thought it was the 12th Imam?

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Anyways tactical nukes have very limited yield, can be fired from artillery pieces or used in small missles like a hellfire and can be very effective on a nuclear facility.

ObamatheMessiah on February 6, 2012 at 9:04 AM

We haven’t had any nuke artillery shells since about 1992. I don’t know of any nuke ever fitted to a hellfire. Years ago we had tactical nukes in just about every theater, now not so much. The ground penetrating nuke warhead scheduled for the Pershing was cancelled long ago. Not sure if there are any bunker busting nukes in inventory now.

Oldnuke on February 6, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Exactly. I wonder if the people who write these surveys are purposely vague, or if they don’t know how to write them well?

DrMagnolias on February 6, 2012 at 9:02 AM

I’m willing to bet on “purposely vague”. These people know exactly what they are doing. They have had a lot of practice.

And the fact that only answer three really stops them from getting nuclear weapons is what ensures that they are very likely to obtain nuclear weapons.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 9:03 AM

I’m not sure that is a foregone conclusion, but it is a likely scenario. I’ve always thought that the invasion of Iraq was ultimately about solving the Iran problem, but something stopped the Bush administration from going further. Perhaps the job proved more difficult than imagined. The Israelis had no problem stopping Iraq and Syria’s nuclear ambitions, but the Iranians learned and buried their program.

The solution to the Iranian problem hinges on airspace. With the U.S. out of Iraq, Iraq is without air defenses, and will remain so for a year. That is the Israeli window of opportunity. The U.S. role will be to provide naval power to keep the Straits open and the oil flowing. Saudi Arabia has promised to make up any oil deficit resulting from an Iranian strike. The Obama Administration needs an October Surprise; the timing of the attack is the quid pro quo for its approval. The Peace President and his Administration will, of course, condemn the attack, while claiming that it is providing naval support for the good of the world economy. It will be interesting to see how this all works out.

Mr. Arkadin on February 6, 2012 at 9:55 AM

So, why aren’t any GOP Congresscritters pushing for a declaration of war against Iran, then?

Hmmmm?

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Why didn’t Thomas Jefferson push for a declaration of war on the caliphate and Barbary Pirates before invading Triploli? hmmmm?

Yet somehow, Jefferson, being only a few years from the drafting of the Constitution, found it perfectly within the bounds of his Constitutional authority to send in the Navy and Marines with a simple authorization provided by Congress.

/Your dude does not have a full grasp of foreign policy and constitutional use of military force. Period.

AZfederalist on February 6, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Iran has no qualms about using theirs first.

dogsoldier on February 6, 2012 at 9:36 AM

And your evidence for this?

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Maybe he should have stipulated how they would use it first.

Like with their other home developed weapons, they give them to surrogates for a layer of “not me”.

When they get a nuke, it will be used.

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 9:42 AM

You Betcha.
Most likely a dirty bomb in ship’s cargo container out of Liberia, etc..
Look out East Coast!
I say why wait? Any attempt to interfere with clear passage through the Strait of Hormuz is a blatant provocation of war, and contrary to International Law. (chuckle)
Sure, the United Nations will be right on top of it! /sarc.
Of course the Яooskees and ChiComs would love to see it happen. Anything that pokes America in the eyeballs is “AOK, Joe, you number one”. Meanwhile, a hand grenade is sneaked into your AO (area of operation).

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 6, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Sure hope you forgot the /sarctag on that one.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 9:09 AM

I take it your not familiar with Genera Jack D. Ripper.

Oldnuke on February 6, 2012 at 9:58 AM

I thought it was the 12th Imam?

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 9:53 AM

I think he’s referred to that way also.

dogsoldier on February 6, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Sure hope you forgot the /sarctag on that one.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 9:09 AM

I take it your not familiar with Genera Jack D. Ripper.

Oldnuke on February 6, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Sorry I missed your post on this first time through.

Oldnuke on February 6, 2012 at 10:02 AM

“Is it really ever necessary to call somebody else a “retard?” That is childish and offensive. ”

happy nomad

now I am offended…..

standupandbecounted on February 6, 2012 at 10:08 AM

I’m comforted knowing Scooter would never contemplate such military action in an election year, simply to burnish his national security credentials.:)

a capella on February 6, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Why didn’t Thomas Jefferson push for a declaration of war on the caliphate and Barbary Pirates before invading Triploli? hmmmm?

AZfederalist on February 6, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Check your Constitution. It provides for Congress to make laws regarding Piracy on the High Seas.

And Jefferson did keep them in the loop. He went to them, and asked for naval authority against these pirates and their state sponsors, and they gave it to them, in 1802.

For naval operations. And Jefferson was quite clear he needed their authorization, that he couldn’t just think it up and do it.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 10:13 AM

I’m comforted knowing Scooter would never contemplate such military action in an election year, simply to burnish his national security credentials.:)

a capella on February 6, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Yeah, the whole “I got Bin Ladin” mantra is getting pretty stale. Jug-ears is going have to do something “CINC-like” heading into the elections.

Happy Nomad on February 6, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Mr. Arkadin on February 6, 2012 at 9:55 AM

I’m not sure that is a foregone conclusion, but it is a likely scenario. I’ve always thought that the invasion of Iraq was ultimately about solving the Iran problem, but something stopped the Bush administration from going further.

Sure. The US Congress stopped him.

IIRC, the original AUMF the Administration submitted to Congress didn’t specifically limit operations to Iraq. It was clear to anyone paying attention that they wanted to be able to move on Iran, if necessary, and that was a bridge too far for a Congress that had been sold this war in part on the instability of Saddam Hussein.

And the reason I am so adamant that we’re not going to be able to successfully do what needs to be done to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes is we blew so much of our credibility, both with our Allies and the American people, over Iraq. Which is why I challenge anyone who puts any credence in this poll, to get their Rep to push for a war declaration, and see just how well the American people like the idea of another invasion.

Go ahead. Make my day.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Maybe he should have stipulated how they would use it first.

Like with their other home developed weapons, they give them to surrogates for a layer of “not me”.

When they get a nuke, it will be used.

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 9:42 AM

This ain’t Semtex we’re talking about here. If someone lights off a nuke, we’re going to know in short order who owned it, and likely what reactor the uranium/plutonium came from.

And Iran knows that. And Iran and her leaders know that, assuming both Tel Aviv and Washington were not taken out simultaneously, the remainder of Persian history would amount to the time it took for the POTUS to get through to Congress, or the PM to get through to the Knesset.

The leaders of Iran are not suicidal. There are former heads of Mossad, IDF, and academics both here and Israel that confirm this. We should listen to them, and prepare for nuclear diplomacy with Iran.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 10:25 AM

The poll results are not about the questions or answers, they are about how successful the media campaign has been. Shows how many are are susceptible to the programming, looks like they still have some work to do, those numbers are still looking too low. I would love to sit around that brainstorming table!

Antichrist +/- 39%
WMDs +/- 46%
They are just evil +/- 43%
Our poor drone! +/- 42%
Nuclear Weapons +/- 49% (nice!)
Terror Strike +/- 62% (BINGO!)
Oh, and Ron Paul is a loon for good measure +/- priceless!

Do you know how much money they pour into the mass media campaigns? That research is not cheap, they better get some results for their efforts.

Now, take your dose sheeple, go fetch some tax revenue.

[[WMDs rev. 2.0 + Nukes ftw]]

armedcitizen on February 6, 2012 at 10:25 AM

This ain’t Semtex we’re talking about here.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Lots of variables, including how the nuclear material is used. It doesn’t have to be a nuke at all. Just nuclear material in the bomb.

Plausible deniability.

Iran has used it before.

The leaders of Iran are not suicidal.
JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Some of them are, and have stated it.

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Hooray for war lust!

Dante on February 6, 2012 at 10:33 AM

The leaders of Iran are not suicidal.
JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 10:25 AM

There’s no point, you’re going up against decades of propaganda that has taught unthinking people to accept the idea that Iran’s leaders are subhuman animals. So why on earth would they believe Iranians understand the notion of mutually assured destruction. Just look at the comments people make about that Muslim in America TV show. The *hatred* toward Muslims in a general sense is being transformed into public opinion that could send us to another war. I’m so frightened of that possibility. And sadly, no one in either party is willing to stop it. Because doing so is somehow anti-semitic.

libfreeordie on February 6, 2012 at 10:35 AM

dogsoldier on February 6, 2012 at 9:52 AM

They said they would and we have every reason to believe them

This is the same government that has issued a fatwa against producing nuclear weapons.

Now, you may feel free to believe they are violating their own law. I certainly believe that. But it’s sort of difficult to argue that they have admitted they will use nuclear weapons, while all they have done is deny they are developing nuclear weapons.

They would be quite happy to vaporize Tel Aviv and start a war. They believe it will bring the White Imam.

The former head of the IDF, and the former head of the Mossad, and top Persian experts both here and in Israel, disagree with you.

To that I would add they have been at war with us since 1979.

32 years, six Presidents (three of the GOP), and none of them saw fit to reciprocate? Either the entirety of the US Government has been asleep at the switch for 3 decades, or you know something they don’t? Is that what I am to believe?

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Lots of variables, including how the nuclear material is used. It doesn’t have to be a nuke at all. Just nuclear material in the bomb.

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM

They could do that today, if they wanted. They could have done that Sept 12, 2001, if they had wanted.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM

There’s no point, you’re going up against decades of propaganda that has taught unthinking people to accept the idea that Iran’s leaders are subhuman animals.

libfreeordie on February 6, 2012 at 10:35 AM

BS and showing your own ignorance. I have Iranians in my family.

Twelfth Imam

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 10:40 AM

They could do that today, if they wanted. They could have done that Sept 12, 2001, if they had wanted.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Nope. They need enough to protect themselves, enough for blackmail and enough for sale. Once they have that, then they can use some for terror.

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 10:41 AM

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 10:40 AM

repackaged anti-christ conspiracy theory nonsense.

libfreeordie on February 6, 2012 at 10:43 AM

libfreeordie on February 6, 2012 at 10:43 AM

I guess you skipped the part where it is a constant reference in
Ahmadinejad’s speeches…everywhere, even the UN.

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Whatever happens – the Izzies going after the creeps, or a joint effort to wipe out their nuclear program, I just hope all the ayatollahs are all at a banquet dinner in Tehran honoring the big cheese when the nuke goes off over the building and they all find themselves rendered into so much flaming hot grease running down into the basements.
And while the weeping and gnashing of Iranian teeth for the international media is going on, be sure to bomb Iranian hospitals and baby milk factories – we’re gonna get the blame for these anyway, so we might as well take them out, too.

dockywocky on February 6, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Here is a very interesting poll about the previous boogyman with WMDs – the Iraq War

As we all know, the statist liberals and neocons were salivating over war in Iraq because they “had” WMDs. The current rhetoric about Iran and it’s nuclear weapon capability sounds oddly familiar.

Recent polls show that the majority of Americans believe it was a mistake, and not worth the human of financial toll.

http://pollposition.com/2011/12/19/was-iraq-war-worth-costs/

“A majority of Americans, 58% said no, they do not believe it was worth the costs, 27% said they believe it was, 15% did not have an opinion.”

Over 4000 Americans died, and a waste of a trillion dollars. Can we afford another war brought to us by a corrupt government?

Neocons and liberals say yes.

MoreLiberty on February 6, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Paul’s foreign policy is kooky.

But his position on spending, generally, is spot on. We need to go department by department, division by division, base by base, line by line through every budget — including the military — to cut out government waste. Nothing has been done to reign in spending in the last 4 years.

EconomicNeocon on February 6, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Have you not been reading about how the Iranians have been building those facilities with an attack on them in mind?

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 9:23 AM

So did Syria. Can you remind me how that ended up for them? Before mocking someone and calling them brainless, make sure your memory and ability to comprehend recent past are not on a 2nd grade level.

riddick on February 6, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Nope. They need enough to protect themselves, enough for blackmail and enough for sale. Once they have that, then they can use some for terror.

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 10:41 AM

What? For dirty bombs?

Granted, once again, it ain’t Semtex. But it’s not like radioactive material for dirty bombs is U-235. If they would ever want to play that game, they could have a long time ago.

And unlike with a nuclear weapon, that would in fact provide them with deniability.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:02 AM

So did Syria. Can you remind me how that ended up for them?
riddick on February 6, 2012 at 11:00 AM

They learned. Satellite, and other intel have shown it.

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Sure. The US Congress stopped him.

IIRC, the original AUMF the Administration submitted to Congress didn’t specifically limit operations to Iraq. It was clear to anyone paying attention that they wanted to be able to move on Iran, if necessary, and that was a bridge too far for a Congress that had been sold this war in part on the instability of Saddam Hussein.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 10:19 AM

John, I think you are giving that pack of looters and second-raters too much credit, but if that is true, can you point me towards some proof?

The thing is, I don’t think Iran was secondary to the decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. I think Iran was the reason for the decision, the end game. They are ground zero for America’s Muslim problem. Look at a map. With Iraq and Afghanistan occupied by U.S. forces; an (uneasy) American ally, Turkey, to the North; an occasionally defiant but easily corruptible Pakistan to the South; and U.S. naval forces in the Gulf, Iran was essentially surrounded. The trigger was ready to be pulled. It wasn’t. Now we are out of Iraq, Turkey is pulling towards Iran, the end is in sight for Afghanistan, and our relationship with Pakistan is a mess. That particular window of opportunity has been closed. What happened? Believe me, it wasn’t Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid screeching on the floor of Congress. Something else happened.

Now we are looking at an Israeli operation with tacit U.S. support. That’s going to happen, by Spring, with the support of the media and the American public, after it has been softened up with a few more scare stories and dubious polls. Congress and the media are only anti war after the fact.

Mr. Arkadin on February 6, 2012 at 11:04 AM

So did Syria. Can you remind me how that ended up for them? Before mocking someone and calling them brainless, make sure your memory and ability to comprehend recent past are not on a 2nd grade level.

riddick on February 6, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Syria is a lot different from Iran. They are closer to Israel. They don’t have the defensive capability of Iran. And it appears that, as opposed to the Iranians, the Syrians were relying on subterfuge, as opposed to outright shielding of their facilities.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Economicneocon wrote:

“Nothing has been done to reign in spending in the last 4 years.”

hahahahahaha…..guess what dude. Nothing has been done to reign in spending for the last 12 years. Our Debt has only gone up – under Neocon Bush and Liberal Obama.

MoreLiberty on February 6, 2012 at 11:04 AM

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:02 AM

They are waiting for their own nuke before they give the material to their surrogates.

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 11:05 AM

There is a whole lot of NorCal north of SF John,….the Humboldt County environmentalist have a deal to barge in all of our fuel to keep the truckers off 101, costing us 30 cents a gal more, hence we pay the highest prices in the nation.

Rovin on February 6, 2012 at 9:32 AM

That’s just a small part of the problem. Due to greenies there are only 5 refineries left in GULAG and given the fuel consumption levels, highest in the nation, they have no choice but truck the refined fuel in.

Humboldt, I bet, is Ron Paul Country. Especially lately with all the pot dispensaries proliferating in CA (although they seem to e cutting back now). That’s ALL they care about.

riddick on February 6, 2012 at 11:09 AM

This ain’t Semtex we’re talking about here. If someone lights off a nuke, we’re going to know in short order who owned it, and likely what reactor the uranium/plutonium came from.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 10:25 AM

And how would we know where it came from and who built it? References from “The Sum of All Fears” the book or that stupid movie are not considered valid sources. That said I’ll say that it might be possible but there are lots of factors to consider. I had a nuclear medical procedure done once upon a time. Our HP techs using state of the art equipment could tell me that the isotope the hospital used was not a “clean” production. It had some readily identifiable contaminants. They couldn’t tell me where it was made. It would have been possible to do it using the process of elimination. It’s not as easy as it looks in the movies.

Oldnuke on February 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Mr. Arkadin on February 6, 2012 at 11:04 AM

John, I think you are giving that pack of looters and second-raters too much credit, but if that is true, can you point me towards some proof?

I hesitate to put the link, because it is a CNN story, and for some reason the filter doesn’t like their links (or hasn’t in the past).

Even U.S. lawmakers who support authorization of use of force said they do not like the last line of the draft resolution, which says that “force” should be used against “the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region.”

That line, say some members of Congress, is too vague and could allow the president to use force in other Mideast nations beyond Iraq.

“That is probably a bit ambitious,” said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Indiana. “Would this authorize an invasion of Iran? Or how about Syria? They’re in the region. I think we ought to stay focused here, and that is staying focused on Iraq.”

Also this:

Everyone faced a judgment call on the Iraq AUMF. 60% of the public supported the administration on going to war in Iraq. At least the AUMF bill Edwards sponsored and Hillary voted for won out over a much more broad competing authorization which was not simply limited to Iraq — “based on the original White House proposal.”

Just look at this language in the original Daschle-Lott bill that was replaced by the one Edwards sponsored:

The President is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region.

That’s it. A one-sentence authorization to impose Bush’s brand of peace and security throughout the entire Middle East. “Have at ‘em Mr. President. Enjoy your crusade.”

Contrast that with Lieberaman’s version of the AUMF which actually passed, was co-sponsored by Edwards and voted for by Hillary:

There are links embedded at the site to the original legislation.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Obama: I’m getting ‘better as time goes on’ at being president

During an interview that aired Monday on NBC’s “Today” show, President Obama said that he gets “better as time goes on” at his job and that he believes the grassroots movement that propelled him to victory in 2008 will help him win a second term. “What’s frustrated people is that I’ve not been able to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes. But what we have been able to do is move in the right direction,” Obama said.

J_Crater on February 6, 2012 at 11:15 AM

They couldn’t tell me where it was made. It would have been possible to do it using the process of elimination. It’s not as easy as it looks in the movies.

Oldnuke on February 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM

I have been wondering about that for a long time. Does the US have a sample from every reactor in the world?

And how processed would the material have to be before it could be traced to a reactor?

How much processing can be done without a reactor?

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 11:17 AM

So did Syria. Can you remind me how that ended up for them?
riddick on February 6, 2012 at 11:00 AM

They learned. Satellite, and other intel have shown it.

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Huh!?

How did they learn? Iran facilities were already in construction mode for some time when Syrian reactor got destroyed. Selective memory again? How long does it take to build one do you think? 2 weeks? How about that Iranian facility that got destroyed just 4-5 weeks ago, sure, they had a “fire” at the facility, wink, wink… Some fire…

I like your posts, but this selective memory of yours is strange. As is of some others’. Iran facilities CAN be destroyed, the only reason they weren’t touched so far is because of Hussein standing in between to appease and protect his Muslim friends, let’s not play PC here and let him slide on this. And Ron Paul will do the same, for different reasons. of course. I bet that beefed military presence of ours in the Straits of Hormuz is not there to warn Iran, but to keep the airspace “busy” from Israeli planes.

riddick on February 6, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Huh!?

riddick on February 6, 2012 at 11:17 AM

They also watched what was happening next door.

And took a lesson from the US, USSR, and North Korea (they even brought in North Koreans to help).

Their newer facilities have mountains on top of them.

Why do you think most analysts think Israel doesn’t have the firepower to do it alone?

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 11:22 AM

I have been wondering about that for a long time. Does the US have a sample from every reactor in the world?

And how processed would the material have to be before it could be traced to a reactor?

How much processing can be done without a reactor?

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 11:17 AM

No, of course we don’t. I doubt that we have samples for half of them. Matter of fact I doubt that the government has a sample of spent fuel from the reactor I operated. I know we certainly never attempted to take any and I don’t recall any shipments to any other agencies. As far as I know every spent fuel cell we ever took out of our reactor is still on site and I was in a position to know. Unless they’ve shipped one out in the last ten years, and I’d still have known about it, they’re all right there. U-235 is a naturally occurring isotope it’s enriched not made. Plutonium 239 is made in a reactor.

Oldnuke on February 6, 2012 at 11:30 AM

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 11:22 AM

One other thing. If you recall the very first entity to blow the whistle on Chernobyl was a nuke power plant in, I think, Sweden. They picked up increased background, did a little nuclear sleuthing and figured out where it was coming from.

Oldnuke on February 6, 2012 at 11:35 AM

I have been wondering about that for a long time. Does the US have a sample from every reactor in the world?

And how processed would the material have to be before it could be traced to a reactor?

How much processing can be done without a reactor?

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 11:17 AM

They certainly don’t have samples. But I’ve always assumed that we have intelligence on material coming out of reactors. And I am told that with such intelligence, you could trace fallout to a specific reactor.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Oldnuke on February 6, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Thanks for the confirmation.

How about the North Korean nuke that didn’t work up to expectations?

I figure samples were gotten from that. Could that tell anything about the quality of the material, or engineering?

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 11:38 AM

So … remind me again: what exactly is the difference between “a near majority” and “a minority”?

And if you can, remind me … what percentage of Americans believe in the Rapture, alien abduction, the personal involvement of Saddam Hussein in the 9/11 attacks, the absolute goodness of a completely invisible guy in the sky, and the total certainty that the reason why we lost so many young men and women is that Iraq owned nuclear weapons?

Love the smell of the information-poor and reasoning-deficient in the morning.

JackieB on February 6, 2012 at 11:39 AM

But I’ve always assumed that we have intelligence on material coming out of reactors. And I am told that with such intelligence, you could trace fallout to a specific reactor.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Like was already stated, real life isn’t quite the same as a Tom Clancy novel.

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 11:40 AM

One other thing. If you recall the very first entity to blow the whistle on Chernobyl was a nuke power plant in, I think, Sweden. They picked up increased background, did a little nuclear sleuthing and figured out where it was coming from.

Oldnuke on February 6, 2012 at 11:35 AM

IIRC, they did that by measuring the levels, calculating a cone, and drawing a line to Chernobyl. They did not do that through examination of the fallout.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Comment pages: 1 2