I see you’re slowly starting to understand something: “one form over another”. That’s the spirit.
Also, more gems from your lovely website full of facts:
Islamic axis with Turkey. Seriously. Placing Turkey in that grouping seems so post Mavi Marmara, it’s almost like there is some bias by the author that I just can’t put my finger on.
Just go read where some of this data came from. You get a far more complex understanding of American views than the cherry-picked information in your cite. For example, respondents consistently favor an military approach as part of an alliance over America going it alone. That’s informative given that we have one ally at this point in time that seems to be advocating bombing with all others being consistently disinterested.
The military option only does well in polls when it stands alone. When asked to choose between military action and economic and diplomatic efforts the latter wins 65-16 in a CNN poll. http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm
It’s truly interesting, you read something explaining why the form doesn’t matter since the question is whether or not they think America should initiate military force in any form, and you blow right by it and try to find a way to prove you’re correct.
That’s it, straight to the ad hominem. That’ll prove you’re correct.
Obviously the data in those polls is invalid because of the opinions of the folks who posted that article. Also, when someone resorts to an ad hominem to discredit a data set, that’s obviously because their argument is so strong that they have no need of silly things like ‘proof’ and ‘refutation’.
However, you aren’t awarded any bonus points for the nonsense about “Just go read where some of this data came from. You get a far more complex understanding of American views than the cherry-picked information” as readers will notice that you’ve neither linked to those sources, nor cited their findings in context, nor shown how the overview of their results is in any way inaccurate or how essential context was lost by “cherrypicking”. One might even be tempted to point out that you still don’t get it, as supporting the initiation of military force in tandem with allies is still supporting the initiation of military force.
Except of course for all those polls I just cited where the military option stood along side the diplomatic option and was offered as a fallback if diplomacy failed. But facts schmacts, Downing Street Memo!!!
Which raises the question of what people have in mind when defining “failure”. For example if Iran continues to enrich uranium but doesn’t build nuclear weapons is that failure?
I think the main findings of these polls is that the US public overwhelmingly prefers diplomacy to military action when dealing with Iran.
Your claim that “the US public overwhelmingly prefers diplomacy to military action when dealing with Iran” is fictional. The facts show that Americans overwhelmingly prefer diplomacy and sanctions as the first step onlyand then a significant percentage of Americans prefer military action should diplomacy and sanctions be determined to have failed.
Your attempt to spin the data is no more successful than Inbred’s. He tried to spin it that since the exact nature of military action wasn’t specified, then the fact that a majority supported military action was somehow “obfuscatory”. Now you’re attempting to claim that because people may have differing opinions on what failure constitutes, that we don’t have a robust data set showing that a majority of Americans support military action against Iran if they believe our efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program have failed. Just as it doesn’t matter if they support airstrikes or boots on the ground as both options involve the initiation of military force, it doesn’t matter what they believe constituted “failure” as they’ve accepted that a preemptive strike against Iran is justified by our failure to get them to stop their nuclear program.
But of course it fits with the narrative in which Iran’s government are only acting out of some sort of defensive motivation while they’re just minding their own business.
How can it not matter? If support for a particular policy is conditional on something, it obviously matters what that condition means.
Incidentally 71% of the US public apparently believes that Iran already has nuclear weapons. When public opinion is so poorly informed you have to wonder whether it means anything at all.
Because the question at hand is not when Americans would support military action against Iran, but whether they would. Once we determine whether they would, then we can analyze when they would. But when is a sub-question from whether.
And yes public opinion means something, even if it’s poorly informed. If public opinion gives the US leadership the green light to do something, it doesn’t matter if they’ve given the green light based on sound reasoning or astrology, except for calculating the wisdom of their support. The fact of their support is not modified by the process which was used to arrive at it.
Or: as the old joke goes “We’ve already determined what type of a woman you are, madam. Now we’re just haggling over the price.”
So what next? The Israeli airstrikes succeed in destroying Iran’s surface facilities (power, water, electric transmission lines). All of this stuff is easily repairable, in a few months. the undergrond stuff (except for access tunnels) is essentially undamaged.
Now the Arab World reacts (tongue in cheek)-the Saudis denounce “Israeli aggression”, whilst simultaneously allowing Israeli overflights. There are a rash of resolutions in the UN, condemning Israel.
The Iranians start repairing the damage, and we start at square one.
Does this solve anything? Would Israel use nuclear bombs next?
Who knows? It’s worth spending a few million dollars to delay the Iranian nuclear program for a year. A lot can happen in a year. The Iranian government might fall; Israel might finish developing new and better weapons; or it might simply attack again with its old weapons. The most recent sanctions might delay Iran still more. A year gives the Israelis further opportunity to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program.
Now that does work better than coffee to wake you up, really, at least point out that it is just still a thing being considered. I had to search and look at the news if that had taken place.
But the question of whether is dependent on how you define diplomatic failure. One logical definition would be if Iran obtains nuclear weapons but 71% think they already have so clearly they are defining failure as something else.
So you agree it’s a vague term then. Thank-you, I knew we would reach consensus eventually. Btw, Lantern’s description is absolutely correct. The polls show preference in several questions. Your narrow interpretation is based on a specific question.
I’m not trying to discredit a data set. The data is what it is. I’ve already stated my problems with the questions. What’s left is interpretation. The article’s writer speculated beyond the questions about American attitudes. My bringing up the writer’s introduction that places Turkey in league with Iran is the citing of a factual error. It’s no different than questioning a writer’s interpretation of the data in an introduction or discussion in a scientific article. This factual error along with the conclusion supports the hypothesis that this writer is constructing an opinion piece, not an analysis of poll data.
That was my mistake, I had intended to link to it. The author of the article did in the footnotes. Here’s the link. Asking for a cite only takes a single sentence.
I do get it. It’s just the context is really important here because we are not at the point indicated by Americans, where they would support military action.
When placed directly against preference for diplomacy, military action was the least preferred option with coalition-backed behavior, diplomacy, and sanctions showing preference over this vague term.
If not provoked, the US has no moral or legal right to attack Iran or any other country. Americans would be wise not to go to war once again without a formal declaration through congress.
If any nation should be under pressure, it should be Israel: unlike Iran, they have dodged signing the NPT since 1966, they have not allowed IAEA to inspect a thing, they’ve had their fair share of UN resolutions condemning their actions around nukes, and they are the ones standing in the way of a nuclear-free Middle East.
Just as the Jews were the only ones standing in the way of an 100% Arab Middle East in the few decades leading up to 1948. (Prior to that, they did not stand in the way, as they hadn’t comprised more than ~10% of the population in the area for hundreds of years - see Jewish & Non-Jewish Population of Israel/Palestine (1517-Present)).
It’s endlessly amusing to me how every debate about Israel, whether it’s about their military policies, their political leadership, or their fucking falafels, turns into an argument over Israel’s existential right to exist as a Jewish country. It always ultimately boils down to the same exact debate.
I didn’t find the linked article “blatantly anti-semitic”. Its surely anti-Zionist (and has what I think are some inaccurate assumptions), but I didn’t read any anti-semitism in it.
If you know the history of what anti-Semitism is, you’ll understand how it’s anti-Semitic. The idea that it espouses is a core component, maybe the core component, of classic anti-Semitism. The Jews control everything. It has nothing to do with “Zionism.” Zionism is a 19th century philosophy promoted by Theodore Herzl that a homeland should be set up for the Jewish people. It happened. Mission accomplished. Done. The term “Zionism” today has nothing to do with what the concept actually meant, as a political movement - it’s just code word for “Jew.”
And by the way, never in history did even the Zionists themselves ever espouse the belief that “Zionism” is about controlling other countries. ZIONISM has NOTHING TO DO WITH CONTROLLING OTHER COUNTRIES. The Zionists just wanted ONE Jewish country and wanted to live there and be left the fuck alone by everyone else. I’ll repeat it - the idea of controlling other governments, pulling strings, and manipulating economies WAS NEVER EVER EVER A PART OF ZIONISM. EVER.
I guess I just don’t give claims like “The Jews are the puppet masters of America” any traction as I believe that they are blatherings of conspiracy-minded idiots and I never really viewed them as essentially anti-semitic, just…blatherings of conspiracy-minded idiots!
When I think of anti-semitism, I am more inclined to think of things that I have heard over the years “dirty Jew”, “money grubbing Jew”, stupid little things like that “Louie, Hymie, Abie, Sam, we’re the boys that’ll eat no ham” and nonsense like that.
shrugs
Perhaps its more subtle and insidious as you imply, but I think its entirely possible to claim that you think groups like AIPAC have undue influence in Washington without being anti-semitic.
really, at least point out that it is just still a thing being considered. I had to search and look at the news if that had taken place.