War with Iran?....

[Michaelangelica]

It is a tragedy that in the midst of one failed war in Iraq, George Bush and Dick Cheney are pushing a second front of failure and gearing up to attack Iran.

Gov. Bill Richardson: Stop the Insanity: No War With Iran - Politics on The Huffington Post

[Hill]

Compare the statements made as we got ready to attack Iraq. Compare the rhetoric. Compare the neo-con noise echo chamber of the radio, Faux News, and the neo-con talking heads on Sunday mornings. It's almost a perfect match with what is going on now. I will be surprised and very relieved if we don't attack Iran by air and missile strike. And once again it will set in motion all sorts of effects that this administration is to myopic, or greedy, or too full of hubris to see. I voted yes, wishing I could see some way around it.

[Michaelangelica]

Well maybe we should attack Pakistan first

They are a rogue Islamic state, with the bomb NOW; AND the means to deliver it

or

Is that not in the CIA's, USA's best interests?

Breaking News Alert

The New York Times

Saturday, November 3, 2007 -- 9:49 AM ET

-----

 

President of Pakistan Declares State of Emergency

 

Pakistani television reported that Gen. Pervez Musharraf

declared a state of emergency on Saturday, days before the

Supreme Court was expected to rule on the constitutionality

of his re-election.

 

Read More:

The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia

[Michaelangelica]

Roughly Half Of Americans Favor War With Iran

Powered by BlogBurst

POSTED: Tuesday, November 06, 2007

FROM BLOG: Say Anything - Conservative commentary on national issues from the middle of the middle west.

 

The following blog post is from an independent writer and is not connected with Reuters News. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not endorsed by Reuters.com.

 

 

Personally, I’d rather see Iran dealt with by pulling certain economic and diplomatic levers combined with specific military strikes than full-out war, but it seems that about half of Americans would be ok with war if it came to that.

 

Which is a high number, given that Democrats tell us constantly about how tired Americans are of war. Maybe anti-war sentiment in America isn’t quite what the left would have us believe it is.

Top News Blog Posts powered by BlogBurst

 

Yanks are crazy.

How many nuclear bombs are you making this year- 120-130?

[Qfwfq]

1200 years is a long time and with no indication that this is any different to other crusades they've suffered, who can really blame them.

I miss your point about the 12 centuries, but in any case it isn't a matter of having suffered the crusades and, as Buffy point out, they did not get the worst of those in the end. The medieval crusades only slowed the Arabian expansion until Europe had become stronger. The point is that the neocons have been crusade agitators in recent times and this ain't such a good thing, but it isn't a question of what the Arabs suffered in the middle ages it's what the middle-eastern people have been getting in more recent times.

 

As Buffy says, history is complex and subtle. As I've often said around here, the fighting over the ME is older than since the crusades and it all shares some of the reasons. Circumnavigation of Africa diminished one of the reasons and caused the decline of the Arabic empire and also of the Italian maritime republics. Global strategy has been adding another. As the British empire took over the age old east-west trade, they needed to subdue the ME and influenced international politics toward this.

 

Now the far east has been regaining its economic strength from before the British overran what had been the driving economies of the whole land mass (three continents) and the west is taking steps against it. Although the ME is now less critical as a node for trade (though Suez is still handier for many ships than Cape Town) the node between three continents yet remains strategically important and there's a lot of interest in pipelines too.

 

Other noble and sophisticated directives of Islam:

There is also no point in arguing which religion is better, no more than in arguing about the Church of Ireland vs. the Catholic one. Let people believe what they want, as long as the first stone is cast by he who is without sin.

[InfiniteNow]

Well, we all know the old saying. If it at first you don't succeed, invade Iran.

[CraigD]

Top News Blog Posts powered by BlogBurst

 

Yanks are crazy.

No we’re not! :hihi: Or, at least, not much more or less crazier than most of the world’s people.

 

The blogger who wrote the headline “Roughly Half Of Americans Favor War With Iran” is “spinning” an informal poll result to appear favorable to his position, which we can reasonably infer is something like “’the left’ is lying about American’s not wanting more war” and “we should attack Iran”.

 

The actual USA Today telephone survey of 1024 adults he cites contains the following:

 

What do you think the United States should do to get Iran to shut down its nuclear program?

73% Rely on economic/ diplomatic efforts

18% Take military action

8% No opinion

 

Suppose U.S. economic and diplomatic efforts do not work.?If that happens, do you think the United States should – or should not – take military action against Iran? (Results based on 877 adults who say the U.S. should rely mainly on economic and diplomatic efforts to get Iran to shut down its nuclear program.)

55% No, should not

34% Yes, should

11% No opinion

 

Note that the 877 “adults who say the U.S. should rely mainly on economic and diplomatic efforts” is actually 85.6% of the 1024 surveyed, although this survey question isn’t included in the article. Reading around the omitted data, it reasonable to conclude that the survey actually shows something like this:

< 15% supports immediate war

29-39% support war only if other options fail

47-57% oppose war of any kind.

 

From this, the blogger gets “Roughly half of Americans favor war with Iran”, illustrating why one should be even more skeptical of blogs than of professionally written news articles.

 

Note also that the survey appears to have not offered respondents the option “Iraq should not be prevented from developing civilian nuclear power”, even though this is essentially the official position of Russia, China, and perhaps other UN Security Council member states.

[Buffy]

Yanks are crazy. How many nuclear bombs are you making this year- 120-130?

Oh gosh, Michael, you *really* need to check the sources before posting! That came from a right-wingnut blog called...wait for it..."Say Anything"... Get it? :hihi:

 

According to this USA Today/Gallup Poll taken just in the last few days only 18% of respondents support taking any military action against Iran, let alone a full scale war....

 

YouTube - chris matthews michelle malkin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoM90bAsr1M

 

So easy even Tweety can do it, :)

Buffy

[Michaelangelica]

Well i am glad of that.

I take it back.

There is some sanity after all.

 

I have read a few sources about the USA starting to make more nuclear bombs of various types.

 

I find it hard to get actuate data on the web. You guys seem to know from what corner the commentators are coming from. I don't, as US politics is not my fist concern. I am more interested in domestic politics. You can see how people can get a distorted view of what is happening in the States. So, remember, I'm always 'a frail and peccable mortal'

 

Once source, that did look official, talked about making new "plutonium triggers" for bombs. So maybe some old bombs are getting a facelift?

 

PS

I am reliably informed :hihi: that Bush's invasion of Iraq was a"typo" he meant Iran.

 

PSS

Would you accept that just Bush is crazy? or perhaps crazy like a snake?

Noun + Verb + 9/11 + Iran = Democrats’ Defeat?

Noun + Verb + 9/11 + Iran = Democrats’ Defeat? - New York Times

. . .

The reason so many Democrats believe war with Iran is inevitable, of course, is that the administration is so flagrantly rerunning the sales campaign that gave us Iraq. The same old scare tactic — a Middle East Hitler plotting a nuclear holocaust — has been recycled with a fresh arsenal of hyped, loosey-goosey intelligence and outright falsehoods that are sometimes regurgitated without corroboration by the press.

. . .

The Economist tallied up the risks of a potential Shock and Awe II this summer: “Iran could fire hundreds of missiles at Israel, attack American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, organize terrorist attacks in the West or choke off tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s oil windpipe.”

 

Then there’s the really bad news. . . .

I wonder how they read all this in Iran, and the middle east?

If I, with open Internet access; English as a first language and a reasonable eduction, can get it so wrong?- or maybe as the article suggests that is the whole point

 

PsssCraig?

A Zogby poll last month found that a majority of Americans (52 percent) now supports a pre-emptive strike on Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

same article

Noun + Verb + 9/11 + Iran = Democrats’ Defeat? - New York Times

 

psss

[Michaelangelica]

Strike on Iran Still Possible, US Tells Israel

Wednesday 30 July 2008

 

»

 

by: Paul Richter and Julian E. Barnes, The Los Angeles Times

 

photo

During Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak's visit to Washington on July 29, he met with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. A possible attack on Iran was a main topic of discussion in Barak's meetings with administration officials. (Photo: Reuters)

 

Washington - Bush administration officials reassured Israel's defense minister this week that the United States has not abandoned all possibility of a military attack on Iran, despite widespread Israeli concern that Washington has begun softening its position toward Tehran.

 

In meetings Monday and Tuesday, administration officials told Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the option of attacking Iran over its nuclear program remains on the table, though U.S. officials are primarily seeking a diplomatic solution.

 

At the same time, U.S. officials acknowledged that there is a rare divergence in the U.S. and Israeli approaches, with Israelis emphasizing the possibility of a military response out of concern that Tehran may soon have the know-how for building a nuclear bomb.

t r u t h o u t | Strike on Iran Still Possible, US Tells Israel

Some comment

Strike on Iran Still Possible, US Tells Israel - Care2 News Network

[Michaelangelica]

 

How can the NY Times have a "vote now" heading like this on its web site?

Has the world gone crazy?

Do we get to internet vote who we kill now?

This is sick.

[modest]

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

 

~modest

 

That would be preferable to going to War with Iran, War is so last century:doh:

[CraigD]

How can the NY Times have a "vote now" [to bomb Iran] heading like this on its web site?

Like the “Impeach Bush” banners, it's an advertisement – specifically, agoogle AdSense add.

 

Website owner/managers, such as the New York Times’s and even hypography’s own beloved Tormod, put “placeholder” on their webpages, which the ad agency (google in this case) is permitted to fill with whatever advertisement they feel is most effective. When a viewer clicks on the “vote now” or elsewhere on the ad link, google credits the hosting website with a small amount of money, debit the advertiser, and keep a piece for themselves. If enough viewer click the links, the website owner and the add agency can make a lot of money, and the advertiser get a lot of paying customers.

How can the NY Times have a "vote now" heading like this on its web site?

NYT (and hypography) allows these ads to appear on our websites to make money. Hypography doesn’t get enough clicks to make a profit for Tormod, but helps prevent him from being driven into poverty for providing us all with these wonderful forums. The NYT presumably gets a lot more and does make a profit. Google (and some lesser agencies) of course, gets very (and less) rich.

 

Although the website owner/managers have the option to exclude specific advertisers from being displayed on their webpages (the most common use of this is to avoid displaying links to your direct competitors, ie: the NYT having a link to the Wall Street Journal). As with ads in other media, the website hosting these adds don’t necessarily agree with or endorse the ideas and opinions expressed or implied in them. For example, you’ll find links to psychic counselors, fundamentalist Christian support boards, and Ben Stein’s “Expelled” on hypography threads criticizing and debunking them – The text scanning algorithms in AdSense and similar system don’t expecially care what’s being said about a subject, only that certain keywords appear in the text, resulting in some hilarious computer-generated humor.

Has the world gone crazy?

Do we get to internet vote who we kill now?

I think and hope not to both questions.

 

Though usually they do tabulate results, “vote now” ad schemes are usually intended solely to attract customers, not to collect serious survey data, and certainly not as any sort of official vote on state policy. Ad designers just know psychology well enough (many contend they know it better than “real” psychologists) to know that asking a person his or her opinion, even with the intention of ignoring it, is an effective way to gain their attention

This is sick.

I agree. Regardless of who creates it or why, I believe the promotion of war other than in defense of direct attack is wrong, and support for it a sign of moral sickness.