Americans will back U.S. military action if Iran seeks nuclear arms, poll shows

[King_David]

Reuters/Ipsos poll shows 53% of U.S. citizens would support action against Tehran's nuclear program, even if it meant a rise in gasoline prices.

A majority of Americans would support military action against Iran if there were evidence that Tehran is building nuclear weapons, even if such action led to higher gasoline prices, a Reuters/Ipsos polled showed on Tuesday.

The poll showed 62 percent of Americans would back Israel taking military action against Iran for the same reasons.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll showed 56 percent of Americans would support U.S. military action against Iran if there were evidence of a nuclear weapon program. Thirty-nine percent of Americans opposed military strikes.

Asked whether they would back U.S. military action if it led to higher gasoline prices, 53 percent of Americans said they would, while 42 percent said they would not.


http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/americans-will-back-u-s-military-action-if-iran-seeks-nuclear-arms-poll-shows-1.418324

[xchrom]

1. Asked the right way - what military action won't Americans support?

This is NOT a peaceful culture.

[holdencaufield]

9. I'm curious...

... where precisely IS the peaceful culture?

[izquierdista]

2. Of course they will back it

[Shaktimaan]

11. hmm

Goering said

"Naturally the common people don't want war...That is understood.... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

But the article said,

The Reuters/Ipsos poll showed 56 percent of Americans would support U.S. military action against Iran if there were evidence of a nuclear weapon program.

The two things have no connection whatsoever. No one is suggesting that Iran is attacking the US.
How desperate are you to try and equate everyone who disagrees with you with "good Germans" or Nazi brainwash victims?

[shaayecanaan]

24. I don't think anyone here suggests that Czechoslovakia was attacking Germany, either...

I think the point is that it is pretty easy to lead a population on the march to war in any given country.

[meanit]

3. sigh

After the GOP & the PTB lied this country into 10 years of war, have we learned nothing?

[marasinghe]

4. sadly, a majority of America seems to have degenerated -

from the rugged individualism of the frontiersmen, to the group-think of a pack of wolves.

[choie]

6. US Right or Wrong

eh, Mosby?

[Ken Burch]

13. Or, as Phil Ochs put it:

"We own half the world, O Say Can You See?
And the name for our profits is 'democracy'.
So like it or not, you will have to be "free"...
'cause We're The Cops Of The World, Boys,
We're the Cops of The World."

[Mosby]

14. That's not what I said.

[marasinghe]

7. the bullshit being spouted is the old 'manifest destiny' crap under another name.

and now it is global. what has not changed is that - it is still the thieving sociopaths on the right who spout it.

the entitlement-handicapped assholes among us think the rest of the World should fall down & die so America can have its fucking $1/gallon gas, its cell phones made from fragging African countries for minerals, and its right to install a bunch of murdering scumbag dictators in banana republics - so the people of those countries get to stand up & pay homage to the American way of life, or die resisting.

the average Americans should get the fuck out of other people's lands & rape their own damn backyard for resources - if they want to live the life of minor despots.

and wake the fuck up to what we on the left are really saying: "We shouldn't be killing a million Iraqis to guarantee our cheap fucking gas prices for the next 50 fucking years, or whenever the fucking oil runs out".

[Mosby]

16. whatever - i'm not an isolationist like you, deal with it.

[azurnoir]

17. I would not take this poll too seriously because

the 56% was arrived at by adding all three political demographics and averaging them, they were

Republicans 70%

Democrats 46%

Independents 51%

added together they are 167 divide by 3 =55.66666666666667 or 56

IMO the numbers of those parties in the 'real' world are not quite that evenly divided

[Ken Burch]

20. We don't have to keep using force to avoid being "isoolationist".

And the days when war can liberate anybody are over.

[Mosby]

21. ok - so where do you stand ken?

Are you good with the iranian regime developing nuclear weapons?

Simple yes or no will do.

Thanks in advance.

[Ken Burch]

22. It's a loaded and unfair question

We both know that using force to stop them getting it risks World War III...how could THAT be better than Iran possibly getting the bomb?

And it's not as if the only possibilities are bombing Tehran(which we both know would have to involve large-scale civilian casualties)and letting Tehran have the bomb. We don't even know for sure that they really are building one...is anything they are doing inconsistent with civilian use of nuclear power(something I'm also against, but not something anybody would say justifies bombing a country that does it).

And really, it's silly to say that it's horrible for them to have it, but just peachy keen for Israel...NOBODY should have the bomb, and nobody is more trustworthy with it than anybody else.

I don't think WE should have the bomb, as far as that goes. The Cold War is over.

Bibi is being insane here...he HAS to back off with this shit.

[Mosby]

32. I would like to see a world without nukes

Last edited Fri Mar 16, 2012, 10:55 PM - Edit history (1)

but I don't have the slightest idea how that could be accomplished.

I disagree that an attack on Iran's nuclear sites would spark a conflict with other countries, while the comparisons are not perfect, Israel has dealt with situations like this in the past (Iraq/Syria) without any problems from other countries. The main risk as I see it is from asymmetrical warfare from Iran and it's proxies.

I believe that Iran is a "rational actor" as far as that goes but the main problem with a nuclear Iran is 1) a nuclear arms race in the ME and 2) Iran's ability to protect their nukes. What would it take for example for a group or even an individual to bribe a couple people within the Iranian military and obtain a nuke that way to be used in a terrorist style attack? Iran would even have "plausible deniability", they could just point to a corrupt military officer and blame him, and that's only if the origin of the device could be determined at all.

[Ken Burch]

34. And if Israel launched a nuclear strike against somebody else

they could ALSO point to a "corrupt&quot or zealously pro-settler) officer and blame him. Everything you posted in that second graph could just as easily apply to "the ONLY 'democracy' in the Middle East".

[Shaktimaan]

42. sort of

Everything you posted in that second graph could just as easily apply to "the ONLY 'democracy' in the Middle East".

The two notions are both equally absurd, if that's what you mean. Actually, they're not quite equal... your idea is definitely not a possible thing that could actually occur in the real world.

I'd love to hear how you think that a rogue officer could single-handedly launch a nuclear strike against anyone, much less obtain, transport and sell an active, armed nuke, stolen from the IDF.

[Shaktimaan]

41. Well now that's just absurd.

What would it take for example for a group or even an individual to bribe a couple people within the Iranian military and obtain a nuke that way to be used in a terrorist style attack? Iran would even have "plausible deniability", they could just point to a corrupt military officer and blame him, and that's only if the origin of the device could be determined at all.

First of all any nuclear explosion would leave behind tons of radioactive material, all of which can be easily traced to a specific source where it was mined. There is no "plausible deniability" with nuclear weapons. If you made it, then even if it goes off somewhere a million miles away your fingerprints would still be all over the thing. It is probably the least useful weapon on earth if you need to hide the origin of attack.

And if Iran chooses to build such a weapon then it is responsible for its security as well. To build something like that and leave it unsecured is tantamount to pushing the button yourself.

That aside, what terrorists are going to be able to deploy a nuclear weapon under the best of circumstances. What, is this corrupt Israeli officer going to sell the location of a missile tube, instructions for arming it, launch codes and the special code word that tells everyone manning the facility to go to the break room for a pizza party? Do you envision the terrorist commandos infiltrating an Israeli submarine, killing the crew and taking control of the nuke that way? This sounds like a plot to the least believable James Bond film ever made.

Get real dude. The last terrorist to make the news was knocked unconscious by a stewardess while he was trying to set his own underwear on fire. We're not exactly dealing with Dr. No here.

[Mosby]

48. I think your being naive

I not suggesting that there would be insufficient security, just that the Iranian nuclear weapon security would be susceptible to bribes and that the overall physical and human security elements would not be up to par. If you recall a few years ago the US military managed to lose a couple nukes for 3-4 hours and we probably have some of the best, multi-layered nuclear weapon security anywhere.

The nuke would not have to be "shot at" Israel so to speak, just smuggled in with cargo of some sort. I don't know much about launch codes etc. but imo your assuming that any nuke Iran developed would have all these security protocols like we see in movies. I don't think that is a reasonable assumption.

[Shaktimaan]

26. what about Libya? np

[Ken Burch]

27. It's not clear that Libya is going to end up with a democracy.

I hope it does...but events there are at the mercy of a self-appointed more-or-less-provisional government.

[Shaktimaan]

29. right.

In other words, war still can (and very well might in Libya), still be used to liberate people from oppression, but it is not guaranteed. So basically nothing has changed at all wrt this for the past few centuries.

Let's try this... do you think Libya could have been liberated without going to war?

[Ken Burch]

35. I did NOT say that nothing has changed

The Arab world is as subject to change as any other part of the world...it was not appropriate for you to try to sneak in the "eternally backward" meme(or as they said in the original, racist lyric from Disney's ALADDIN "It's barbaric, but hey, it's home&quot .

the results of the entire Arab Spring are still not yet known...what I am saying is that it is not clear that the use of U.S. force(a force the entire Arab world regards as being imperialist when deployed in the Middle East)cannot be said to be vindicated by the fall of Khadafi/Qadaffi/Silly Outfit Guy or whatever the hell anybody wanted to call him.

[azurnoir]

10. edit because #17 explains better

Last edited Thu Mar 15, 2012, 04:54 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/13/us-usa-iran-poll-idUSBRE82C19Y20120313

[Ken Burch]

12. If you don't support reducing Tehran to a heap of rubble

that means you think "we Americans should be ashamed for living"?

On what planet does THAT make sense?

I love my country...that's why I don't want it to cause World War III(we all know China and Russia would fight on Iran's side in a shooting war situation with Iran), since that would probably lead to the deaths of massive numbers of Americans. to say nothing of the huge numbers of Iranians and Israelis and others who would end up getting slaughtered for no reason.

It's impossible to attack Iran without their being massive backlash. It can't be DONE surgically. Why risk something that can only make life worse for everyone?

[Mosby]

15. strawman

[Ken Burch]

19. The strawman was the assertion that people who don't want the attack on Iran

(an attack we both know cannot be surgical and cannot be without blowback) want the United States to apologize for existing.

We don't. We just want our government to stop being globally arrogant. Is that REALLY too much to ask? And how is wanting that unAmerican?

Jefferson never wanted us to act like an empire.

[Ken Burch]

28. Why is it a strawman?

Clearly, it wouldn't be possible anymore to just hit the specific target.

The days of surgical strikes have ended...if they ever really existed.

Might as well admit it.

Why not propose something useful here...like, say, a non-aggression pact between the U.S.,Iran, and Israel?

[Mosby]

33. It's a strawman

because you took what I said and turned it into "If you don't support reducing Tehran to a heap of rubble".

I'm not a military expert in any way and I understand that airstrikes will not be sufficient for this operation but from what I have read airstrikes combined with some special ops units on the ground could work. Moreover given the large intelligence network Israel maintains in the middle east, there are probably more than a couple Israeli assets already in Iran.

[Ken Burch]

36. The way Gaza was hit in OCL is not exactly an encouraging example.

Why should we assume the damage here would be any more limited than that? After all, it should have been EASIER to do surgical strikes from a twenty miles away than aiming at Tehran.

I simply have no confidence that the innocent civilian population of that city, a population which is not collectively responsible for Ahmadinejad's craziness, would somehow be spared.

[Shaktimaan]

37. How does Tehran resemble Gaza?

In Gaza there were military installations mixed in with mosques and schools. Tehran isn't like that.

That said, any strike would result in civilian casualties. Assuming you oppose Iran attaining nukes, what level of casualty amongst Iran's civilians would you be willing to tolerate in order to curtail that ability, at least temporarily? It goes without saying that the civilians don't deserve to die because of their government's actions, but it is also besides the point. Assuming all other attempts at restraining Iran's plans fail, then would you be willing to consider military strikes? Or do you think that Iran's nuclear ambitions do not justify the risks and expenses attached to taking military action?

Recall that North Korea was able to obtain nuclear weapons in recent years by playing a similar shell game as Iran seems to be doing now. Knowing what we do now, do you think we would have been justified in taking military action against NK back when it might have still been a feasible option to keep nukes out of their hands?

[Ken Burch]

38. You're forgetting that we couldn't have hit North Korea

WITHOUT getting a military response from China. No way in hell would Beijing have tolerated that kind of thing.

[Shaktimaan]

40. Are you serious?

Since I just posted this I'll refer you to my response here about the likelihood of that scenario. While you read it think about WHY you think China would want to irreparably harm it's booming economy in order to fight a war with the US for the sake of protecting North Korea. Why the fuck would they care at all what happens to North Korea? More relevant to our discussion, WHERE did you even hear such thing?


The fact of the matter is that neither Russia nor China would fight with the US unless their very survival was at stake. Consider the implications... China and America's economic futures are so intrinsically linked at this point that the thought of them going to war, like with guns and missiles and stuff, is ridiculous. Neither could do so without severely damaging themselves. This isn't just about their linked economies and trade... both nations rely on the other to fulfill critical roles in their respective economic strategies. Strategies that each government relies on to keep the wheels of their massive international operations turning.

If China DID flood the markets with dollars, you are right... its value would plummet and the relative prices of everything in the US would rise sharply. Our oil consumption would become prohibitively expensive which would send shockwaves through our system, causing massive deflation.

But remember that China has been buying huge amounts of dollars for years now and is sitting on a big stockpile of our treasury notes. China would be one of the key victims of the devaluing the dollar themselves as their investments' value would nosedive at the exact same time as its own currency would skyrocket. China buys all those $$$ to keep the yuan artificially low to bolster their huge export industry. They'd lose their main client state, (the US) at exactly the same time as the prices of anything stamped "made in China" began to spike, at the same time that oil prices ALSO spiked influencing both manufacturing AND delivery, at the same time their nest egg's value went into free fall.

But this is academic anyway. By attacking a member of NATO, China would at the very least lose it's entire market for manufacturing. The idea that Russia would just abandon the whole framework of its hard-won arrangements with NATO in order to back Iran in a fight against the US is preposterous. Why in the world would Russia do such a thing? Out of some Kozinskian reflex brought on by nationwide self-loathing over the memory of how they were supposed to be the leaders of a new Socialist Europe, compared with the realization that they might be next in line for having to work all those super-crappy manufacturing jobs that would need to be replaced once China was sanctioned? A kind of national mass suicide pact? Better to join China and go out in a blaze of glory?

I mean, I'm just spitballing here. But it would seem that Ken is yet again positive of an outcome that is not merely unlikely... it is entirely predicated on ideas that require a wholesale ignorance of the current political and economic realities of the modern-day world. It reads like a scare scenario that GW Bush's administration might dream up. (Iraq is working with Al Qaeda to steal the US Mint! They'd be free to print their own money at will and purchase US cruise missiles with it to attack the Jews of Boca Raton, Florida!)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=6607

[Ken Burch]

43. You're forgetting how fixated the PRC is on defending what it sees as it's "sphere of influence"

Last edited Tue Mar 20, 2012, 12:52 AM - Edit history (1)

And the principle of no outside intervention in a country.

Why on Earth would they stand aside and do nothing if the U.S. attacked one of their closest allies, an ally with a border with the PRC?

[Shaktimaan]

44. and...

You're forgetting how fixated the ROC is on defending what it sees as it's "sphere of influence"

that's it?

Look, do you have a scintilla of evidence to even remotely suggest that China would willingly obliterate it's entire economy to protect it's "sphere of influence"? Did they say something to this effect? That North Korea is under its protection? Anything like that?

Is this something that is widely accepted amongst policy wonks who specialize on China? Is it something that was discussed as a legitimate worry during the whole NK crisis? Is it something that maybe North Korea itself threatened?

I'm asking you where you are getting this information from. Because I've never heard that before. Nothing like it. Worse, it makes no sense at all. You think that China would destroy itself to protect its "sphere of influence" over an impoverished, third world state that it currently carries on its back despite the huge amount of trouble it causes for no reason?

I call shenanigans. You're clearly making this up.

[Ken Burch]

45. You're the one who's asserting that the PRC would put up with U.S. military intervention

in a country on its own border, just to keep access to American markets, and you say I'M making things up?

Why are you so ridiculously confident that the U.S. and/or Israel can get away with blowing up all sorts of shit without any real consequences? Do you also believe the boys will be home from Vietnam by Christmas?

The real driving force for Chinese policy-making these days is NOT trade...it's nationalism. Any Chinese leaders who stands by and does nothing while the U.S. launches an unprovoked attack on North Korea are putting themselves at imminent risk of being driven out of office. They'd see standing by and doing nothing while their neighbor and ally was attacked as an intolerable loss of face. It would clearly have been and would clearly still be insane to risk it. Just as it would be insane for the U.S. OR Israel to attack Iran. It simply can't be worth the risk...no good that could come of it could be worth both the loss of civilian life(which couldn't possibly be kept to a minimum)or the risk of destabilizing the global situation in the name of some atavistic fixation with "strength"-just as it was inexcusable for JFK to put the survival of the world at risk over a handful of missiles in Cuba that that country was perfectly justified in having as self-defense after our side tried to re-impose a right-wing dictatorship in early 1961(and a right-wing dictatorship was the only possible result of a successful overthrow of Fidel Castro, as we both know).

Your posts are sounding increasingly like the innermost thoughts of Col. Bat Guano in DR. STRANGELOVE.

[Ken Burch]

46. The Chinese leadership is driven mainly by nationalism

They're not going to let a neighbor and an ally get the shit blasted out of it just to keep their investment in our debt or to retain their access to U.S. consumer markets. They're not going to lose face and put their positions at risk(this is still a country that has internal party purges, you know) in the name of "free trade".

You must be thinking of Bizarro World China-the country that's led by the Beijing branch of the Libertarian Party.

It is truly disturbing that you seem to spend so much time fantasizing about bombing complete strangers in other countries...it makes you sound sadistic, and I'd prefer to think that you aren't.

In the case of either Iran or North Korea...it simply couldn't possibly be worth the risk to do the things you want to do to those countries. There couldn't be a positive result, and no one's life could be made better by what you propose.

Pre-emptive strikes are the kind of thing only right-wingers should ever defend or advocate. Not progressive people with humane, small-d democratic values. If you have THOSE values, you have an obligation to put the avoidance of force first. Force should only be used for defense against external attack. To strike first is to put yourself on the same moral plain as Dick Cheney and Col. Bat Guano.

[Shaktimaan]

47. Nationalism, you don't say!?

And attacking the US benefits China NATIONALLY, how???! How is it that destroying China's entire economy doesn't even register to you as something they MIGHT care about avoiding? Because you think it might cause them to "lose face?" Oh God. Really dude? You think the Chinese are so wedded to this old-fashioned concept that it actually trumps all other policy concerns? That they'd attack a strong ally, unilaterally and without legal cause because they're so scared of losing "face?"

They're not going to lose face and put their positions at risk(this is still a country that has internal party purges, you know) in the name of "free trade".

So you are pretty positive that China would happily discard their entire economy and their strong diplomatic ties to the west because if we attack a different state that's somewhat NEAR them, this action makes them "lose face" which they then must defeat us(?), join forces with Iran (?), repel our attack and then destroy Canada to show us what it feels like (?), What(?), and only THEN will they regain their faces.

And you think I live in Bizarro world? Really? Dude, yop just suggested that Party officials would much rather cripple China's economy, trade surpluses, virtually all of their entire heavy industry, their savings (carried as debt) becoming worthless, and making themselves into a Pariah with their strongest allies BECAUSE they're trying o keep their jobs.

Look, you clearly think otherwise. And that's fine, but what I DO find to be totally off the wall is how you came to this conclusion entirely on your own without even a shred of direct supportive evidence. I don't remember China saying anything like what you say here. I don't remember ANYONE else saying what you say here. And I think you made it up.

In the case of either Iran or North Korea...it simply couldn't possibly be worth the risk to do the things you want to do to those countries. There couldn't be a positive result, and no one's life could be made better by what you propose.

YEEEAAAAHHHHH.... the problem with this statement is that Israel already DID take out Iraq;'s nuclear facilities and they did not rebuild thus neutralizing the threat in a precise way, which led to many positive results of the sort that you think are impossible.

Not to mention that you have no way of knowing if it's "worth it" or not at this point. I can imagine dozens of scenarios that result in people's lives getting better because iran was prevented from obtaining nukes. If you can't do this simple thought exercise then you should really not be making any predictions anymore.

Pre-emptive strikes are the kind of thing only right-wingers should ever defend or advocate. Not progressive people with humane, small-d democratic values. If you have THOSE values, you have an obligation to put the avoidance of force first. Force should only be used for defense against external attack.

OK then, we have an answer. You would never take any military action to prevent someone from building a nuclear weapon, right? And once one has been built, it's still immoral to attack them to neutralize the (now tangible) threat. When the leader of the terrorist group that had purchased the nuke from Sudan goes on international television to announce that they are about to launch their very first nuclear missile at New York, even then it's still immoral to attack, right?

Going by your reasoning, it is only AFTER this group has bombed the US that we would have any right to retaliate, correct? We lose initiative and surprise, aren't able to choose the time or place, leaving us at a huge disadvantage right away. I reject the notion that striking first at a clear and obvious threat is in any way ceding moral ground.

So would you NEVER strike first?

To strike first is to put yourself on the same moral plain as Dick Cheney and Col. Bat Guano.

Have you ever been mugged? Like really mugged, not just robbed. Broken nose, busted ribs, that kind of thing? I have, it sucks. Point being, in the few moments right before a mugging gets violent there is occasionally a small window of opportunity that would allow the victim to escape. Problem is they always entail fast a kick to the balls or the gouging of a persons's eye. It's far from ideal, but then everything about bring mugged is far from ideal. My point is that we are capable of sensing hostility and danger even BEFORE we are struck. And once you ARE grabbed, then it's all over. Unless you are some super tough MMA combat fighter or something in which case you aren't being mugged out there anyway so pipe down.

It is up to all of us to do our part, as a society to avoid this kind of event. If I run up to someone with a hood covering my face, a knife, and at least one other guy while screaming, "Give me the motherfucking money white boy. Right FUCKING NOW!!!!" then I recognize that I have engaged in threatening behavior that warrants the victim's attempt to flee or defend himself, even though I have yet to touch him.

Now if that person turns around and gouges out my eye then I could argue that he acted unfairly because taking an eye to protect a wallet is obscene especially since he hit me first. But it is a VERY weak argument. Your expectation is that Israel has no right to protect herself from any threatening action which would logically precede an attack. (My mugger loading his pistol for example. Or the underwear bomber lighting up his shorts.) I disagree strongly. Iran is sophisticated country that should have no problem with refraining from starting wars via their use of inflaming, hateful, bigoted and/or threatening rhetoric. To so absolve them of their own culpability in creating the current situation is to be willfully selective to the point of intellectual dishonesty.

[Shaktimaan]

49. by the way...

still waiting for that great evidence of yours. You said china would strike back. What would they do? Bomb New York? Invade Texas? What?

Force should only be used for defense against external attack.

Since when? You're saying that using force to prevent the one of the world's most oppressive dictatorships from obtaining nuclear weapons is immoral? I disagree as do most rational people.

[Shaktimaan]

25. Huh?

we all know China and Russia would fight on Iran's side in a shooting war situation with Iran

We do? Since when? That makes no sense at all. If China decided to go to war with America then the US would probably just refuse to honor its enormous debt with China. Note that it is only by constantly buying US currency that has allowed China to keep their own currency artificially so low. Not to mention that China's enormous export trade rests on the buying habits of the American public. Basically, to go to war with the US would be to destroy China's economy.

What in the world does Iran have that would entice China or Russia into backing it in a war with the US?

Remember when Iran and Iraq fought a years-long war that ended in a stalemate? Now remember what happened when the US attacked Iraq? Right. The fact is that a war with Iran would not spark world war three. They couldn't even beat Iraq. t don't support it. But there would not be any kind of backlash against America of any consequence. Iran is a country that defuses minefields by sending in crowds of children. They're not exactly going to be sending swarms of cruise missiles our way.

[shaayecanaan]

31. Huh?

If China decided to go to war with America then the US would probably just refuse to honor its enormous debt with China.

How would they do that, exactly? Would they simply announce that they are defaulting on any treasury bond held in the name of the Chinese government? Presumably they would also default on any bond held by the Commercial Bank of China and other associated entities. Constitutionally, can they even do that? And even if they could, could the US afford to pay the increased interest burden from their credit rating falling through the floor? (the simple answer is No).

The fact is that the US economy is structurally far weaker than the Chinese. If China was really pissed off, it could inflict major damage simply by flooding the currency markets with US dollars, at a time when oil prices would already be high due to the prospect of war with Iran. Suffice to say that a low dollar in combination with the Straits of Hormuz being mined would bring the US to its knees.

[Shaktimaan]

39. You miss my point.

How would they do that, exactly? Would they simply announce that they are defaulting on any treasury bond held in the name of the Chinese government? Presumably they would also default on any bond held by the Commercial Bank of China and other associated entities.

Presumably. At least until the war ended. Consider the situation faced by the British during WWI (to make an awkward and really rather poor analogy). Every mortar fired at Germany generated a royalty due to the German firm Krupp who owned the patent. Obviously Britain did not pay this royalty while they were engaged in a war (!) but later on it was quietly reimbursed.

If China was really pissed off, it could inflict major damage simply by flooding the currency markets with US dollars, at a time when oil prices would already be high due to the prospect of war with Iran.

Not really, they can't. You're missing the forest here, I was being a little facetious when I made my earlier post. The fact of the matter is that neither Russia nor China would fight with the US unless their very survival was at stake. Consider the implications... China and America's economic futures are so intrinsically linked at this point that the thought of them going to war, like with guns and missiles and stuff, is ridiculous. Neither could do so without severely damaging themselves. This isn't just about their linked economies and trade... both nations rely on the other to fulfill critical roles in their respective economic strategies. Strategies that each government relies on to keep the wheels of their massive international operations turning.

If China DID flood the markets with dollars, you are right... its value would plummet and the relative prices of everything in the US would rise sharply. Our oil consumption would become prohibitively expensive which would send shockwaves through our system, causing massive deflation.

But remember that China has been buying huge amounts of dollars for years now and is sitting on a big stockpile of our treasury notes. China would be one of the key victims of the devaluing the dollar themselves as their investments' value would nosedive at the exact same time as its own currency would skyrocket. China buys all those $$$ to keep the yuan artificially low to bolster their huge export industry. They'd lose their main client state, (the US) at exactly the same time as the prices of anything stamped "made in China" began to spike, at the same time that oil prices ALSO spiked influencing both manufacturing AND delivery, at the same time their nest egg's value went into free fall.

But this is academic anyway. By attacking a member of NATO, China would at the very least lose it's entire market for manufacturing. The idea that Russia would just abandon the whole framework of its hard-won arrangements with NATO in order to back Iran in a fight against the US is preposterous. Why in the world would Russia do such a thing? Out of some Kozinskian reflex brought on by nationwide self-loathing over the memory of how they were supposed to be the leaders of a new Socialist Europe, compared with the realization that they might be next in line for having to work all those super-crappy manufacturing jobs that would need to be replaced once China was sanctioned? A kind of national mass suicide pact? Better to join China and go out in a blaze of glory?

I mean, I'm just spitballing here. But it would seem that Ken is yet again positive of an outcome that is not merely unlikely... it is entirely predicated on ideas that require a wholesale ignorance of the current political and economic realities of the modern-day world. It reads like a scare scenario that GW Bush's administration might dream up. (Iraq is working with Al Qaeda to steal the US Mint! They'd be free to print their own money at will and purchase US cruise missiles with it to attack the Jews of Boca Raton, Florida!)

Yeah, China and Russia would OBVIOUSLY back Iran... of course! But we have both Superman AND Aquaman so we would still, like, totally win in a fight.

[azurnoir]

8. It's is an interesting poll indeed and a further break down is more so

Last edited Wed Mar 14, 2012, 01:12 AM - Edit history (1)

you see it appears that the slight edge in favor of an attack on Iran came from overwhelming Republican support for such an action from the source Reuters

The poll showed Republicans were more willing to support military action by the United States or Israel than Democrats. Seventy percent of Republicans would back U.S. action, while 46 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of independents said the same.

The breakdown was similar when respondents were asked to factor in gasoline prices or their support of an Israeli military move.

"What we're seeing is kind of a general trend that we always see, that Republicans tend to be more hawkish than Democrats or independents," said Ipsos pollster Cliff Young. "Historically Republicans have been much more security-centric."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/13/us-usa-iran-poll-idUSBRE82C19Y20120313

[shaayecanaan]

18. The sheeple will clap and cheer for about two weeks like they always do...

and then when the bodybags start coming home they'll get the cold shudders, just like in every war.

The only difference is that if Israel does successfully goad the US into a war with Iran it will probably break the back of the US-Israeli relationship, at least as far as the left is concerned.

[holdencaufield]

23. "The SHEEPLE will clap..."

Who uses that word? Are you implying that your fellow citizens, the other participants in your Democracy, your peers in the running of the government, aren't as intelligent or insightful as your enlightened self?

That's a bit condescending, don't you think?

[shaayecanaan]

30. My apologies, you're probably right (nt)

nt