Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Should the U.S. threaten a military strike against Iran?

By Howard B. Owens
Ted Wenzka

I voted NO. I agree with Raymond. We have spilled enough American blood. If Israel has a problem, let them go to war and spill their blood, not ours.

Sep 12, 2012, 10:01am Permalink
James Renfrew

Perhaps the question could be reshaped to give a variety of results. See which question you like best.. Give one answer for each question, or as many answers as you like.

1. Would you want your children or grandchildren to be deployed in a military action against Iran? (a) Yes (b) No (c) OK to deploy someone else's children

2. If the United States became militarily involved in Iran, how long do you think the engagement will last? (a) 1 week (b) 1 month (c) 1 year (d) ten years
(you can answer according to what you'd be assured of, or what has actually happened in recent combat zones)

3. How much more would you be willing to pay each year as a taxpayer to support military action in Iran?
(a) nothing (b) $10 (c) $100 (d) $1000 (e) $10,000
(and, keep in mind, it's also the costs way down the road for things like caring for injured veterans)

4. Up to how much will you be willing to pay at the gas pump should global oil prices rise upon US engagement with Iran?
(a) The US will win quickly and the price will plummet (b) $4.00 (c) $5.00 (d) $6.00 (e) $10.00

5. What would be the real reason for the US to militarily engage with Iran?
(a) stop the development of nuclear capability in Iran for the world's sake
(b) stop the development of nuclear capability in Iran for Israel's sake
(c) get rid of dangerous political leaders
(d) stop a nation that supports Hezbollah
(e) punish Islamic fundamentalism (or, if you wish, rephrase as "punish Islam")
(f) win votes in future US elections
(g) win the hearts and minds of Iranians eager for the establishment of democratic values
(h) teach the world a tough lesson about the USA
(i) will increase jobs in the aero-space industry

6. What could we reasonably expect for Iran in the event of a successful military engagement there?
(a) Nothing will change
(b) Even worse leaders will emerge
(c) Better leaders will emerge
(d) The whole region will become more inflamed, less-stabilized
(e) Other nations will realize that developing nuclear capabilities is a mistake and desist from further work in this area.
(f) Other nations, seeing that Iran lacked full nuclear capability and could easily be invaded, will begin or accelerate their own nuclear development programs.
(g) Iran will apologize for every mistake it has ever made
(h) Islamic people will reject radical Islam and embrace a more moderate version
(i) The US will get more Iranian oil
(j) Around the world respect for the USA will increase
(k) Any victory in Iran will come with a lot of additional costs but it will be worth every penny

Add your own questions!

Sep 12, 2012, 10:43am Permalink
Jeff Allen

Israel is not asking the US to fight it's battles, they are simply asking Obama to stop holding his political finger to the wind when it comes to it's allied relationship. All recent US presidents have comitted to ensuring a non-nuclear Iran including Obama. However, Obama's rhetoric has been overshadowed by his lack of any real comittmment to that goal. He has failed miserably on the Iran, Israel front and Netanyahu is simply asking the US to either honor our comittment or stay out of their way. His confidence in Obama has vanished given his treatment. Just this week the Administration refused to fit a face to face in with Netanyahu while he is in the US but on the same day announced another Obama apparence on the Letterman Show. After all this Presidents miscues involving Israel, please don't try to convince us that our alliance to them hasn't eroded under Obama.

Sep 12, 2012, 10:54am Permalink
Pat McGinnis

Iran will get a nuke, we are not willing to do what it takes to stop them and Ahmadinejad knows it. Once they get nuclear weapons the rest of the Middle East will see them as the regional leader. With luck they won’t give nuclear material to terrorist groups to bomb the enemies of Islam.

Sep 12, 2012, 12:40pm Permalink
Ed Gentner

It's time to tell Netanyahu and Israel they are on their own if they decide on a military strike against Iran, Republican "Uber" patriots like Romney and his neo-con friends can suit up put on a uniform, oh wait they don't do that sort of thing...they just want our sons and daughters to....Mitt had the chance to serve in the military but chose not to while supporting his generations and my generations war...his sons had plenty of opportunity to serve over the last decade but like their father ducked out....

Sep 12, 2012, 1:28pm Permalink
John Roach

Ed,
While I agree with you on Netanyahu, you seem to forget that Obama had no interest in serving his country in the military either. He could have, and had every opportunity to do so, but didn't.

Sep 12, 2012, 2:07pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Ed, just to apply facts to your Republican " über" patriot, neocon crap. Even though only 21% of the current Congress served, Republicans who served outnumber Democrats who served by a two to one margin. If your going to apply a litmus test for qualification to send others to war, at least apply an accurate one. Democrats, Obama included, can stomach war just fine when it is politically expedient.

Sep 12, 2012, 2:58pm Permalink
John Roach

Just as a side note: Did you see the recent Navy Times article (9/11/12) that said the ships used in a veteran tribute at the Democratic convention were Russian. Oops.

Sep 12, 2012, 3:19pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Ed

Romney received a deferrement as a divinity student from 1966-1968.
When his missionary service to his church ended and thus his deferment ended, his name was put into the lottery for the 1970 draft; he drew the number 300.

Source: The Real Romney, by Kranish & Helman, p. 62-63 , Jan 17, 2012

[ NOTE: Unlike Bill Clinton that pulled strings to get second deferement and no different than Barack Obama who chose not to serve either.]

Sep 12, 2012, 10:58pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, Mark. Another President who has no idea what war is like, sending kids to fight wars they don't understand.

How is Romney better? Looks like more of the same.

Sep 12, 2012, 11:29pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

In that regard Phil, I never said that he was better or worse, simply can not stand when highly partisan throw out statements such as Ed did with out perspective.

Fortunately, Highly partisan is something that I would never associate with you, ( That was a compliment)

Sep 12, 2012, 11:39pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

I believe highly partisan anything is one the reasons why this country has become so bad, so thank you.

Look, Romney is Obama and Obama is Romney.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/republican-keynesians/

There are other sites that show it. Every time a Republican calls Obama a socialist, I piss myself laughing. Romney believes (or at least did once in his many flips), or implemented many of the same principles Obama has. I'm not saying they're right, just that there is no difference.

Economically, you're all voting for the same person. Socially, which I feel doesn't belong in politics, Romney is playing to his Liberty Limiting base. Still, while Obama did fight DADT, he hasn't overturned DOMA, so meh to him too.

Sep 12, 2012, 11:54pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

To be clear Phil,

1) Mitt Romney & Barack Obama both have not served, and both in some circles do not meet the "Military Experience Criteria"

2) While many believe that a President should have served in the military in roder to send our treasure and yopung to war, I like many carreer Military people I served with and know, recognize that what makes us great is that it is civilians, not the military that makes the decision to go to war.

3) That said, going to war should never be taken lightly, on a whim or based on a prejudice, rather it should be in defense and in limited circumstances retaliation.

4) My quandry is this, there is an old saying in the diplomatic world, "Diplomacy without the backing of potential military force, is like music without instrument or voice"

Sep 12, 2012, 11:57pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

It might surprise you that on much we agree, that said.

I will be clear, both 'Parties' have done their far share of vote buying, political gamesmenship and doubletalk.

Sep 13, 2012, 12:14am Permalink
Phil Ricci

I think both parties are failures, and that Romney will hurt this nation just as much as Obama will. Romney's approach to economics is just as ass backwards as Obama's.

Further, Romney does not understand the basic principles of a free market system. To create a strong capitalist free market system, you have to understand the basics of its economics. Scare natural resources are some of the driving factors, in which one of them is a healthy and educated workforce.

Romney, like most Republicans who have been given taking points by their overlords droll out the tired rhetoric of "Unions kill schools", while Democrats defend unions and droll out "Standards are too___" They're both wrong and to blame.

http://federalistpress.com/romneys-education-overhaul.php

As you can see in the article Romney wants to have: Merit pay for teachers and tuition vouchers for students, to take to any school they desire to attend, will have the immediate and permanent effect of forcing schools to compete for their livelihood—a capitalistic concept quite foreign to the unions and their Democratic partners.

While I agree in Merit pay, this asinine notion of vouchers, goes back to the tired rhetoric. Here's why both are wrong:

Republicans and Democrats alike continue to create more and more programs, mandate them, and then under, or do not fund them at all. They make the systems more complex and mind numbing through sweeping initiatives and then point fingers when they become to encumbered. Essentially, people thousands of miles away have more control over programs then teachers in the classroom, and like healthcare, it's not the delivery that's broken, but how it is funded.

Romney is a big government advocate, and will continue to inflate programs through "reforms" that will only add more layers and thicker, more confusing standards.

So tell me again how he's ANY different than Obama?

Sep 13, 2012, 12:29am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

For the life of me, I can't comprehend why anybody thinks Romney is better or different than Obama. If you call Obama a socialist, well, then so is Romney. If you say Obama is for big government and big debt, well, then so is Romney. If you say Obama doesn't understand foreign policy, well, then, neither does Romney. If it comes down to taxes, well, they're both lying. Neither has a tax policy that makes any sense, that really reforms anything.

The 1 percent will be quite satisified whichever of these two tools wins.

Sep 13, 2012, 7:15am Permalink
Frank Bartholomew

According to the Islamic faith, any who do not share the Islamic faith are infidels, second class people.
Pull all of our troops out of the middle east and let the muslims do what they do best, kill each other.

Sep 13, 2012, 2:55pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

The only reasons I think Romney would be better for this country is for the following; One Obama is a lawyer not a businessman and Romney is. So, one would believe since, the US is like a business that someone educated in such would be better. Obama seems to be leading us deeper into debt. Oh look another stimulant package by Obama. Where is the flow of money coming from? Not to mention since the others failed why would this one be any different? Second, Obama foreign policy on apologizing to the world is horse pucky! Obama does not have our best interest at hand. Instead of motivating people to get jobs or to better themselves, he gives them welfare money and makes you feel like you are entitle to something rather than earning it.

Before those of you that say Romney flip flops on issues, guess what Obama has time and time again. Everything Obama is doing is not for those who contribute to society but, for those that do not contribute to society. We focus on those who come to country rather than taking care of our own. Why should a hard working American be overlooked and a outsider being given everything from free health care, to free or low cost education, high risk loans to start a business?

Recently our embassies have been attacked throughout the Middle East by the groups Obama has supported and/or apologizes to on our behalf. The media is blaming this movie but, that is BS! Especially since, these attacks are well executed and why would the protesters chant, “We are all Osama’s, Obama!” That is not a chant because of a movie. Obama got played. Obama is a weak in the eyes of the muslim world. We should not apologize for what we are. We should not apologize for trying to make the world a safer place. We should apologize for getting involved in others affairs that do not pertain to us. Libya, Egypt why did Obama involve us? He said for democracy of fellow nations. To give these countries true freedom. Hmmm, funny thing is, their freedom is not true freedom it is religious law. When Obama got involved with these uprisings these people could care less about Obama. They used him like every other President. They used us like a Mercenary to fight their fight. Granted Obama did not use ground forces but, billions in weaponry. All paid for by the US taxpayer.

Sep 13, 2012, 5:59pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

Howard and Obama is our savior? Romney cannot perform better than Obama because, he is part of the 1%. Why don't you see what Romney can do before, you say he will do no better than Obama. Remember people hated Reagan at first and realized he did not do half bad.

Sep 13, 2012, 11:58pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

The problem Ted it will be Israel's, then Europe's, then the USA's problem. Open your eyes to the issue at hand. No one wants war but, we cannot allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Especially, when they support terrorist networks.

Sep 14, 2012, 12:04am Permalink
Phil Ricci

I love watching Romney supporters. They think because you don't like their crappy candidate, you're an Obama lover. Pathetic sheep only think that there are two answers because that's what they've been force fed to think for so long.

Obama AND Romney suck. You are voting for the same candidate. Have fun!

Sep 14, 2012, 12:04pm Permalink
JoAnne Rock

Howard...Truth?

Quotes from the link you posted which directs to Nick Gillespie's blog posting:

"The reality of not just the failure but the absence of anything resembling a coherent foreign policy emanating from either major-party candidate is staggering and dispiriting."

"Romney is untested when it comes to conducting foreign policy and all indications are that he has little to no ideas about the subject."

"Is it so hard to ask these guys what are the principles they think should govern military intervention, defense spending, trade agreements, and more?"

Apparently, Mr. Gillespie is unaware of Mitt Romney's Oct. 2011 White Paper on Foreign Policy and his current foreign policy positions based on that paper.

http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/10/american-century-str…

http://www.mittromney.com/collection/foreign-policy

Or, Mr. Gillespie thought it would be more in line with the name of his blog, "Hit and Run", to post the comments above thinking no one would bother to check if they were true or not.

Whether you agree or disagree with Romney's foreign policy positions is beside the point.

The truth is, Romney has a very cogently written and organized plan that also does a very good job of demonstrating an awareness of the complexity of threats that face the United States in the 21st century.

Sep 14, 2012, 6:09pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Well Phil, then who of the candidates (Including Gary Johnson and other non party candidates) has a better foreign policy platform.

If you want an intellectually honest discussion, you pretty much have to start there.. Remember, of candidates currently running.

Sep 14, 2012, 8:39pm Permalink

Authentically Local