Obama Not Capable of Ending Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Efforts - Poll Says
Email This Post
- 
Print This Post
-
Forty-five percent (45%) of likely voters agree with Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama that it’s a good idea for the U.S. president to meet directly with the leader of Iran, but well over half (59%) think that talks should only take place after Iran stops developing nuclear weapons. About one fifth don’t know what to do says a Rasmussen Poll released Wednesday at Noon.Liberals (70%) and Democratic (57%) likely voters favor direct meetings with the Iranian leadership far more than conservatives (25%) and Republicans (22%). Forty-nine percent (49%) of moderates agree. If Mr. Obama is president, only 5% believe Iran is very likely to stop developing nuclear weapons, with 21% saying it s somewhat likely. By contrast, 33% say it is not very likely to happen, with 30% saying it is not likely at all. Obama has recently changes his position that he would meet with Iran’s President without pre-conditions now saying
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 6 June 2008:
I’m always amazed at the total hypocrisy surrounding these “nuclear threats.” Give me a break. Nobody polices Israel and their nuclear weapons. They refuse to acknowledge that they have them, but everyone knows they do.Has anyone here mentioned that the United States is developing a new family of nukes right now while everyone else is pointing the finger at North Korea and Iran? Here’s the way it should be: If you have nukes, you should be subject to IAEA inspections, whether you are Israel and the U.S. or Iran and North Korea. Doesn’t matter. We’re the only country that has ever used them in wartime. And right now, we’re the aggressor country around the globe. If Iran, North Korea and any other country rumored to be developing nukes has to stop, then the U.S. should stop as well. It’s a global community and EVERYONE should have to follow the rules, even the good old U.S.A.
Deb Della Pianas last blog post..Just say no to Joe!
Pingback by Zippity Do Da ToDay « Zippity’s News Today on 6 June 2008:
[...] Obama Not Capable of Ending Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Efforts - Poll Says-hypocrisy.com [...]
Comment by Richard Cochrane on 6 June 2008:
Deb - You have a lot of naïve faith in the UNITED NATIONS’ seriousness, capability, and desire to do what is your view of “right.” I do not have faith in the RODNEY KING SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL relations notwithstanding Obama’s aadherance to it.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 6 June 2008:
Well, Richard, what I believe in is that everyone who has nukes needs to be policed, whether it’s No. Korea, Israel, Russia or the United States. I also do not have much naive faith in OUR ability to police ourselves or our allies fairly. We cannot tell another nation not to develop peaceful nuclear technology when part of our plan to combat global warming is to begin licensing more nuclear power plants instead of developing alternative sources of energy. We cannot tell another nation not to develop nuclear weapons when we are in the process of developing a new class of nuclear weapons ourselves.
I’m trying to understand just exactly where we get off being the judge and jury on this one. It’s acceptable for us. It’s acceptable for Israel (they, of course won’t confirm it and we, of course, know they have them). Pakistan has them and it’s acceptable there because we consider them an ally in the war on terror (another fantasy I don’t get, by the way). It doesn’t matter that Pakistan is totally unstable and its government is — at best — ambivalent about terrorists. It’s acceptable in India. But it’s not acceptable for North Korea or Iran because they’re part of the “axis of evil.” Have I got this right so far?
Deb Della Pianas last blog post..Just say no to Joe!
Comment by Richard Cochrane on 7 June 2008:
You advocate “policing” nuclear weapons as if there can be a Matt Dillon which there can not be. I can’t tell is you think efforts at non-proliferation are worthwhile or not. But, frankly after the genie is out of the bottle, and the only thing stopping a bright 11th grade student from building an ” atomic” bomb is access to fissile material. The best option then is international non-proliferation by treaty. “Policing” is a puerile proposal that you should think about.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 7 June 2008:
Richard, that would be my choice. International non-proliferation by treaty would be my choice. Unfortunately, it’s not the U.S.’s choice. At least not with this regime. So, if that’s not going to happen, then something else must.
My whole point to begin with was that we are oh so arrogant and it just gets on my nerve. It’s okay for us to have nukes, but not them. It’s okay for Israel to have them, but not them. Guess what? NOBODY SHOULD HAVE THEM. PERIOD. Let’s put the freakin’ genie back in the bottle.
As for stopping Iran, I guess you’re asking me to leave it to McCain. Perish the thought. He’d just as soon bomb as talk. That’s his mentality. I thought Bush was dangerous, then I started thinking about having McCain at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for 4 years. Needless to say, sleep has not come easy with that one…
Deb Della Pianas last blog post..Just say no to Joe!
Comment by Richard Cochrane on 7 June 2008:
Deb: How can you say it is not U. S. Choice since U. S. introduced and has championed non-proliferation for over 40 years? Either your anti-American opinion or abject ignorance of fact is showing.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 8 June 2008:
Richard, perhaps I’m confused then, because I don’t understand for the life of me how we can sign a non-proliferation treaty and continue to develop a new family of nukes. Let me display my ignorance:
1. It states that no nuclear nation can transfer nuclear technology to a non-nuclear state. Yet the U.S. is providing nukes for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. That’s a violation.
2. It states that non-nuclear states can develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. By trying to block Iran, the U.S. is violating the treaty. Again, the rhetoric about Iran producing weapons comes from the same sources as the lies about Iraq: McCain, Bush, Cheney. Do I trust THEM? Never in a million years.They’ve not given the American public any reason to believe one word that comes out of their mouths.
3. Article VI of the treaty states the U.S. agreed “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to a CESSATION OF THE NUCLEAR ARMS RACE at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
4. Reality is that the Bush administration is now pursuing a new class of nuclear weapons, including bunker-busters, mini-nukes and neutron bombs. Of course, again we’re invoking the changing landscape as a result of 9-11. But Richard, you and I know that nukes will not stop terrorist attacks, so that is just our president using his considerable ‘fear-mongering’ techniques.
Honestly, I’m a generally laid back person, but I have to tell you that I pay attention to my facts before I open my mouth. And I guess I’m a little tired of conservatives painting liberals, like myself, as anti-American. I am anything but. I have two children, eleven and seven, and I care about what happens to this country. I care about the mess I’m leaving them in when I’m no longer here to care for them. The mess that George Bush has made is distressing to those of us who truly love America. So, frankly, I take your statement as an insult.
I don’t care, Richard, what the U.S. signs. After we sign it, we have to comply with it. So, don’t tell me the U.S. is committed to non-proliferation when they are doing the exact opposite.
Deb Della Pianas last blog post..Just say no to Joe!
Comment by richard cochrane on 9 June 2008:
Deb: “(T)he U.S. is providing nukes for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.” The US has never provided a nuclear weapon to anyone, anywhere, ever. I’d like to see your source. As far as your “fact-checking” goes you I do not paint you as anything other than ill-informed or perhaps simply delusional
Comment by Nukewaste on 10 June 2008:
Deb, you’ve said the phrase ‘new class’ in the course of this conversation more times than it was said at my graduation speech.
You’re getting caught up in shiny objects, and not looking at reality.
1. Transferring nukes? Generally, when someone says ‘nukes’, they’re talking about nuclear warheads.
In this case, private companies located in the US are transferring, and helping to build civilian power plants in these countries for peaceful commercial power.
So if that’s what you mean by ‘nukes’, than okay, and Richard’s assessment of your mental abilities becomes more accurate by the minute.
2. Yeah, for peaceful purposes, you can possess and develop Nuclear technology.
If you honestly think that Iran doesn’t seek this technology for anything but the slaughter of the infidels, you are living in a cave deeper and darker than Bin Laden’s.
Iran is run by an apocalyptic death cult, and is falling apart economically and socially. The only chance they have to keep their population from revolting against the leadership is to point at someone else as the source of their problems.
See every totalitarian regime throughout recorded history for precident.
And it’s okay to not trust Bush and his administration.
Trust someone else’s. Google around, and see what the French Intelligence have decided. Or the Israelis. Or the British. Or virtually any contry on earth. Somehow, they used what normal people call evidence (google that, too) and came up with a prediction of where things are going.
I won’t tell you what they’ve all decided, because I want it to be a surprise.
3. Nuclear arms race? Is there a nuclear arms race going on? How old are you? Do you remember back to the 1980’s? The 70’s?
If you do, think about today. The only nation racing to obtain nukes, oh sorry, you still think that is peaceful, the only country rushing to obtain nuclear WEAPONS is Iran, and they’re hoping they can do it before the US gets fed up with the UN doing nothing, and starts pulling UN funding.
The UN being the policing organization the treaty thingy talks about. Sure, the IAEA isn’t exactly effective by any means, but you take what you can get.
4. New class. Ah. Yes.
Question: So?
Think about it. Do you, as a taxpayer, want to spend more money maintaining a larger fleet of outdated nuclear weapons, or would you prefer to have a smaller, less expensive to maintain modernized fleet.
Does the air force still fly the airplanes it used during world war two? Does the navy still use the old battleships from back then? No. They build new ones, and scrap the old ones. Does whatever company you work for still have their old amiga computers, next to the modern servers? No, they continually upgraded, and scrapped the obsolete equipment.
So what the hell is wrong with you? You think that making new nukes (oops, there’s that word again. Deal with it) means making MORE of them? No. Sorry, but your paranoid conspiracy is unfounded.
Sure, no fleet would be nice, and all that, but for the time being, this is the hand we have to play with, so what would you prefer? More? Or less?
In closing, thanks for displaying your ignorance, but it’s rather apparent to see to most people, without you having to spell it out.
And sorry if I sound like an asshole.
…
Well, upon reading back on what I’ve written, there’s really no if about it. But if you were not displaying so much ignorance, I wouldn’t be as big of a jerk. So let’s both try to have a disarmament race of our own. See how well it works. You reduce your arsenal of ignorance, and I’ll scrap my ammunition of mean.
Deal?
Comment by richard cochrane on 10 June 2008:
Nukewaste- thanks for spending so much time in what I believe is a futile quest to educate. Absent a willingness to learn it is a waste of time.
Comment by Nukewaste on 11 June 2008:
I’m not especially expecting her to learn from her ways, and ours. Sometimes, however, if you ridicule people like this enough with the truth, they get shamed into not posting for a while.
Whether she doesn’t post out of knowledge of ignorance, or just fear of rebuke, it’s all the same, really.
And if she does decide to change, she’s more than welcome.
Deb, next time you hear something, here’s what to do. When someone tells you we’re giving nukes to Germany, don’t run to the internet and scream that we’re giving nukes to Germany. Run to the internet, and research. Find out if it’s true or not. Find out what is going on. Then base your opinions around the truth.
Then, you are more than welcome to discuss.
As for you, Richard, I don’t post much, but I’ve been a reader for some time. Keep it up, so to speak.
Comment by Richard Cochrane on 11 June 2008:
Nukewaste: Good advice. But her most damning statement is “I don’t care…” Ideologues first and foremost “don’t care” for anything except their own ideology.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 12 June 2008:
Richard, I see you’re having some fun at my expense. Enjoy yourself. You and Nukewaste must have a direct line into the government because you are convinced that your information is correct. We’re on opposite sides of the fence here and that’s not going to change.
You are convinced that we’re in complete compliance, and I’m convinced that we are not. Moreover, you are convinced that we do just fine policing ourselves. I do not.
As far as ‘facts’ are concerned, I do not trust the source of yours just as you do not trust mine. We are destined to remain poles apart. Amen.
Deb Della Pianas last blog post..Just say no to Joe!
Comment by richard cochrane on 16 June 2008:
The simple fact is the USA has never transferred by any mean nuclear weapons technology to anyone at any time. On occasions spies the Soviets and Chinese have stolen secrets, and they have shared some of that and its nuclear weapons technology - but not as much as you might imagine. Afterall, it isn’t in their or our best intrest to do so. You conviction on this and other matters does not change the facts. If you have credible information to the contrary I would be most interested in seeing it - in which case I will stand corrected. The fact that you don’t care about the facts is telling and damning.