I wonder how many of those in favor of doing so realize what would happen if we/Israel did? Here is an interesting rumination (from two years ago!) about the implications.
Nearly half of likely voters think the United States should be willing to use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, according to this week’s The Hill Poll. Forty-nine percent said military force should be used, while 31 percent said it should not and 20 percent were not sure.
Sixty-two percent of likely voters said they were somewhat or very concerned about Iran making a terrorist strike on the United States, while 37 percent said they were not very concerned or not at all concerned about it.
Nearly half — 49 percent — of likely voters also said they opposed cutting military spending to balance the federal budget, while 40 percent said it should be reduced.
[…]
The findings were based on a nationwide survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted Feb. 2 by Pulse Opinion Research, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
As for not cutting military spending, apparently those against it are expecting another WWII-type war to break out. Or don’t want to lose their military contract money.
When they say they’ve polled the general US public. They’ve really got to stop polling mostly employees (and towns) of major defense contractors. That includes most of California and Texas.
You’ll rarely hear a no vote concerning war, from those whose jobs benefit from it. And all the pollsters have to do is pick the right people to phone up, in order to skew the vote the way they’d like it to turn out. Remember the “Dewey Wins” poll?
And they can also cleverly word the poll questions to make it sound like being anti-war is unAmerican and weak. You know, something like “Would you vote to let the towelheads slaughter the Jews, and confirm your impudence?” “Or would you vote to save the innocent children, thru US military action, and thus demonstrate your virility?”
Well not that obvious, but I’ve heard a few survey questions phrased with a subtle bias, to skew the response. And they’re rarely prepared to record my response, that’s not among the choices they’ll accept. Fox news does this all the time. They must hire a firm to be so clever, for them. Because, we know what morons Fox news staffers are. If they were smart, they wouldn’t be working for old Rupert.
Bobbo … one key to effective communication is infrequency.
Another key is brevity, the ability to concisely take your point of view and condense it.
If you don’t do this, it is like a cat who pooped all over the house when you were gone. Frankly no one has the time nor interest to read such volumes of information for the few grains of interest.
HM–you aren’t tricking me into reading cat shit.
Nice try though.
Repeating the interior post as they are hard to find if only being casual in one’s review:
jpfitz says:
2/9/2012 at 12:30 pm
bobbo,
“Philosophy” too–unless your goal is to be one with a rock.
Philosophy is my way of understanding the human condition. And what’s wrong with being one with a rock, or tree, or flower. Better than being one with an invisible being. To each his/her own.
So next post I’ll argue with you even if I agree, only so you can keep face. I don’t want to make you look bad. jk.
Reply
*
bobbo, are we Political Men or do we have New Ideas? says:
2/10/2012 at 5:07 am
Well, to go with your metaphor/restraints:
You should be one with yourself.
Like any other philosophy, you can study this as well. Lots of ways to get at it. “Self Actualization” was my first formal introduction to it but my own home grown experience was to recognize how wrong other people were about most things, how they didn’t take responsibility for it/blamed others, and I thought I should not be that way.
Sometimes, being a rock sounds good.
Why not let Israel do it?