Americans Reject Involvement in Mid-East War

[sabra]

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12604

Americans Reject Involvement in Mid-East War

- Many adults in the United States believe their country’s armed forces should play no role in the current Middle East conflict, according to a poll by SurveyUSA. 84 per cent of respondents believe the U.S. military should stay out of the war.

<snip>

Polling Data

Should the United States military get involved? Or should the United States military stay out of it?

Jul. 16 Jul. 13

Get involved
12% 11%

Stay out of it
84% 84%

Not sure
4% 5%

Should United States diplomats attempt to negotiate a ceasefire between Israel and its neighbours? Or should the United States stay out of it?

Jul. 16 Jul. 13

Stay out of it
52% 55%

Attempt to negotiate a ceasefire
44% 41%

Not sure
4% 4%



Source: SurveyUSA
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,200 American adults, conducted on Jul. 16, 2006. Margin of error is 2.9 per cent.

[iverglas]

1. how on earth do you answer that??

"Should the United States military get involved? Or should the United States military stay out of it?"

Er ... and DO WHAT?

I imagine that all right-thinking people would say "no" quite simply because of what the US military's mission would beyond a doubt be if it were to get involved!

[bbinacan]

5. We should stay out of it,

Israel is more then capable to handle this.

[BillZBubb]

7. Yeah we SHOULD STAY OUT AND NOT PAY ISRAEL'S BILLS

Israel is more than capable on our money. Let's see how well they do if they foot the bill.

[iverglas]

10. yech

Maybe you could post that vile crud someplace other than in response to a post of mine that it has no relevance to.

I feel all dirty now.

[bbinacan]

11. What did I say that was so vile?

And if you feel dirty, go take a fucking cold shower and cool off.

[iverglas]

13. Oh dear. I wonder.

Whatever could

Israel is more then capable to handle this.

have meant?

Hmmmmmm ...

(Oh, I think you meant "more than capable of handling this". And really, can you not be just a little bit clearer when you say things, grammar aside? What is "this", and what constitutes "handling" it?)

[bbinacan]

15. If you bothered to read

my previous post. They don't need us. They have the ability to take care of this. THIS=anyone who wants to wipe them out. Do you need further clarification? Why so acerbic?

[iverglas]

16. oooh, acerbic

And here I thought I was nauseated.

They have the ability to take care of this. THIS=anyone who wants to wipe them out. Do you need further clarification?

Yes, please.

"Anyone who wants to wipe them out" ... well, you're getting warmer. Maybe you're referring to someone in particular, eh?

We still haven't got the explanation of what "handle" means, though -- unless you think that "take care of" is a clarification.

C'mon, be a Horton. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

How many Lebanese will need to be killed, and what percentage of Lebanon's public and private infrastructure will need to be demolished, to constitute "handling" or "taking care of"?

I'll check back in the morning. My tummy needs its din now.

[bbinacan]

21. Anyone means

anyone. Define it as you see it.

[Threedifferentones]

33. The Israeli response is excessive but

there are more people in surrounding nations that want to kill them than there are Israelis. Israel needs firepower to exist, although they are guilty of misusing it.

[iverglas]

12. now how did that get posted there? n/t

[Peace Patriot]

19. "Vile crud"? Questioning the billions and billions of U.S. taxpayer

dollars that are being used to slaughter innocent people?

The slaughter of innocent people is vile. I fail to see how questioning our financial support for it is vile. It's one thing to question an opinion about the use of U.S. resources. It's quite another thing to call it "vile crud." I don't understand your comment.

Do you think that the poster is HOPING that Israel will NOT be able to defend itself, without U.S. support? I didn't get that from the comment. What I got was that, if Israel is going to commit unjustified acts of war, as it is now doing, the U.S. should not be providing support for that. That's a reasonable comment. I did NOT understand that the poster wants Israel to succumb to its enemies, nor wants the U.S. to withdraw all support, but rather, if Israel is going to pursue a mideast-wide war, and bomb civilians, and destroy Beirut, and slaughter people who have nothing to do with offenses against Israel, and perhaps even invade, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, then the U.S.--at least the U.S. I used to know, the Old Republic--should not be supporting this with our tax dollars. That's what I understood from AmBushed's post.

The problem I see is more complex. I think what Israel is doing now is Plan B of the PNAC agenda. The Bush junta could not convince the American people to go along with a wider war in the Mideast--could not even convince them to go along with the Iraq War--and could not convince Europe, Russia or China that any such thing was necessary, and Plan B is: have Israel do it. And then, when the situation gets out of hand, and incidents start happening--Gulf of Tonkin-type incidents--the junta can jump in to "defend U.S. interests" or "U.S. honor" or whatever. They get their wider Mideast war without instigating it.

So it appears to me that the NeoCons and PNACers have dragged ISRAEL into it--not its leaders, who are militaristic and aggressive, and are certainly going along with this, but I mean its people and the country itself. They may even have threatened Israel with non-support, to push them to do this. Israel will become a pariah state--and what safety it has will evaporate. The Bushites are buds with the Saudi princes and the bin Ladens, not Israel. They will abandon Israel in a minute, if it suits their profit goals. I think Israel has made a "pact with Devil" in joining with the Bush junta.

Furthermore, the rightwing fascist 'christian' witch-burning passions that the Bush junta has stirred up, in that small, rabid, bigoted segment of our population that still supports them, are extremely dangerous, and can be turned on ANY minority group at ANY time. Now it's gays who are the scapegoats. Now it's brown immigrants. Now it's the French. Now it's blacks. Or Lesbians. Or Arabs. Or "liberals." Or Jews.

These are bad energies. And the lack of democracy in this situation is also very bad. 84% of Americans opposed to U.S. participation in a Mideast War, yet the Bush junta is intent on pushing us into it. This is bad, bad, bad. Bad for us. Bad for Israel. Bad for progressive policies. Bad in every way. And scores of innocent people are being killed! What a horror this junta has created for EVERYONE!

[iverglas]

27. you might want to think twice, type once

"Vile crud"? Questioning the billions and billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars that are being used to slaughter innocent people?

I almost always quote what I'm responding to, but in this case it seemed pretty obvious; the thread was still tiny, the post I responded to was short. What I was responding to was:

Israel is more then capable to handle this.

There are a few people with too many mealies in their mouths around here these days, and methought this was one. Methinks it is one, still, given his/her refusal to clarify that statement.

"Handling this" = blasting the shit out of the entire infrastructure of Lebanon and killing whoever happens to be in the way.

Implying that blasting the shit out of the entire infrastructure of Lebanon and killing whoever happens to be in the way is appropriate -- what else can "handling this" possibly mean? -- is vile crud. I was being tactful, by the way.

I fail to see how questioning our financial support for it is vile.

I fail to see how the poster to whom I was responding was questioning financial support for it -- other than by saying it wasn't needed.

Perhaps you also missed the very first thing I said in the very first post in this thread. Allow me:

"Should the United States military get involved? Or should the United States military stay out of it?"

Er ... and DO WHAT?

I imagine that all right-thinking people would say "no" quite simply because of what the US military's mission would beyond a doubt be if it were to get involved!

I didn't think that was too obscure, really: if the present US govt got its military involved, it would predictably be to support Israel. So the poster to whom I responded was actually correct: US involvement isn't necessary for that purpose.

Do you think that the poster is HOPING that Israel will NOT be able to defend itself, without U.S. support? I didn't get that from the comment.

And I can't imagine why you would have! Pretty much because there wasn't an iota of anything in the post I responded to that remotely suggested, or could possibly have been interpreted, as meaning that.

So I also can't imagine why you'd ask whether I thought such a thing. Of course, your question is loaded anyway ... since Israel is NOT "defending itself", so I can't think anything at all that involves that notion.

What I got was that, if Israel is going to commit unjustified acts of war, as it is now doing, the U.S. should not be providing support for that.

Well, there ya go. That appears to be what you think and what I think -- but I have no basis whatsoever for thinking that it's what the other poster thinks. I, personally, would never use "handling this" as an equivalent for "committing unjustified acts of war".

That's a reasonable comment.

And if it had been what the poster said, or if what the poster said could conceivably have been interpreted as meaning that, it would indeed have been a reasonable comment. It wasn't, and no subsequent comments have indicated that it would have been.

I did NOT understand that the poster wants Israel to succumb to its enemies, nor wants the U.S. to withdraw all support, but rather, if Israel is going to pursue a mideast-wide war, and bomb civilians, and destroy Beirut, and slaughter people who have nothing to do with offenses against Israel, and perhaps even invade, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, then the U.S.--at least the U.S. I used to know, the Old Republic--should not be supporting this with our tax dollars. That's what I understood from AmBushed's post.

Oh, lordy lordy, now I get it. (And if you'd read the rest of the exchange in question, you might have too.)

I was responding to the first post by bbinacan, who said what I quoted above -- and which I referred to in my "yech" post as having been posted in response to my first post, which it was. See the threading? See "Response to Reply #5" at the top of my "yech" post?

So you and I appear to agree on much, and perhaps you will see that you agree with that post of mine now, too.

[Teaser]

17. No they are not.

They're going to come out on the short end of this, unfortunately.

It was a piss-poor strategic move.

[w4rma]

2. Where is the answer "veto a ceasefire negotiation in the UN"? (nt)

[bbinacan]

3. Do you have a link? n/t

[sendero]

6. Do you know how to use Google..

... because it happened only a few days ago, did you miss it?

[bbinacan]

14. I did miss it and

would expect a link to any point being made. I think that is just common courtesy.

[IndianaGreen]

18. For the Google challenged: US vetoes UN ceasefire call

And from a Rupert Murdoch news source no less, to avoid the "liberal" libel!:

US vetoes UN ceasefire call

By Irwin Arieff in the United Nations
July 16, 2006

THE UN Security Council has again rejected pleas that it call for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon after the United States objected, diplomats said overnight.

Washington argued in closed-door talks that the focus for Middle East diplomacy for now should be on the weekend summit in St Petersburg of the Group of Eight industrialised nations, council diplomats said.

It was the sole member of the 15-nation UN body to oppose any council action at all at this time, they said.

"We would expect much more from the Security Council," Lebanese Foreign Ministry official Nouhad Mahmoud told reporters after the council meeting, singling out the United States for blame.

While Washington has been very supportive of the Lebanese government in the past, "when it comes to Israel, it seems things changed," Mr Mahmoud said. "Destruction is still going on, people are still dying ... and here we are impotent."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19806745-1702,00.html

[sendero]

4. I hope the jackass politicians..

.. running our country heed the vast majority who want to stay out of it.

The players in the Middle East continuing story are all loathesome. How can you intervene when both sides suck?

Someday, somehow, these folks are going to have to figure out how to live together. There is little, other than diplomacy, that we can do about it.

[BillZBubb]

8. Stop paying for Israel's war machine.

That would go a long way to stopping all the violence.

[AlamoDemoc]

9. How do you stay out of war you support with your tax dollars?

hmmmm! that's difficult question to answer!

[The Anti-Neo Con]

20. People are sick of needless war.

If 84% isn't a SOLID majority, then I don't know what is.

I guess the other 16% are chickenhawks or just nuts.

[unkachuck]

22. see the way British citizens were being removed?....

....on a British WAR ship and our people were coming out very slowly on a pleasure, cruise ship....call me a tin-foil hatter, but I picture bush down on his hands and knees praying that Hezbollah would put a few rockets into that slow-moving, top-heavy cruise ship....

....then that 84% SOLID majority against needless war would turn into a solid 84% in favor of bush stomping on Syria, Iran....

[Amonester]

23. Please, oh-please: don't give "them" any such silly idea like that...

I think a big slice of the strong 84% majority do know from experience now (i.g. Katrina), that the only immediate onfolding for them would be a huge increase in their household expenses for all things oil and it is clear that this block also has absolutely 'no confidence' in anything the bunch of criminals in the WH touches and/or get involved in anymore.

Count on the stupid idiot to ignore them? Not sure.

Everything he's done (or he's not done) since his failed SS propaganda tour (predicted by President Kerry) has turned into disasters (not including all his pre-2004 disasters). Maybe the 'shame factor' is beginning to take a grip.


:blush: <- "Just wait..." - to Putin, and the laughing audience there.

[daleo]

24. Actually, I think the Americans are already in a mid-east war

The headline is stupid.

[NVMojo]

25. Israel or the Zionists are on their own now, no more international welfare

for them

[lumpy]

26. Bushco should call for a ceasefire

instead of making absolutely no attempt to do a damn thing about the situation. For Christ's sake the powers that be have been lax in even getting our citizens out of Lebanon. I have lost all faith in our leadership, both our corrupt administration and the do nothing Congress.

[shadowknows69]

28. This is almost funny

n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. They should have asked those advocating involvement what they had in mind

Because some might be talking about enforcing a ceasefire, while some might be in favour of joining in the bombing of civilians in Lebanon and Gaza. Quite different viewpoints.

[iverglas]

30. which was pretty much what I said in the very first place!

"how on earth do you answer that??"

Remind you at all of Bernard and Sir Humphrey?

Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: ...

http://www.yes-minister.com/ypmseas1a.htm

More seriously, it is an opportunity to reflect on regarding the enemy of one's enemy as one's friend. Those on the right who oppose international intervention (including the war on Iraq) for bad reasons are not the friends of those on the left who oppose international intervention for good reasons. And questions like this one simply deny the distinction and further muddy the issues.

[leveymg]

31. I recall 63% were against the US invading Iraq.

More proof that Bush's America is a model of democracy for the world.

Looks like another 20% of the American people have learned something from the experience.

Who ARE those 12% who want us to send troops into Lebanon?

[redqueen]

32. Well that's nicely-worded.

:sarcasm:

You could spin those reults six ways to Sunday.

And to think, these people get paid to do surveys. :eyes:

[Poll_Blind]

34. Do they know we fund (in billions) one side of it? n/t

PB

[mvd]

35. A real President would get involved in the process and..

try to see things from both sides, so that no armed forces are needed. But Bush is a moron - not a real President. I'm glad I take the view that both sides in the Middle East have done wrong.