Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Post-ABC poll: few partisan fissures on Iran nukes

Americans overwhelmingly see Iran's nuclear program as geared toward the development of atomic weaponry, and more than eight in 10 support direct diplomatic talks to try to resolve the situation, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

As negotiators from the United States, France and Russia meet with Iran starting today in Vienna, public opinion in the U.S. is decidedly behind one possible outcome should the talks fail: 78 percent in the new poll support international economic sanctions against Iran to try to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.

There's less, though still sizable backing for military engagement, with 42 percent of Americans supporting the bombing of Iran's nuclear development sites and 33 percent advocating invading the country with U.S. ground forces (54 and 62 percent, respectively, oppose these actions).

Three in 10 support direct financial incentives such as aid money or more trade; two-thirds of Americans oppose these potential inducements.

Public reviews of how President Obama is handling the situation with Iran have changed little since the spring and summer: 52 percent of Americans now approve of how he is doing in this area, 39 percent disapprove. About seven in 10 Democrats approve of how the president is dealing with Iran, while a similar proportion of Republicans give him low marks here. Independents split 51 percent positive, 41 percent negative.

Partisanship is, however, less apparent in terms of possible policy options. Democrats are somewhat more apt to favor financial incentives to try to stave off the Iranian nuclear program, and Republicans are more likely to back military action, but the differences are minor.

Ideology proves a sharper divide here, with liberals staunchly opposed to military action and conservatives more apt to favor engagement. By contrast, conservatives sharply oppose financial incentives while liberals are about evenly split on the question. But one point of agreement emerges: broad majorities on both ends of the ideological spectrum back economic sanctions to discourage Iran's development of nuclear weapons.

Q. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling the situation with Iran?

             -- Approve ---   - Disapprove -
             NET   Strongly   NET   Strongly
All          52       24      39       27

Democrat     71       40      22       13
Republican   18        4      69       49
Independent  51       20      41       30

Liberal      78       45      17       11
Moderate     51       23      43       32
Conservative 40       12      48       33

Q. To try to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, would you support or oppose...

Direct diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran to try to resolve the situation

             Support   Oppose   No op.
All            82        18       1

Democrat       84        15       1
Republican     78        21       1
Independent    82        17       1

Liberal        86        14       0
Moderate       83        16       1
Conservative   79        20       *

Imposing international economic sanctions against Iran

             Support   Oppose   No op.
All            78        18       4

Democrat       78        19       3
Republican     85        14       1
Independent    76        19       5

Liberal        72        28       1
Moderate       77        19       4
Conservative   84        12       4

The United States bombing Iran's nuclear development sites

             Support   Oppose   No op.
All            42        54       4

Democrat       38        57       5
Republican     49        49       1
Independent    42        54       4

Liberal        24        74       3
Moderate       40        58       3
Conservative   56        38       6

Invading with U.S. forces to remove the Iranian government from power

             Support   Oppose   No op.
All            33        62       4

Democrat       32        63       5
Republican     40        57       3
Independent    30        65       5

Liberal        22        76       2
Moderate       30        65       5
Conservative   44        51       5

Offering Iran financial incentives such as aid money, or more trade, if it abandons any effort to develop nuclear weapons

             Support   Oppose   No op.
All            30        67       2

Democrat       38        57       5
Republican     28        69       3
Independent    25        75       0

Liberal        47        50       3
Moderate       31        68       1
Conservative   22        75       2

By Jon Cohen  |  October 19, 2009; 12:00 PM ET
Categories:  Post Polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: New WaPo Va Gov poll: The Crosstabs
Next: Balancing the government's role on health care

Comments

Of course, there is still no objective evidence of any "nukes" or nuclear weapons programs in Iran, and the public opinion on that matter is shaped by our media's insistence on portraying Iran as seeking nuclear weapons anyway. The same public opinion was also certain that Iraq had WMDS, and that too was the result of our media's parroting of official government propaganda. How many of the same responds knew that IRan has repeatedly offered to open its nuclear programs to US participation as a guarantee that they won't make nuclear weapons? None, because our media downplays and ignores that fact in favor of scaremongering.

Posted by: hassani1387 | October 19, 2009 12:15 PM | Report abuse

These polls pretty show the success of brainwashing by the media. The notion that the public that often cannot state the names of their own representative in the U.S. Congress and the Senate is suddenly capable of making thoughtful foreign policy decisions is ludicrous. Those who cite these polls in support of a policy position are just engaging in demogogary.

Posted by: kevin1231 | October 19, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse

You people DO understand that the committed fanatic Muslim WILL NOT compromise his principles and WILL lie in your face - DON'T YOU?__But, Hilary is out there though looking for the iranians to negotiate with.__That's right, that's iranians with a little 'r'.

Posted by: zickzack | October 19, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Americans were overwhelming supportive of going to war with Iraq because of its WMD and its ties to al-Qaida. Doesn't say much for American intelligence does it?

Posted by: alysheba_3 | October 19, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Apparently the Zionist's propaganda campaign has been very effective as the vast majority of both parties have been misled by it.
Of course most Americans still believe Israel is our ally despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Posted by: brattykathyi1 | October 19, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

For regional stability throughout the entire Middle East it is firstly absolutely essential the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, with IAEA inspections, be standard for the entire region. Israel, to date, with its nuclear capability has refused to sign the NPT or allow inspections. What is good for the goose is equally good for the gander. Secondly, it is equally 'absolutely essential' the debacle created by the demise of the British Palestinian Mandate and the 1920 Treaty of Sevres which guaranteed full equal rights for all Palestinians regardless of ethnic origin, religious or cultural heritage, or racial identity under democratic principles must be the standard for that territory. The UN must establish a war crimes tribunal there to examine and bring to justice all instances of war crimes or violations of international standards regarding human rights. Those two issues are critically essential to regional stability in the Middle East.

Posted by: IowaLad | October 19, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Don't you think Iran has a right to defend its sovreignty?
Afterall it is surrounded by nuclear nation, suurounded on both sides by the US, and continously threatened by the US and Israel with military action.

What would you do? Pull your pants down and bend over?

Posted by: smokberry2002@yahoo.com | October 19, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

And the CIA was completely caught off guard by the development of Nuke Bombs in Pakistan, completely.__This is confirmed by the incompetent information it had about the non-existent Iraqi bomb.__Off-the-radical Islamists in Iran are soon to have the bomb thanks to Paky's secret help.__The proof if the irrationality is that, IF THEY ACTUALLY USE THEIR NUKES ON ISRAEL, the radioactive cloud will drift over Iran IRRADIATING THE POPULATION to a crisp.

Posted by: zickzack | October 19, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

How many people were interviewed, when, by phone or in person, and what's the margin of error?
Thanks!

Posted by: kampeas | October 19, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

And the CIA was completely caught off guard by the development of Nuke Bombs in Pakistan, completely.__This is confirmed by the incompetent information it had about the non-existent Iraqi bomb.__Off-the-charts radical Islamists in Iran are soon to have the bomb thanks to Paky's secret help.__The proof if the irrationality is that, IF THEY ACTUALLY USE THEIR NUKES ON ISRAEL, the radioactive cloud will drift over Iran IRRADIATING THE POPULATION to a crisp.

Posted by: zickzack | October 19, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

It is encouraging that so many people are waking up and no longer believe the mainstream media lies about Iran. Hopefully this trend will continue and it is not the Iranians that are the enemy, it is the NYT and the WP and the Government and the FED, these are our mortal enemies who have been lying to us and robbing us blind for decades.

Posted by: stanlippmann | October 19, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

When is this Administration going to wake up ? First they try to tell us that Russia believes in sanctions when we knew they didnt - now Obama has to admit the truth about that. Keep appeasing these radical fanatics and we will end up in WWIII.

Posted by: JUNGLEJIM123 | October 19, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Someone Wrote: "Don't you think Iran has a right to defend its sovreignty?"


Get a hold of Adjaxxxxhads speeches. I heard on on C-Span.
The speech was not about the defense of Iran. It was about the destruction of both the United States and (to some of you less popular) Israel.

He spoke of offense and not defense. Listen yourself.

Posted by: jato11 | October 19, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

The underlying concern with Iran engaging in nuclear weapons development has little to do with the Iranian goverment possesing a functional nuclear arsenal. As with any nation which contains a overwhelming majority of Islamic extremists, the concern is the sale of said technology and/or weapons grade nuclear material to the highest bidder. For the last two decades, the United States has fought tenaciously to bottle up the abhorrently pourous Russian nuclear security infrastructure. No sense shooting more holes in the global nuclear security blanket we have fought so hard to weave and patch.

Posted by: jtdelaney | October 19, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

There was similar fear of Pakistan having a nuclear weapon in 1998, and that area may be less stable than Iran. The US did not invade; it deplored the actions and put on economic sanctions. No military invasion, here we are, with no smoking gun, and no mushroom cloud. Seems like war is premature at this point.

Posted by: RRoodho | October 19, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

When the bomb drops on a think tank we'll know what Iran has been up to. Until then we'll rely on a 2006 report. But this whole situation puts the WMD issue in a new light. Attacking Iran means attacking China and Russia. Iraq was not a friend of either dictatorship. Once more our interests are solely aligned with oil interests at home and abroad. Don't begin to complain about Mosad when it comes to intelligence gathering. All the Pro Palestinian friends of Iran are loathe to admit that the Palestinians get most of their aid from Iran whether Hezbollah, Hamas or the PA. Israel is small but it is still a deterrent in the ME viz Iran. It's a joke or much worse to claim it is Israel's sheer existence that causes friction with the Persians and Saudis. It is the Arabs who insist their nations are open and democratic. But when was the last time you saw an Arab country help the US without being paid. The practically paltry 3 billion a year the Israelis receive was forced on them by Bush. They have nothing to do with the Iranian dreams of conquering the US. And when the US State Department is opened we will see all the Arab connections that go back to pre-WW2 hawking us into containment. There is no payoff worth sacrifice when it comes to our nation, our troops, our families. Don't get goaded by Saudi Arabia and Iran. They are not our allies. They are greedy murdering foes.

Posted by: KraftPaper | October 19, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

With a wimp for a president, the US should just shut up and leave it to the Europeans to deal with the situation, as Iran knows perfectly well that if President Wimp Obama says anything, they can easily ignore it and go on with life. Russia said get out of Poland, Czech Republic, and Korea, and Obama said: Yes, massa, right away. And so it was.

Posted by: Incredulous52 | October 19, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse

If we could just get the mullahs, imams, and Revolutionary Guards to watch a few speeches from the Obama, I am certain they will fall under his spell and do as he wants.

Posted by: Tupac_Goldstein | October 19, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Anytime the word "Democratic" is shortened to "Democrat", when referring to the Democratic Party, I sense right-wing spin.
The authors of this poll could have phrased the political affiliation thing a little bit better. It's the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party, thank you.

As for the data itself, it proves that War Lobby propaganda has been effective across the political spectrum. No surprise there.

Posted by: new_york_loner | October 19, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

"Americans overwhelmingly see Iran's nuclear program as geared toward the development of atomic weaponry"
----

... Except President Obama who thinks that cheap talk will stop Iran's development. Just wait until Iran has Nuclear Warheads tipped on missiles that can reach Israel, France, Germany, London, The US 5th Fleet HQ in the Persian Gulf, etc...

America should be making plans to invade Iran from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by: AlbyVA | October 19, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

With their oil money, if Iran wants nuclear weapons, they will get nuclear weapons. It may take time and clean nuclear material, but eventually it will happen. From Iran's viewpoint, nukes give them protection from a George Bush type attack.

So what? Will the world be any more dangerous than it is with that model of stability, Pakistan, having nukes?

The U.S. policy should be that if any of those small nuclear powers allow the use of their weapons other than in a last-chance defensive action, they will disappear under multiple mushroom shaped clouds.

Posted by: ad9inaz | October 19, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

"with 42 percent of Americans supporting the bombing of Iran's nuclear development sites and 33 percent advocating invading the country with U.S. ground forces (54 and 62 percent, respectively, oppose these actions)."

Then perhaps Iran ought to pull out all stops and get themselves nukes post haste.

Look what happened when Saddam Hussein didn't have the deterents he was being attacked for having.

I guess if the Iranians can be scared enough by the mindless beligerence of the US body politic whipped into moronic blood braying then they might do something overt, like try to defend themselves, and then the bloodthirsty US will have its pretext.

A nuclear development program is not necessarily a nuclear weapons program. And nuclear weapons, whilst excellent deterents, are absolutely lousy weapons of defense because they can be traced back to the point of manufacture. And a missile delivered nuke leaves a return to sender trail across the sky that would appear on the satelite observation of multiple other nations.

Posted by: BrettPaatsch1 | October 19, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"lousy weapons of defense" should read "lousy weapons of aggression or conquest" - because of the radiation.

Posted by: BrettPaatsch1 | October 19, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

When you have no will, and you have given up the leverage that Russia could have provided, will now prove futile. It will also allow Iran to continue apace the development of its nuclear weapons.

Obama gave up a powerful element when he backed off the Europe based missile shield without concessions from Putin.

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2009/09/obamas-blunder-on-iran.html

Posted by: JamesRaider | October 19, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

It strikes me as strange that none of Iran's neighbors are overly worried about a nuclear Iran but the US thats 10,000 miles away is.
Why is that? I have a theory that I would like to share with all of you.
In the past 50 years The US has overthrown a democratically elected government in Iran. It has actively encouraged Iraq to attack Iran and provided the poison gas to get the job done. So you see the US is acting out of parnoia and guilt. Here is the US thinking. We have screwed this country in so many ways and for so many years. Why is it that they don't try to get back at us?

Well, now we have a young and beautiful population in Iran that are very educated and possibly the only group in the MW that doesn't hate the Americans.

Makes you wonder, how nobel can these Persians be. As an Iranian American I can tell you that the Persians are the noblest and most cultivated people you will ever meet.

No the Persians will not go on a rampage. They are an ancient country of the highest civilization.

Worry about yourselves and Israel, two countries that just can't stop making war and killing people. Realigh the industry so you dont have to kill out of economic necessity.

Posted by: smokberry2002@yahoo.com | October 19, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"42 percent of Americans supporting the bombing of Iran's nuclear development sites and 33 percent advocating invading the country with U.S. ground forces (54 and 62 percent, respectively, oppose these actions)."

In another survey, it was learned that 42% of America engages in seriously self-destructive health habits and secretly nurtures a death wish.

Seriously, this two-fifths of America who didn't get enough of pointless war during the Iraq debacle is what? The Bush base plus those schizophrenics who lost their prescription drug coverage during the recession? Please break this down for us, because it is astounding that so many Americans want to help the conservative hard liners in Iran rally the moderates behind them against The Great Satan U.S.

Why do these fools want Iran to become MORE interested in developing a nuclear weapon? Oh, I just figured it out. That's the percentage who pollute their minds with FauxNews. I withdraw my question.

Posted by: B2O2 | October 19, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

The poll reports that "42 percent of Americans supporting the bombing of Iran's nuclear development sites and 33 percent advocating invading the country with U.S. ground forces."

A big quotient of Americans have been fooled into thinking that a few bombs will make things peachy or that Iranians will dance in the streets when foreign troops arrive. They don't seem to know or care about any downsides to the high likely of failure of either measure. However, can one blame them if most of their "pundits" and opinion leaders seem similarly clueless.

Israelis, on the other hand, can't be any where near as stupid. Despite what is alleged, that country will almost certainly not pull off a durned fool bomb attack, triggering a regional war, skyrocketing gas prices, a Chinese reprisal, fortify Iranian support of its regime, and still fail to stop Iran's programs.

Posted by: jkoch2 | October 19, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

One can only hope that hundreds of thousands of Persians and Muslims could perish with a nuclear war. Hee!

Posted by: tjhall1 | October 19, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Many Americans judge a foreign situation with little current and historical knowledge of all sides of it. It's a huge bias that begins and ends at this country's borders. All that great civil liberty and fairness that American's are proud of ends there. The problem starts with the very biased and one-sided reporting by the American media.

Posted by: LifeBeforePrinciple | October 19, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

If only we could poll Iranian leaders and have them answer truthfully.

Posted by: bizarrojack | October 19, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

It is too bad that the USA insists that Iran fully implement UN Security Council Resolutions but let's Israel slid on UN SCR 242, human rights (the right of Arabs to live within the borders of Israel on their own land without being abused), and 60 years of ethnic cleansing. Israel makes the KKK look like school girls.

Posted by: harrisonppicot | October 19, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

I mean I wish we could be sure that they are answering truthfully.

Posted by: bizarrojack | October 19, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

jato11, repeating the AIPAC spin on Iran's rhetoric:

"Get a hold of Adjaxxxxhads speeches. I heard on on C-Span.
The speech was not about the defense of Iran. It was about the destruction of both the United States and (to some of you less popular) Israel."


I wonder if you are aware that that's blatantly untrue. The translation that's been oft-repeated was actually an hysterical translation of what he said. He was saying the regime in Jerusalem had to fall. Sort of like what our "bloodthirsty lunatic" American presidents were saying about Baghdad for years.

But whatever lies help you mislead the American people, as they did during the runup to Iraq, you just help yourself. Because you cannot help yourself.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html

"Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time."

Posted by: B2O2 | October 19, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Letting Iran have their nuclear weapon is the best of all worlds. It will stabilize the Middle East and bring pressure to bear on Israel to resolve the displaced Palestinian's homeland question.

Posted by: Maddogg | October 19, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Someone Wrote: "Don't you think Iran has a right to defend its sovreignty?"
-----------------------------------
Get a hold of Adjaxxxxhads speeches. I heard on on C-Span.
The speech was not about the defense of Iran. It was about the destruction of both the United States and (to some of you less popular) Israel.
He spoke of offense and not defense. Listen yourself.
-------------------------------------------
And U.S politicians talk about attacking Iran. They speak of offense.

Nixon sent nukes to Israel without any global discussion and created the arms imbalance in the Mideast. Now it Iran's fault for trying to keep up. How about solving the problem by de-nuking Israel?

Posted by: LifeBeforePrinciple | October 19, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Yay Amerikins!

Y'all go ahead and attack pre-emptively, and then we'll find out if they've got them scary things we think they got.

We've got 'em, lots of them nukuler weapons, but we're a democracy, or a republiocracy, or a plutocracy or sumthin like that!

ANd God is on dollar bill, not theres!


Posted by: lichtme | October 19, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

These opinions are virtually meaningless considering American's lack of education and willingness to believe anything that is congruous with their fears.

Posted by: AustininDC | October 19, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Iran as the preminent country of the ME should rightfully take center stage. A nuclear Iran will bring stability to the ME.
Israel will think twice before stealing.
The Cheney types will stop drawing maps of oilfields and make Return on Investment calculations.

Then finally there will be peace in the ME.
Think about it. No one drinks oil, they all sell it on the open market. We can bid like any other country on the open market.

Posted by: smokberry2002@yahoo.com | October 19, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

There are some indications of what the Iranian nuclear program is about that any technically inclined person can understand.

The two heavy water reactors the Iranians are building are not designed to make any electricity but will if operated produce about 20 kg of plutonium a year.

The Shihab-3 missile has three independently targeted warheads which, if loaded with conventional explosives, would not even be big enough to destroy a large building. It would cause far less damage than its own cost.

All this, together with facilities in deep underground tunnels, indicates that this is not about electricity.

Posted by: anofech | October 19, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Why Americans overwhelmingly see Iran's nuclear program as geared toward the development of atomic weaponry? It's simple, Rupert Murdock.

Posted by: bjk113 | October 19, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse

All the banter is well and good until the Iranians wanna make a quick buck and sell their fissile nuclear material and experience to the highest bidder that may have less altruistic motives. At that point the rhetoric and world peace speeches are moot.

Posted by: jtdelaney | October 19, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Israel should not wait to act against Iran.Obama is afraid to act and I'm afraid Iran will turn Israel into a parking lot. There intentions are very clear.

Posted by: buzzychief | October 19, 2009 2:19 PM | Report abuse

You people DO understand that the committed fanatic Muslim WILL NOT compromise his principles and WILL lie in your face - DON'T YOU
-------------
Why, no.

We're as dumb as we look.

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | October 19, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

All the banter is well and good until the Iranians wanna make a quick buck and sell their fissile nuclear material and experience to the highest bidder that may have less altruistic motives. At that point the rhetoric and world peace speeches are moot.

Posted by: jtdelaney | October 19, 2009 2:15 PM
*******************************************
They do not the same tradition as we do to try to make a buck from everything including healthcare, lol.

Posted by: smokberry2002@yahoo.com | October 19, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

This poll is rigged to show phony support for a war the American people would not want if they understood how the Obama administration and neocon rags like WAPO are making false assertions to demonize Iran like Bush/Cheney did with Iraq. The US govt and the mass media like WAPO and NYT are on a crusade with Israel to take out the last nation in the Middle East to resist Anglo-American-Israeli imperial hegemony.

Posted by: rickycook21 | October 19, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Only one country on the planet has been accused of committing war crimes in 2009. Which country is it? I bet 97% Americans will get this poll wrong.

Posted by: August30 | October 19, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Remember: We have a War Economy and a Military-Industrial-Complex that thrives on it. We need adversaries and threats, real or percieved to manufacture the consent of the people for "War"

Iran is a convenient enemy just like Saddam was to povide pretext for military invasion. Iran has a fundamental government, a semi-belligerent president and all the ingredients to look "scary"

Iran on the other hand does not pose any real military threat to us. Not only they do not have a nuceeeelar weapon, but even having it would not give them any real advantage. We have many times more and it would be immediate suicide fr them to use it and no motives. They don't hate Israel enough to warrant their own complete demise. It is convenient propaganda to claim "apochalyptic ideology" but nobody with normal, non-right-wing-infested brain cells would make foreign policy based on Israel/AIPAC stories. They had great stories to get us into war in Iraq (remember WMD, mobile launchers? they swore)

Iran is a geoploitical issue for US and allies if they want to continue hegemonic policies. We need sanctions to keep their economy down and prevent a surging China-Russia-Iran alliance. It has nothing to do with radical Islam folks, don't drink this koolaid again!!!!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | October 19, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Only one country on the planet has been accused of committing war crimes in 2009. Which country is it? I bet 97% Americans will get this poll wrong.

Posted by: August30 | October 19, 2009 2:22 PM
*******************************************let me guess, is it those islamofacist hitler-stalin, freedom not loving, jealous them thar eyrabs?

Posted by: smokberry2002@yahoo.com | October 19, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

jato11: I did listen to and read Ahmadinjad's speeches. But evidently, I heard and read accurate translations. He did not say Iran would obliterate Israel, the way candidate Hillary said she'd obliterate Iran. He said Israel would wither away by itself. Big difference.

But Ariel Sharon did say that 9/11 was good for Israel.

Incredulous52: At least we don't a draft-dodging AWOL deserter as President any more, one who is conned by whatever slick lobbyist AIPAC sends over, one who thinks he has a direct line to some god to get orders to start WW III.

tjhall1: add Israelis to your list. Shalom!

jtdelaney: Sell military technology? You mean the way Israel sold ours to Communist China? And then said, so sorry, it was an accident like their attack on the USS Liberty.

Iran with nukes would help the peace process by putting fear into Israel. Israel spits in our faces because it has total military superiority, including the world's 3rd largest stockpile of nukes (aside from its 5th column lobbyists who put Israel's interests ahead of ours). If Iran gets a few hundred nukes, or however many are needed to neuter Israel's arsenal, Israel will feel weakened. Only then will it negotiate for real.

Posted by: Garak | October 19, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

The sad truth is that a moderate Iran, a moderate Israel and a changed US can be good friends. There is so much to develop i nthe region and so much mutual interest for these parties if they could put aside centuries old grievances!!

Israel will not have enough security or prosperity with so many enemies around it, regardless if they hold onto a little West Bank or a little Golan Heights. If they have peace, entire middle Est will become their buffer. For Iranians and the Palestinians whom they support, peace will a lot more tolerable after decades pf despair.

Add in Israeli Research and Technology, Iranian Oil, Natural Gas and their thirst for development, you have centuries of capitalist heaven!! and US will be right there, wrestling the advantage from Russia and China (or at least share it)

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | October 19, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

No surprise here. We have been bombarded with the idea that Iran is building atomic weapons just as we were told that Iraq was full of weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps the media should stand back and see just what they have accomplished in trying to generate news.

Posted by: jannwood | October 19, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

So, the real question is what to do about it.

Ask folks, for instance, if they favor bombing Iran's nuclear facilties.

Then ask them whether or not they favor bombing Iran's nuclear facilities if that would lead to $400 a barrel oil.

C'mon.

We need some grown up discussion of consequences -- both intended and NOT intended.

Posted by: ram9478 | October 19, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Poll numbers: Look who did the poll, one of the biggest Obama supporters. What did you expect. HA HA

So many people kept talking about FOX News some time ago & as they continue to do, so I turned to FOX NEWS to see what the fuss was about. I was never so surprised, I did not realize that one station could present 2 sides of a story so well, they have Democrats as well as Republicans to give their opinion of the topic. What a refreshing way to do the news!

I still listen to all the major stations ABC, NBC, CBS, CNBC, & Fox, but ABC, NBC, CBS, & CNBC are so far up the waayzoo of OBAMA that its so sickning that even this die hard Democrat is Appalled

Posted by: wildfire1946 | October 19, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Yes - Jannwood!

Posted by: ssena1 | October 19, 2009 3:13 PM | Report abuse

You CAN fool all of the people some of the time.

Posted by: KPinSEA | October 19, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Don't you think Iran has a right to defend its sovreignty?

==========================

they have the right to do whatever they believe is in their best interest...same as us...

you liberals think Bush was a fanatic...dudes...the president of Iran literally said he wants to nuke another country...and you allowing him the means to do it is okay?

Posted by: ram_xxx_ram | October 19, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

B2O2 wrote:

"Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time."
=========================

From the New York Times

All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran's most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say "wipe off" or "wipe away" is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html


More Ahmadinejad quotes:

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

"Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations."

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

"If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d' tre, Israel will be annihilated."

"Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed."

"Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."

Posted by: johnnyboston | October 19, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Quotes from Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, father of the Iranian revolution.


“If one permits an infidel to continue in his role as a corrupter of the earth, his moral suffering will be all the worse. If one kills the infidel, and this stops him from perpetrating his misdeeds, his death will be a blessing to him.”


“The author of the Satanic Verses book, which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Koran, and all those involved in its publication who were aware of its content, are sentenced to death. I ask all Moslems to execute them wherever they find them.”

Ayatollah Khomeini


Imagine these people with nuclear weapons. Ouch!

Posted by: johnnyboston | October 19, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Are any of you convinced that IRAN would do the stupidist thing on the face of the earth and deliberately cause the obliteration of their own country?

I thought Reagan and BUSHIE 1 and BUSHIE2 all spent a gazillion dollars to make defense systems that would NOT ALLOW NUKES to head into the US.

IF NOT I WANT MY MONEY BACK and BUSHIE 1 and BUSHIE 2 to be charged with treason, misappropriation of funds and STUPIDITY ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CALL OF DUTY.

Iran launches and they die

Posted by: kare1 | October 19, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

What interesting poll numbers. Question: Of the people polled, how many were Jewish? I ask this because of the logic of the situation. Iran does not have ANY nukes but the US is worried sick that they might get some. The North Koreans, however, DO have nukes, but we couldn't seem to care less. Why is that? A clue might be to note how the first thing the people who want to clobber Iran point out is that "Iran has threatened Israel". So, we are more concerned with a non-nuclear power that threatens Israel, than with a nuclear power that threatens South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Alaska... Why is that?

Posted by: whizkidz1 | October 19, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Cohen,

Does this overwhelming majority of Americans support israel's formidable nuclear arsenal of several hundred nuclear war heads? and considering that it is maiantained by US taxpayers' money.

This skewed Poll is due to the smear meida campagin agianst Iran.

To be balanced and objective, The poll should ask if this "overwhelming majority" supports israel's nuclear arsenal.

Posted by: asizk | October 19, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Did we run the same POLL on the Zionists nuclear weapons, although they have 200+ A-bombs already?

No One here in the US is even considering Iran's infantile nuclear technology as a threat (other than the Neo-Cons and the Zionists, for a few reasons. Iran needs US for its development and always has given us a chance to improve relationship with it, even during the Bush administration. Iran sees US as his natural partner due to many historical connections and values. Russian will never be able to replace US culturally or economically and Russia will always remain Iran's worse enemy and they know it.

Posted by: Esther_Haman | October 19, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

TALKING IN ALL CAPS DOES NOT MAKE YOU MORE PERSUASIVE. Just thought I'd point that out. Furthermore, some of these comments are simply absurd. After the Iraq debacle, it is understandable that when the Bush administration pointed the finger at Iran, people were skeptical. Now, when Obama says the same thing, is it surprising that people are ready to listen? After all, this is the guy that the nation chose to be the antithesis to Bush, and yet he still believes that Iran's motives are not pure. Who exactly are you willing to believe? If the answer is no one, I find it odd that you're so adamant about your disbelief. Who are you adopting these opinions from, and why do you trust them, if you're unwilling to trust either administration, despite their ideological differences?

Posted by: terribleT | October 19, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I don't know where the samples were taken (deep south and/or NY & Florida saturated by Israeli lover Jews and Evangelicals), but everyone around me (Dem or Republican; liberal or conservative) is against going to war with Iran for the sake of Israel!

Posted by: 1humanity | October 19, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

How completely ridiculous! What does it mean? U.S. public opinion and Irans public opinion against AN? I tell you: if you take pubvlic opinion as a measure a lot would change. First of all German troops would leave Afghanistan as fast as possible, some days, a week or so. Israel would let Gaza and the Westbank alone, take away the settlers etc. Not to mention that Hamas did win the elections. I think I get it: Obama speaks of the poll and asks the Iranians to comply with the nice wishes of his people, how sweet!!

Posted by: uzs106 | October 19, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

A nuclear Iran will surely bring the desperately needed stability to entire ME region on the basis of MAD-mutually assured destruction- which proved effective during fifty years of Cold War:by checking israel's hegemony, belligerency, aggression and cancerous occupation and oppression of the Palestinian People.

Iran is not occupying any one's land and was not the one that overthrew the democratically elected government of US in 1953 !! Does that ring a bell?

Posted by: asizk | October 19, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

US VOTED AGAINST GOLDSTONE REPORT SHOWS OFF ITS DOUBLE STANDARDS SOFT ON ISRAEL DECEITFULNESS ON PALESTINIANS HARD ON IRAN. THE WORLD COMMUNITIES WILL NOT ACCEPT DOUBLE STANDARDS. US SHOULD SANCTION ISRAEL FOR FAILING TO STOP SETTLEMENTS. THEREFORE, US'S PRO ISRAEL ACCUSATION OR SUSPICION AGAINST ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN TO BUILD NUCLEAR WEAPONS IS BASELESS, HAS NO CREDITABILITY, IS ANTI ISLAM. IT IS ABOUT TIME THE ARABIAN TO GIVE STERN WARNING TO ISRAEL TO WITHDRAW FROM ALL PALESTINIANS LANDS THEY ILLEGALLY COLONISED WITHIN A TIME FRAME BY END OF THE YEAR. ISRAEL HAS NO FRIENDS IN MIDEAST.
NUCLEAR ARMED ISRAEL IS THE REAL THREAT IN MIDEAST, NOT IRAN.

Posted by: evergreen2so | October 19, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Ihummanity,

I fully agree with u when u said:
"I don't know where the samples were taken (deep south and/or NY & Florida saturated by Israeli lover Jews and Evangelicals), but everyone around me (Dem or Republican; liberal or conservative) is against going to war with Iran for the sake of Israel!"

Posted by: asizk | October 19, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

LOOK THESE POLLS ARE ABSOLUTELY MISLEADING!

For eight years GWB made them an *Axis of Evil* and no talks....

Since death of Shah, there is hardly any contact with Iran. Tehran was not only boycotted by US and its neocons from AIPAC, but there was no intercourse between the people's and cultures.

So what does this nonsense of a poll reflect today?

It reflects the ignorance of the American public as fed by its media from left and right.

Moreover, if POTUS was to make decisions based on such flimsy polls, the nation would have to wait another three decades before Israel would agree to consider or even discuss two-state solution.

The latter points to the falasy on which the polls are based - to satisfy a certain preconceived vision of what American's think about the larger world, including Iran and Middle East.

Self-destructive isolation of US mainstream public opinion is the sole purpose of the private media - keep them ignorant of the facts!

Reminds me of Krauthammers TWS article about the Decline and Fall of America....

Posted by: hariknaidu | October 19, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

What amazes me is the lack of accomplishing anything.

Obama sat on his hands when the youth of Iran were dying in the streets.

He has FAILED to sit down and talk with the Islamic Despots in charge... Could it be because because OBAMA supports Islamic injustives more than the supports the United States.

Bush was a first class A hole... but at least he was a PATRIOT not a World Order Muslim... first and LAST.

Obama continues to approve all things Muslim and to hell with everything every other ideology except for Socialism.

IMPEACH OBAMA NOW

Posted by: miller515501 | October 19, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Johnnyboston;
Infidel :an ecclesiastical term in Christianity, the term, traditionally used by the Roman Catholic Church to refer to one who did not believe in the divinity of God, knowingly held beliefs that contradicted Catholic dogma, or one who had not been baptized,[4][5] or by Christians in general to describe non-Christians or those perceived as enemies of Christianity.[2][6].later "one who does not believe in religion" (1527).

Now don't be a demagogue and an "infidel" if you consider yourself one. That would be very very bad.

Posted by: Esther_Haman | October 19, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Remember: We have a War Economy and a Military-Industrial-Complex that thrives on it. We need adversaries and threats, real or percieved to manufacture the consent of the people for "War"

Iran is a convenient enemy, just like Saddam was to povide pretext for military invasion. Iran has a fundamental government, a semi-belligerent president and all the ingredients to look "scary"

Iran on the other hand does not pose any real military threat to us. Not only they do not have a nuceeeelar weapon, but even having it would not give them any real advantage. We have many times more and it would be immediate suicide for them to use it and there are no motives. They don't hate Israel enough to warrant their own complete demise. It is convenient propaganda to claim "apochalyptic ideology" but nobody with normal, non-right-wing-infested brain cells would make foreign policy based on Israel/AIPAC stories. They had great stories to get us into war in Iraq (remember WMD, mobile launchers? they swore)

Iran is a geoploitical issue for US and allies if they want to continue hegemonic policies. We need sanctions to keep their economy down and prevent a surging China-Russia-Iran alliance. It has nothing to do with radical Islam folks, don't drink this koolaid again!!!!

Posted by: Peaceful2009 | October 19, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cohen, I know that you are very worried about Israel. But let it go man. What about the Palestinians? Are you going to 1. make them Israeli citizens? 2. Give them a State ?3. Focus On Iran to avoid the issue?

Posted by: VOR1 | October 19, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

What seems to bother some people and many Zionists and Neo-cons is that we can't stand it when a country that we used to consider as a 3rd world nation now is coming to have nuclear technology and we just want to keep them there in their place, just keep them down, we should be better than some body??!!!

Posted by: Esther_Haman | October 19, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

The Obama Administration may need to begin making diplomatic preparations to demonstate to the United Nations the military and national security threat that Iran's nuclear weapons may pose to the world and be prepared to unilaterally strike against hardened targets with military force after warnings to civilian populations. The strike would have to be short and brief and devastating to wipe or severely cripple Iran's nuclear military program.

Posted by: TabLUnoLCSWfromUtah | October 19, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

thanks for the cool cover picture, I mean I wondered what happened to Norm MacDonald.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | October 19, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Myself we should have been in their over 10 years ago. When Wilson started this mess in the 80 no, one stopped him or Bush.
Bush should have stayed in their in the beginning instead sending our troops to Iraq. That was Bushes war, because of his father.
We should either leave the whole middle east along. This all over the price of oil and bring our belives to them which is wrong. Now we are their we should make things easier for them. Build home and schools for them. But not to change them. Because they don't want to be change in our eyes.
This thing in middle east is their country and their world. This has been going on sense time began, and no, one has changed the middle east over the years or before that even

Posted by: buddhalady09 | October 19, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Quite a shocking poll result. It's almost as if the media had been hammering that message to Americans repeatedly...

Posted by: geezjan | October 19, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

It would have been more accurate to headline this story, "Poll Shows Propaganda Works." What's the point of this poll, anyway -- does a single one of the poll respondents have any independent knowledge of Iran's nuclear intentions, or any basis for judgment?

Posted by: AlanSF | October 19, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Israel is filled with nuclear, biological, stealth, even pigeons, not to mention unmaned and even climatic weapons, forgetting those banking, sicological and extortion bombs.
Israel has attacked or raped or killed or sabotaged or created-civil-wars or sold weapons to everyone and their neighbors of its neighboring countries.
Israel has mocked, ignored, slighted and mooned each of the international courts ruling against Israel's abuses.
Israel is responsible for the thousands of young loved needed American kids killed in this primitive, absurd and inhumane Religious War, and still Israel is pressing however they can to force the US of America to send more young and gullible Americans to die to Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan--while Israeli-Americans do not even enlist to go to fight there.
We live in an every day expanding global community--We cannot isolate, we cannot dictate, we cannot hide, we cannot distract the international investigation of, our acts.
We are everyday reading and understanding that nuclear technology is convenient to have, in this increasingly technological era.

And still, Israel wants us to stop Iran's development! Why?

If some people is avoiding to join nuclear transparency, is Israel.
If some people is to be afraid of, is Israel.
If some people is unmanageable, is Israel.
If some people is causing damage to America, is Israel.
If we are losing ground in a historical momentum when we should be concentrated in growth (should say recuperation) is because of the distraction of our vital resources to focus in the Middle East, darn it!
If we are to keep being of relevance in this earth, we need to be more inclusive of other peoples. Why we should stop Iran of having nuclear energy? Why we should stop Iran of having even nuclear weapons?
Iranians are as fanatic, or less, than Israelis.
Iranians confess, over and over, that they do not hate the American People.

Look at this slice of History no farther: Who is menacing with "BOMB!!! BOMB!!! BOMB!!! KILL!!! KILL!!! KILL!!! NOW!!! NOW!!! NOW!!!" ??? Israel.

Let Iran develop nuclear energy! They are entitled to grow.
We should get Israel on reins. And then, the whole world will blossom up.

Weave relationships and businesses with the Muslim world; that will defuse "wars".
Do not send more young loved needed American kids to die to the Middle East!

Do not bomb Iran!

Posted by: SouthStar | October 19, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Remember Collen Powell's interview in Sept. 2007? America spending more money on fear. Fear mongering company are making a killing money wise in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. Who's the biggest beneficiary of these wars? Halliburton, Big oil, military industrial complex, blackwater and the militants. Losers are the tax paying public. Enough with fear mongering journalists. If Iran is building their nukes that's their rights to defend themselves from the threats after all they have OIL. They learned the lesson from Iraq.

Posted by: bigben1986 | October 19, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

TabLUnoLCSWfromUtah;
Very official deceleration of war. I also like the "..after warnings to civilian populations. ", very nice touch.

You think Iran would respond and say OOPS, we did not see that coming..

All the "Rambos" out there, report immediately to the Afghan front,,

There are 150K US troops in Iraq and another 50K in Afghanistan (multinational force). They are only few miles from Iran. But Iran is 1000 Miles away from us. All the oil fields shipping lanes etc..

would they be able to retaliate you think?

Posted by: Esther_Haman | October 19, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Do we not remember the search for WMD in Iraq? While I don't want us to sit on our hands lets not stress and already spread out armed forces.

Brandon Hansen
Political Burnout
http://politicalburnout.blogspot.com

Posted by: brandon9 | October 19, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Not surprising about these polls. After all 52% of Americans still believed that Saddam Hussein got something do with with 911.

Posted by: bigben1986 | October 19, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

The Hell with little IRAN!! We-the-PEOPLE need to face the REAL PROBLEM!! - Our CRIMINAL TRAITOR CONGRESS - that has continued to back the Globalist CRIMINAL BANKERS of the Private "FEDERAL RESERVE"!! Our Great Nation is almost Destoyed by these GLOBALIST CROOKS!! - Repeal the CRIMINAL FEDERAL RESERVE ACT Immediately LORD! - And Abolish CRIMINAL "FRACTIONAL BANKING" by these Bastard GLOBALIST TRAITORS!!! - Why in AMERICA has Our CITIZENS allowed these CRIMINALS to Persist??!! - PATRIOTS UNITE & TAKE OUR GREAT U.S.A. BACK NOW!!!!! Do any of You Americans STILL CARE AT ALL??!! - YOUR GARAND-CHILDREN WILL ALL be SLAVES of these GLOBALIST CRIMINAL BANKERS from Europe!! - And None of YOU CARE!!!! HOW SAD that the AMERICAN CITIZENS are so Sheepish & Anti-American! We-the-PEOPLE might as well just DIE, - since WE HAVE ALREADY COMMITTED "SUICIDE" by giving OUR $MONEY to these CRIMINAL GLOBALISTS!!!! - Do You Citizens enjoy Destroying YOUR' Families FUTURES??!! - Of Course - because YOU are All IGNORANT IMBECILES!!!!! - jward52

Posted by: jward52 | October 19, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

While we are at it, why not bomb and sanction all ILLEGAL NUKES and we can start with Israel!

Apartheid, Illegal Nukes, War Crimes, Land Theft Murder and all closer than Iran!

If Israel can have the bomb, why can't Iran? Seriously!

Look at Lebanon and GAZA, 60 years of terror against Arabs and out and out thievery of native people's land.

Wounded Knee sound familiar.

Israel is a TERROR nation armed with nukes, thanks to traitors like Teller and

Ramat David, Tel Nof, Nevatim and Dimona are all excellent targets if we are serious about disarming NUCLEAR weapons from the MIDDLE EAST and helping to disarm Israel terrorists in this Apartheid nation. Oh, and don’t forget they can mount their cruise missile with nukes too.

Iran, if I were you, I would be tracking the Israeli navy with light craft armed with SILKWORMS to protect yourselves before they start placing barbed wire and concrete barriers in your country.

We worry about Iran, and they don’t have the material to make a bomb, and we ignore Israel because……the USS Liberty attack was a mistake, even after the third attack????

Israel was the cause of 911 and the money we wasted for Israel and OIL could have been out to use in healthcare saving 45,000 American lives every year. Israel is equally to blame for 45,000 American deaths every year because of their agents, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Doug Feith and why aren't these traitors in prison???

A hint about Israeli nukes, they leave a gamma ray signature from space! And everytime they move one, we monitor it. Amazing! And, there is nothing to monitor in Iran nor Iraq. Equally amazing!

Posted by: ChristianM | October 19, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"It strikes me as strange that none of Iran's neighbors are overly worried about a nuclear Iran but the US thats 10,000 miles away is. Why is that?"
Posted by: smokberry2002@yahoo.com | October 19, 2009 1:42 PM
======================================
All of Irans neighbors are petrified by it. The Egyptians are said to be on the phone constantly trying to get Obama to do something. The Saudis have even bought S-400 missiles from Russia (not their usual arms supplier) on the condition that the Russians drop the sale of the S-300 air defense missiles to Iran. The only reason for that of course is so that the Israeli planes can get through to bomb them. You seem to be confusing the public stance of the Arab countries with what is really going on.

I fully support what Obama is doing by the way. It is a lot better than spending $3T invading the wrong country, but that is another matter.

Posted by: foxjh | October 19, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Interesting poll. At times I have questioned the wisdom of the collective mind but it works and so far has the best historical track record. Having said that...its only a matter of time before our hand is forced with respect to Iran. This President or the next, its a matter of time. The only question we are left with is how many lives lost between then? 100? 1000? 100,000 +? Our hand WILL be forced, only the rose colored blind or blissfully ignorant cannot see it.

Posted by: Homunculus | October 19, 2009 5:28 PM | Report abuse

The Republican and the Neo-cons are a bunch of romantics. They see themselves in their day dreams as glorious leaders of men victorious in battles.

OK, lets get back to reality. We have two wars that is costing us well over 3 Billions a DAY. We lost 5K dead and 33K wounded and maimed in Iraq and we are reaching over a 1k dead and 5K wounded and maimed in Afghanistan. How many of these kids had mom and/or dad that is a Senator or a Representative or a millioner or was a middle class?! Then we need to have the Draft instated.

We have reached a point that our money is nothing but a piece of paper and pretty soon China and other nations will be calling in their debts. They are talking about removing the Dollar as the currency from International trade.

Come to your senses.

Posted by: Esther_Haman | October 19, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse


Johnnyboston;
Infidel :an ecclesiastical term in Christianity, the term, traditionally used by the Roman Catholic Church to refer to one who did not believe in the divinity of God, knowingly held beliefs that contradicted Catholic dogma, or one who had not been baptized,[4][5] or by Christians in general to describe non-Christians or those perceived as enemies of Christianity.[2][6].later "one who does not believe in religion" (1527).

Now don't be a demagogue and an "infidel" if you consider yourself one. That would be very very bad.
====================================

1)It says a lot when someone accuses me of being a demagogue for simply quoting Iran's leaders.

2)I'm one of the 20% of Americans that don't practice or believe in any faith. So you can take your religious definitions and put them you know where.

Posted by: johnnyboston | October 19, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse


What seems to bother some people and many Zionists and Neo-cons is that we can't stand it when a country that we used to consider as a 3rd world nation now is coming to have nuclear technology and we just want to keep them there in their place, just keep them down, we should be better than some body??!!!

Posted by: Esther_Haman | October 19, 2009 4:23 PM
==========================

And you're accusing ME of being a demagogue?

Americans overwhelmingly see Iran's nuclear program as geared toward the development of atomic weaponry. Does that mean Americans overwhelmingly are Zionists and Neo-cons? Go back to bed.

Posted by: johnnyboston | October 19, 2009 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, we're a nation of incorrigible fools.

America, you're doomed by your stupidity.

Posted by: patrick3 | October 19, 2009 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Obama is not handling Iran. Obama is dithering and stalling. He was afraid to criticize the Iranian mad man for his suppression of the dissenters and failed to deplore the death of a woman in the streets who opposed the results.
Iran has its fingerprints on weapons that are used to kill American and NATO troops. Iran is going to get a nuclear weapon the same way Hitler took the Rhine, Austria, Sudentenland, Czechoslovakia and Poland without a shot being fired by the Brits or France, i.e. appeasement.
Neville Chamberlain and Obama have that in common. Neville's inaction brought on WWII and 60 million dead. Obama's inaction could bring on the destruction of a major American city.

Posted by: mharwick | October 19, 2009 8:52 PM | Report abuse

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge—and more." John F. Kennedy.

Obama will make no such pledge.

Posted by: mharwick | October 19, 2009 8:57 PM | Report abuse

I hope no body takes any of these posts seriously. There are a lot of whackos out there and I think they are all here.
Dont believe what you are told. Do some researching.NOT in a newspaper,but on the web. History of a region is a good start. GOODLUCK

Posted by: captgrumpy | October 19, 2009 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Several points that should be understood:
1) Israel will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. It doesn’t matter what the U.S. President wants, it doesn’t matter what the U.S. public thinks (stupid polls), it doesn’t matter what the rest of the world thinks. Israel will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
2) The delivery date of Russian advanced anti-aircraft missiles to Iran is the deadline by which Israel must act. They will not risk being unsuccessful in a strike to take out the Iranian capability. They know they cannot depend on the U.S. to stop Iran’s development politically or militarily. (Diplomacy without the threat of potential military consequences doesn’t work. Negotiation from a position of power is always more successful than groveling, appealing to a “moral” sense, or empty threats.) When Israel strikes, it will be thorough and conclusive – they know they’ll only have one chance. They will most likely then need to divert their attention to stopping the retaliation by moving into Syria and Lebanon – and maybe other counties….
3) Israel doesn’t really have to worry about the U.S. entering the ensuing war from a strike on Iran. In response to the strike, Iran will close the Straits of Hormuz – and the U.S. will move to open them again.
4) Iran does not need an ICBM capability to deliver nuclear weapons to the United States. They can be brought in secretly disguised as other cargo and detonated in U.S. cities with devastating consequence. While the current regime is in power in Iran, it is not in the interest of the U.S. for Iran to achieve nuclear weapons capability. It does not matter that most of the Iranian people are good, rational, and civilized – their leaders are insane. Until the civilized people are in power in Iran, Iran is a threat to the rest of the world.

While it is far more pleasant to be naïve, it has never stopped brutal reality – sooner or later the sheep must run to the sheepdog for protection from the wolves, whether they like the sheepdog or not.

Posted by: quark1 | October 21, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company