Posted on 02/14/2006 2:04:46 AM PST by Tom D.
Better To Be Nuked Than To Bomb Iran?
One of the fascinating things about polls is that relatively minor changes in the way that a question is phrased or coming at an issue from a slightly different angle can cause wild shifts in the results.
For example, take a look at these results from a CNN / USA Today / Gallup poll of 1000 adults:
"Fifty-nine percent thought Iran would use nuclear weapons against the United States, and 80 percent thought the Iranians would hand them over to terrorists to use against the United States.
"More thought Iran would use the weapons against Israel -- 77 percent -- and about as many -- 81 percent -- thought Iran would give them to terrorists who wanted to use them against Israel.
"Sixty-eight percent of the respondents called for economic and diplomatic action to keep Iran away from atomic weapons, while only 9 percent called for military action.
"Even if diplomacy were to fail, only 36 percent of those who responded to the survey thought military action would be called for, while 45 percent said it would not."
So let's see if we have this straight: 80% of the people polled think Iran will give terrorists nukes to use against the United States, but only 36% say they would support military action against Iran even if diplomacy failed?
That means we have what, probably 44%, who think Iran getting nukes would probably lead to let's say New York and Chicago disappearing under a mushroom cloud, but they still wouldn't support bombing Iran? Doesn't that seem more than a little bizarre? Surely there can't be that many Noam Chomsky hate America types out there who think America deserves to be nuked, right? Right.
What probably happened is that you had people who see Iran as a threat, but then, when they're asked about military action, they figure we have our hands full in Iraq and rule out a military strike on that basis, without thinking things all the way through (Sure, Iran could cause trouble for us in Iraq, but is that really worse than them handing over nuclear weapons to terrorists to use against us?)
In any case, since either the US or Israel will likely end up bombing Iran, and relatively soon, within a few months to let's say 18 months out, it's good that the Bush administration has started to beat the war drums a little louder lately. The fact that they haven't gotten too overt about it yet probably either means that nothing is coming up in the next few months or that Israel will be making the strike, but it's too early to tell yet. Whatever the case may be, it's not too early to start preparing the American people what may turn out to be an inevitable bombing run that will have some very serious repercussions.
At first I thought the title was: Better To Be Naked Than To Bomb Iran? LOL
But seriously, the real overlap seems to be about 25%. That's 45% who said military action would not be called for minus the 20% who don't think Iran would give the nukes to terrorists anyhow, that leaves 25% who think Iran would give the nukes but don't think that calls for military action if diplomacy fails.
In other words, I don't think you can count the undecideds. There's no way to know what exactly they're thinking.
If Ahmajihadding shows that he has got a bomb and continues to rant about setting it off in some other country, opinions could grow significantly less warm and fuzzy.
If he get the portabella they'll be a lot more warm but a lot less fuzzy ;)
Having said that, I have no doubt that we would finally go to a 'war footing' should any nuclear attack occur. All of our government support institutions would be severely impacted by a massive re-direction of resources by the POTUS. Which is as it should be.
The saying 'change before you have to' comes to mind.
BUMP
I'll wager that 80% of the people surveyed couldn't find Iran on a map if their life depended on it.
Most probably thought the surveyer was talking about Iraq.
As I always say to people about poles, I could put together a 10 question pole worded such that 95% of the respondents would say Hitler was a great and caring leader.
Gosh....f this f that.....see what happens when you spend too much time trolling DU? Toxic!
Would that be a 'rant'? :^D
Can't we do both?
Not really. This is NY and Chacago we;re talking about. Throw in Philly and LA and see what happens!
(JUST KIDDING...)
Tone down the swearing a little bit, but you hit the nail right on the head with this one.....welcome to free republic
BOOM! wow- but how do you really feel about it? lol
Good post.
I think our leaders should adopt a pro- Islamic policy, but only in the Dep. of Defense. Rumsfeld should start making military decisions according to Islamic morals and practices. It would be a quick way to satisfy the PC crowd and ram some considerable violence down our enemy's throat at the same time. This war would be over on 20 minutes, and OUR oil rigs in the region formerly known as the Middle East would only have to drill through about 2 feet of obsidian...
That means we have what, probably 44%, who think Iran getting nukes would probably lead to let's say New York and Chicago disappearing under a mushroom cloud, but they still wouldn't support bombing Iran?
What's surprising about this? 44% of people don't want a draft for their children, don't want to give up their gas guzzler, don't understand sacrifice for their country and don't have a clue that there is a world beyond the east and west coasts....I.E. democrats.
But they did post this tidbit:
Even if diplomacy were to fail, only 36 percent of those who responded to the survey thought military action would be called for, while 45 percent said it would not. Respondents also put little faith in the United Nations, with 51 percent saying they were not confident that the international community could handle Iran.
"Called for?" It sounds as though the question might have been something on the line of "Do you think the US will use military action against Iran?" Given the endless empty "negotiations" by Euro proxy with the Iranians, it would be logical that most Americans "put little faith" in the expectation we will do anything militarily to stop Iran.
Furthermore, the fact that the majority of the respondents have no faith in the UN, indicates that the respondents were not moonbats.
Anyone who takes these so-called "surveys" -- and the "creative" conclusions of the MSM -- at face value is at best gullible.
Oddly, they're also likely to be in the richest part of the demographic into the bargain. Yet another bad fruit of having a partisan press in place of the mainstream is that this connection never gets made. I find it determinative and find the MSM determined to prevent anyone ever realizing it.
Sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.