Sunday, May 07, 2006

Most Americans oppose military action against Iran

Many adults in the United States have a clear idea of how their government should approach the situation regarding Iran’s nuclear program, according to a poll by Opinion Research Corporation released by CNN. 63 per cent of respondents think the U.S. should resort to economic and diplomatic efforts, but not take military action.

After being branded as part of an "axis of evil" by U.S. president George W. Bush in January 2002, Iran has contended that its nuclear program aims to produce energy, not weapons. Support for military action against Iran stands at 13 per cent.

Polling Data

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

Take military action against Iran now

Use economic and diplomatic efforts,
but not take military action right now

Take no action against Iran at this time

No opinion

Source Here.

Isn't it amazing that the tiny minority of trigger happy warmongers continue to create the amount of noise that they do ...


Blogger Porcupinetaxi said...

It seems to me that the fact that we have a war going on is the reason you have the right to plug your opinions on the internet.

May 07, 2006 3:47 am  
Blogger _H_ said...

It seems to me that the fact that we have a war going on is the reason you have the right to plug your opinions on the internet.

What kind of weird psuedo logic is that ?

May 07, 2006 3:58 am  
Anonymous Jon Nugent said...

The problem facing the United States, over the Iran crisis, is to difuse the situation regarding Iran’s nuclear capibilities while maintaining Washington’s opposition to the regime in Tehran. The best way to do his is, not thorugh negotiation or apeasement using the United Nations as a mediator, but through using the threat of sanctions and force to harm Iran itself. America’s goal is not simply to halt the accused pursuit of nuclear weapons, but to halt Iran’s nuclear program altogehter. Not only would this deny the regime an opportunity of technological greatness and national pride, but halting the rogram would also prevent Iran from gaining any such nculear capabilities in the future.

The long term goal of the United States is regime change, not though war, but through democratisation and reform. If military action takes place against Iran, it is doubtful that this would entail regime change. Through the NPT, the United States and Iran can negotiate a deal. Yet this would allow Iran nuclear capibilities for civilian use – something that is unnaccpetable to the Americans. A possible Uranium enrichment deal between Iran and the Russian federation has not been signed.

But, confrontation with Iran also gives the neoconservative movement another possibility. Through confrontation, the United Nation’s role as a mediator will be lost. Confrontation (especially if the Security council fails to reach an aggreement) will undoubtably lead to an accelerated pursuit by Iran to gain nuclear tehnology and would also probably lead to greater militarisation, in anitcipation of an American attack. Without UN support, the United States will go alone. Although the consequences of a US strike may have counter-productive results in Iran, the anti-institutional neo-conservative movement will claim a victory in anti-prolifation enforcement, and will claim the United Nations to be a faulty institution.

The nuclear issue is a real isse, and not necessarily an excuse for waging war. The US and Iran have a history of friction, stemming from the Iranian revolution and the American embassy crisis. Iran needs to be confronted, but thorugh the UN and the terms of the NPT. Iran has a responsibility to ensure the international community that it does not have plans that contravene the NPT, thus threatening ‘international peace and security.’ If it fulfills its responsibilities, it has a right under the terms of the NPT to persue nuclear technology, and the United States and Europe have no right to interfere.

If war is to take place without UN approval, it may forfiet the NPT and accelerate an international drive for great defensive measures, including nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. Concern about the threat of non-state nuclear equiped actors is only speculative and extremely minor in comparison to the current issue. Infact, conflict could increase the prospects of the latter.

I would advise people to go to the Oxford Research Group webpage and look at 'Iran: Consequences of a War' by Paul Rogers. Sobering to say the least.

May 07, 2006 4:37 am  
Blogger Mr Angry said...

I think the source of the noise may well be the tiny minority who control the government.

May 07, 2006 8:20 am  
Blogger sid said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

May 07, 2006 12:48 pm  
Blogger sid said...

"It seems to me that the fact that we have a war going on is the reason you have the right to plug your opinions on the internet"

that is the dumbest logic i've ever heard

May 07, 2006 12:51 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

Sorry sid you first comment is simply hate speach and has been removed. Please read our Posting policy before leaving comments

To selectively remove people like Luis Posada Carriles and Timothy McVeigh , groups like the IRA and ETA and not forgetting the worlds best financed terrorist group (the CIA)to make it seem as though Islam alone represents terrorism
is far to similiar to that kind of hatred of jews put forward by the Nazis to justify their treament of the Jewish race

Constructive critism is more than welcome Feel free to question the motives of certain groups or 'extreme' factions of the Islamic faith if you so wish but do not judge a billion people of a different faith to you in such a sweeping fashion . It is called Islamophobia and I am sure you can find plenty of blogs that will be willing to put forward views similar to yours.

May 07, 2006 3:03 pm  
Anonymous MechWarrior4Christ said...

You know,

It's a lot easier to say "let's do things the peaceful way" if you aren't in Mr. Bushs' situation.

You might not know all the facts and you might not feel the pressure Mr. Bush has.

It is true that he has made some messy decisions, and some good ones, but I think it's easy to make him a scapegoat for the world's problems, when in reality, each and every one of us rich, or even middle-class people is contributing to the suffering of someone else in the world.

It's wisest to step in someone's shoes and view as many sides of the issue as possible before you comment.

May 07, 2006 3:44 pm  
Blogger Georgina said...

Well, it makes you wonder how these kind of people were able to get power in the first place, doesn't it?

About 90% of Spanish population was against sending troups to Iraq ( as tiny help as it was) , yet PP government still decided to support US & UK. As a result we had a terrorist attack & PP were kicked out of Moncloa.

Interesting blog, I'll keep an eye on it !

May 07, 2006 4:02 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't it amazing that the tiny minority of trigger happy warmongers continue to create the amount of noise that they do ....

I completely agree. It's amazing how the ruling elite in Iran can cause so many problems for the Iranian people.

May 07, 2006 7:09 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Support for military action against Iran stands at 13 per cent.

Not very good with facts are you?

Literally a few lines down it says

Take military action against Iran now

Use economic and diplomatic efforts,
but not take military action right now

I wonder what the statistics would be if one asked the question

Do you think that at some point it maybe necessary to take some military action against Iranian nuclear facilities?

Pretty different, I would imagine.

May 07, 2006 7:13 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

Yup its strange how you call them the ruling elite and not the elected government.

Democracy is great as long as they vote how you wish them too it seems.

Any problems with Hamas ?

I agree the iranian people have many problems including the desire to takes the next step in democratic reforms , poor air quality and many many others.

But complying with the IAEA and acting fully within their rights under the NPT is not one of them.

Why not concern yourselves with those countries that break international laws rather than those that comply with them.

You never know , you might live in one :-)

May 07, 2006 7:17 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

LOL jonz , I wonder what the answer would be if the question was who is the greater threat to world peace and security

In 2003

87 % thought that it was the US

and less than 10 % thought it was Iran

I doubt those numbers have changed much

we can all change the question to suite our political alignment ....

was that a straw man fallacy or non sequiter you choose..

May 07, 2006 7:22 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good lord you lefties can't help but lie and distort the truth can you?

Where the fuck did you get this "survey"?

May 07, 2006 7:27 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Democracy is great as long as they vote how you wish them too it seems.

Indeed the fundamental problem with democracy is the notion that people are inherently good and truthful.

The fascists were democratically elected by German people, as were Hamas in the Palestinian terroritories.

I take it you, being a mindless lefty, was a against the war to remove Saddam, even though 74% of Iraqis think the decision to remove Saddam was correct.

May 07, 2006 7:31 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

Exact deatils

Time Magizine polled Europeans of which 706,842 people responded

The exact question

What country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003


North korea 6.7 %
Iran 6.3 %
United states 86.9 %

Original source and broadcast on the ITV news channel in the UK (late 2003)


Indeed the fundamental problem with democracy is the notion that people are inherently good and truthful.The fascists were democratically elected by German people, as were Hamas in the Palestinian terroritories.

Indeed as the fine american people elected George W bush whom is considered by many on the planet as the worlds greatest terrorist

Jonz , I will warn you once . feel free to critise the posts but do not make childish personal insults we have a Posting Policy if you wish to comment here you are welcome but abide by the comment rules of the site or you comments will be deleted

May 07, 2006 7:45 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, I do get worked up. I will try not to swear on your site etc.

fine american people elected George W bush whom is considered by many on the planet as the worlds greatest terrorist

I think you'll find these "many" are nearly all Socialists and Islamists. Which are you?

May 07, 2006 7:47 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That wasn't meant as a childish insult by the way. I'm talking factually.

May 07, 2006 7:51 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

They are simply non Americans in the main have you not seen the hatred expressed on all 5 continents , from south America to australia , from Africa to eastern Europe. GWB is seen as a very dangerous man , far more dangerous than Osama or Zarqawi

I am neither a socialist or an islamist ( I have no religion ) I have spent time in Iraq and palestine (during the recent conflicts)

You must try to remember (assuming that your an American) that almost every democratic government in the world is to the left of the US so from that perspective everyone probably would come across as 'socialist'

for example France has a centre right wing government which is often mistaken for being left wing by the American public( bloggers)

If you must put me in a box then I would say I am centre left , no more socialist than you are fascist.

PS feel free to swear as much as you want. it is merely the personal attacks that we do not allow

PPS I see you work in the UK are you a fellow brit ?

May 07, 2006 8:20 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes I am a fellow Brit. How do you feel about London turning blue? The conservatives now have control of 14 councils, labour 4, lib dems 3.

Well to be honest mate, the only people that go round saying that Bush is the world's number one terorist are those nutjobs from the Socialist Workers Party, and George Galloways lot.

He's not really a terrorist. You can see that can't you? He may be dumb, but he is not an evil man. How could someone evil keep going on about liberty and democracy?

I think your type of thinking as a sort of inverted morality. Your a bit like me I guess, you get angry at the world, and the way things are. It's just you have latched on to America and neo-cons as your enemy. Which I find utterly bizzare.

There's a lot of evil around in the world. And you won't find much in the country of America. Ignorance yes, but wilful evil, no, very little.

May 07, 2006 8:33 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry not inverted morality, thats the wrong phrase. Inverted rage at evil?!

May 07, 2006 8:38 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

. How do you feel about London turning blue?

I am not surprised , I would be what you would call a natural labour voter but I couldn't bring myself to vote for them but I still cant bring myself to like Cameron the chameleon . the increase in BNP support is worrying but again to be expected in the current climate

He's not really a terrorist. You can see that can't you? (bush)

Depends on your definition , if you use the pseudo right wing definition of terrorism that can not even be agreed upon by the united nations then I agree , however if you us the dictionary definition then there is no doubt that he is a terrorist of the highest order .

Lets take the American dictionary (Websters) it defines a terrorist as The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

So even the threat to remove saddam from Iraq was an act of terrorism (it was illegal under international law) If you start to look at the slaughter of innocents at fallujah or the use of depleted Uranium , the propping of of regimes like Uzbekistan , shock and awe , The disregard of the Geneva convention , gitmo , abu graab the military financing of Israel , the entire work of the CIA ..... etc etc then you could only possibly deny that he is a terrorist by denying the true meaning of the word.....

The United Nations can not agree on a definition for terrorism is for that very reason , the true definition of terrorism would clearly include the united states , as they say one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

french resistance during world war two ? ( terrorists or freedom fighters)
American war of independence from Britain ( terrorists or freedom fighters )

it all depends on which side of the fence you sit , I am quite sure the Nazis would have called the french resistance 'terrorists' and I am equally sure that many Iraqis view the Insurgents as freedom fighters...

I have written on this at length in the past so please forgive me if my answer is incomplete but having wrote entire articles on this site about this very subject I really don't want keep repeating old subjects.

I agree that he probably is not intentionally evil but such extreme nationalism as held by the Neo conservatives is dangerous ....

I certainly agree that Americans are not evil in fact I spend much time there and my dear wife was educated in the US, wonderful people , I do not judge a culture by its government.

And my opinion on the wrongs of American foriegn policy do not in any way reduce the evils of terorists like Al-qaeda ...

inverted evil .. well no .. double sided evil if you will

May 07, 2006 9:10 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

Oh btw on your point of George always going on about freedom and democracy .. see how you do yourself .. check out This

its never wise to take a leaders words at face value


May 07, 2006 9:42 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're infuriating. The Iraq war was not illegal. It's utter tosh. You will find however that Saddam defied 4 UN resolutions. But let's not facts get in the way of a good old anti-american rant.

Calling George Bush a terrorist of the highest order is utter, lunacy. I see you are silent on Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and all his rheotoric.

Well at least you've got your eye on the ball, you're watching the real enemies. The Americans!

Tell me, where do you get these notions from I wonder? Do you read The Independent by any chance?

Your favourite authors are Jonathan Pilger, Robert Fisk, and to an extent Noam Chomsky, right?

May 08, 2006 12:23 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Personally I think it's criminal that people like you supported Saddam's Baathist regime, who brutually oppressed his people. And completely, morally, and intellecutally bankrupt, in my opinion.

May 08, 2006 12:26 am  
Blogger _H_ said...

LOL . the war was illegal for it did not have UN security council authority , doubt me ? then watch the words come straight from the horses mouth Here (real player required) or if you don't have real player then try Here

still believe that the Iranian president wants Israel wiped off the map ?? That he denied the Holocaust ?? I am sure you do

do you speak Farsi ? I doubt you do so try reading the full translation of what the Iranian president said , Somehow I doubt you have come across the full translation it may surprise you

You seem to dishing out plenty of rhetoric but very little fact , You questioned my sources earlier and I provided , you question my definition of terrorism so I show you that mine matches the dictionary , now you question the Illegal invasion of Iraq and I show you the opinion of the head of the United Nations in regard to the violations you quote above...

plenty of rhetoric , any evidence to bring to the debate , or are we dealing with a debate between opinion and fact ?

Btw I never said I supported the sick regime of Saddam , thats desperate , you cant attack what I say so you assume what I think

Keep following the war pimps my friend , they will lead you to the promise land I am sure


May 08, 2006 12:44 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's right! Al-Jazeera is lying! He never denied the holocaust or said Israel should be wiped off the map! It's all neo-con conspiracy! Amd the Jews did 9/11!

You're an embarassment to logic.

May 08, 2006 7:22 am  
Blogger _H_ said...

Well it seems you have nothing but rheotric to provide. You have failed to answer a single question so again you attack what you assume not what I say..

oh well

May 08, 2006 1:23 pm  
Blogger DJEB said...

Porcupinetaxi said: "It seems to me that the fact that we have a war going on is the reason you have the right to plug your opinions on the internet."

_H_ said: "What kind of weird psuedo logic is that ?"

I say, _H_, have you literally lost your mind? Do you not remember that Britain had been living under the iron fist of dictatorial rule by Afghanistan and Iraq for the past 7815 years before this war of liberation [or something like that]?

Jon Nugent, as was accurately pointed out in 2002, the best chance for democratic change in Iran was crushed by bellicose U.S. rhetoric. This is simply a matter of public record. Furthermore, the goal in Iran is not to bring good government (not everone in the world chooses to ignore the fact that the U.S. actively worked at removing good government there) but containment of China. I am, of course, referring to the quest for "the greatest material prize in history."

MechWarrior4Christ, thank you. That was truly funny.

As for the rest, yawn. I'm not made of time. I have seed trays to plant...

May 08, 2006 3:06 pm  
Blogger Hype said...

it looks like jonz just about blew a gasket.

does jonz know about PNAC and has he/she been watching the news at all the past year? out of touch maybe? the chickenhawks don't have anything left to stand on. he needs to get with the new year. 2006 is the year liberals take the neo-cons to the dump where they belong.


May 08, 2006 5:11 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

7815 years !! .... showing your age Djeb :-) hope the seeds are settling in nicely

Hype .. I doubt Jonz has ever heard of the PNAC all the more amazing considering that he is a Brit and we dont get daily fiction from fox news etc over here

evidence that the propaganda machine reaches far and wide it seems

May 08, 2006 6:47 pm  
Blogger Hype said...

have you read about the religious right? i did some research and found out that the reason the world is moving to right (left for those on the other side) is because of the push from the religious folk. i read and forgive me for not providing a link, the religious right in America has funded the effort to do the same thing in Europe. We have a push back here in America from the liberal Christians. It seems the religious right crafted a plan to take over the majority of America's churches and are exporting that same method to Europe. That is very dangerous.


May 08, 2006 7:45 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

Yea I have been reading up on the effect of them over here . real scary . religion and politics should never mix . If there are any lessons to learn from Bush thats got to be high on the list

May 08, 2006 9:25 pm  
Blogger Hype said...

you would think people would learn from history. well if history was actually taught correctly in school, then maybe the average American might know more than the Disney version of history.

nope. we are doomed to repeat it. that is why i say the nazi comparisons are valid. if we cannot make the comparison until we have another nazi on our hands then we are not doing ourselves or the memory of the people any justice.


May 08, 2006 9:49 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

Orwell really would be turning in his grave...

May 08, 2006 9:57 pm  
Blogger rfdraper3 said...

Once again George W. Bush wants to send our soldiers into harms way. This man doesn't care about the American people. We have already had two wars lead by this man, and we don't need, nor can we afford another war. It is obviously in our best interest to implement various economic sanctions against Iran to force them to comply with our demands. Read my blog at

May 10, 2006 8:54 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You obviously have not learned the lessons of history, and those who fail to learn, repeat the mistakes of the past. The world is not a good, glorious place filled with lovely muslims and christians, it has much evil, and evil always wins against good natured, well-meaning people who are willing to "let live" and do nothing. Learn history, pay attention to your studies, and stop criticizing stuff you obviously failed to learn.

May 12, 2006 3:57 am  
Blogger _H_ said...

This is the lesson anonymous , the appeasers allowed Hitler to continue his reign of terror across the globe. We will not stand idle whilst the Neocons do the same thing..

Communication is a two way street my friend , there is much you can learn from us. Those that are willing to teach without listening do not really have much wisdom worthy of sustained analysis

Your patronizing tone based on your perception of my persona which your failing directly to assess is amusing but please do not assume you have the intelligence or the capacity to perceive the level of understanding or wisdom within my mind or that of my readers based on a 30 second look at a web site for such naivety would only make you look foolish, which ironically is exactly what you have just done

Why would you assume that your in any position to pass your wisdom on to me ? you simply sound like another appeaser, I can find hundreds of such people in the United States , they come here often


May 12, 2006 4:26 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home