[kyudowind]

While listening to today's Diane Rehm Show which discussed Nuclear Diplomacy (Iran, U.S.-India nuclear deal) (http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/03/13.php#10156) I heard something that I couldn't believe: one of the guests casually mentioned that some polls showed 60% of the public favoring military action.

My heart sank and I thought "Not again ..." and then immediately thought "Wait a minute ... Bush's numbers are sliding toward 30% ... Let me ..." So I pulled up PollingReport.com's numbers on Iran (http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm) and went ballistic:

CBS News Poll. Feb. 22-26, 2006. N=1,018 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Which comes closer to your opinion? Iran is a threat to the United States that requires military action now. Iran is a threat that can be contained with diplomacy now. OR, Iran is not a threat to the United States at this time."

2/22-26/06
Military Action Now: 20%
Diplomacy Now: 55%
Not a Threat: 19%
Unsure: 6%

... which is followed by similar results. I was livid at what I felt was the kind of casual, offhand propaganda I suffered through in the build-up to Iraq and wondered where that p***k (one of my nicer thoughts about this person) got the 60% from and read on:

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Jan. 24-25, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"IF DIPLOMACY FAILS, which of the following U.S. military actions would you support to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? Would you support [see below]?"(Screaming emphasis mine.)

"Using whatever military force is necessary"
1/24-25/06
Yes: 59%
No: 33%
Unsure: 8%

I am planning an Iran posting, working on getting my figures and citations together, but I felt that this had to be answered. I can't express how enraged I am at some of the things I'm hearing about this issue and this just took the cake.

I think I need a drink.

Cheers

[-V-]

yes, we have been there before. I still clearly remember the first mentions of Iraq while we were struggling with the Afghan situation. No one on either side took the notion seriously. But slowly, this administration, with the compliance of the media began to make the public more comfortable with the idea, or as they would say, the necessity.

that's how it begins, with a harmless little poll that plants the notion in people's heads.

[-V-]

the next polls in the series...

If diplomacy fails, should military action be used now to spread Democracy to the rest of the world?

Followed by:

If diplomacy fails, should military action be used now to spread Christianity to the rest of the world?

[sweetpea]

the next polls in the series...

If diplomacy fails, should military action be used now to spread Democracy to the rest of the world?

Followed by:

If diplomacy fails, should military action be used now to spread Christianity to the rest of the world?
-

How about IF diplomacy fails should we try to reach out to the leader in Iran and try to understand why they hate the West and Israel?

AND. If diplomacy fails should we try to understand their feelings as to why Isreal should no longer exist? Try to really understand what that really means?

[Jane of Arc]

How about the fact that the United States, under the guidance of the Bush Administration, is once again breaking the law. We are in violation of the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty by creating MORE nuclear weapons.

How about the fact that Iran and other nations of the world could legally charge the US with breaking international law.

How about the fact that Iran is breaking no laws and, as a sovereign state, it has the right to acquire nuclear energy.

How about the fact that Iran could sue the US in an international court for threats of war made by the Bush Administration, as well as hawkish Democrats like Hillary Clinton.

The hypocrisy and arrogance is mind blowing. While the Bush Administration is breaking the law by developing and building even more lethal and accurate nuclear killing devices, specifically to be used in smaller warfare, we try to stop a smaller country because they can't be trusted?

Shame.

[FDRfollower]

Instead of worrying about Iran going nuclear, worry about the US and Britain going POSTAL! :eek:

I've got the statement of the Russian Foreign Minister, and he's made statements to the effect that diplomacy is still taking place, and there is no rush. British and US press are lying their heads off. I'm glad you're all seeing through the propaganda.

click for Lavrovs statement (http://www.russianembassy.org.za/statements/text/mar06/lavrov-article.html) , keep an eye on the Russian foreign minister, he's trying to jam up a war.

[FDRfollower]

If any of you are having difficulty with rabid anti-muslim "christians", I've invited my friend Nicolas of Cusa back from the 15th Century to show the commonality amongst all the religions. :angel:

This is his "On the Peace of Faiths" from 1453 written in response to the panic after the fall of Constantinople. The entire paper is at this link - click (http://www.appstate.edu/~bondhl/BONDPEAC.HTM) -

Chapter Six

16. Here the Arab rose and answered: "Nothing clearer or truer can be said."

The Word: "But just as you, since you are lovers of wisdom, profess absolute wisdom, do you suppose that there are men vigorous in intellect who do not love wisdom?"

The Arab: "I certainly think that all men by nature desire wisdom, since wisdom is the life of the intellect, which cannot be preserved in its life by any other nourishment than the truth and the word of life or its intellectual bread, which is wisdom. For just as every existing thing desires all without which it cannot exist, so the intellectual life desires wisdom."

The Word: "Therefore, all human beings profess with you that there is one absolute wisdom whom they presuppose, and this is the one God."

The Arab: "This is so, and no one who is understanding can establish otherwise."

The Word: "Therefore, for all who are vigorous in intellect there is one religion and worship, which is presupposed in all the diversity of rites."

17. The Arab: "You are wisdom because you are the Word of God. However, I ask those who worship more than one god how they concur with the philosophers in the concept of one God? For at no time were the philosophers found to have felt other than the impossibility of there being several gods unless one superexalted God stood over them. He alone is the beginning from which the others have what they have in a much more exalted way than a monad is for numbers." (23)

The Word: "All who have ever worshiped more than one god presupposed there is divinity. For this they worship in all the gods as participating in it. For just as without whiteness existing there are no white things, so without divinity existing there are no gods. Therefore, the worship of gods acknowledges divinity. And whoever says there are many gods is saying that there is antecedently one source [principium] of all of them; just as whoever declares there are many saints admits that there is one saint of saints through whose participation all the others are saints. Never was there a people so dull as to believe in plural gods each of which would have been the first cause, source, or creator of the universe."

The Arab: "So I believe. That there is more than one source is a contradiction. For since the source [principium] cannot be caused [principiatum], for it would have been caused of itself and would have been before it was, which reason does not grasp, therefore, the source is eternal. And it is not possible for there to be more than one eternal, for before all plurality is unity. So the source and cause [principium et causa] of the universe necessarily will be one. Consequently, I have not found any nation which has turned aside from the path of truth in this."

18. The Word: "Therefore, the strife would be ended if all who worship more than one god would look at what they presuppose, namely, the Deity which is the cause of all things, and would, as reason itself dictates, take that deity as manifest into their religion, just as they worship it implicitly in all whom they call gods."

The Arab: "Perhaps this will not be difficult, but to remove the worship of gods would be a grave matter. For people certainly believe that help is given to them from worship and are inclined to these divine powers for their salvation."

The Word: "If people were informed about salvation in just the manner stated, they would seek salvation in him who gave being and is himself Savior and infinite salvation, rather than in those who of themselves have nothing except what is given by the Savior himself. Whenever people would take refuge with the gods (whom, because they lived in a godlike manner the opinion of all has held as holy) as if with an acceptable intercessor in some infirmity or other necessity of theirs, or if they would respectfully worship such an intercessor with the reverence [dulia] of veneration or keep his memory reverently because he is a friend of God and his life is to be imitated, then, provided doing either would give to the one and only God all the worship of divine adoration [latriae], it would not contradict the one religion and the people would be easily quieted." (24)

[FDRfollower]

I hope you don't mind me dragging in religion, considering some peoples opinions of the church. I think this is relevant though, considering who's trying to drag us into a religious war with Islam.

Statement by the Pope Benedict XVI.

"Judaism, Christianity and Islam, believe in the one God, Creator of heaven and earth. It follows, therefore, that all three monotheistic religions are called to cooperate with one another for the common good of humanity, serving the cause of justice and peace in the world. This is especially important today when particular attention must be given to teaching respect for God, for religions and their symbols, and for holy sites and places of worship. Religious leaders have a responsibility to work for reconciliation through genuine dialogue and acts of human solidarity."

If I didn't know better, you'd have thought he had read my earlier post. :cool: