|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:54 am Post subject: Focus Grouping War with Iran |
 |
|
The search for an effective propaganda campaign begins..
| Quote: |
Laura Sonnenmark is a focus group regular. "I've been asked to talk about orange juice, cell phone service, furniture," the Fairfax County, Virginia-based children's book author and Democratic Party volunteer says. But when she was called by a focus group organizer for a prospective assignment earlier this month, she was told the questions this time would be about something "political."
On November 1, she went to the offices of Martin Focus Groups in Alexandria, Virginia, knowing she would be paid $150 for two hours of her time. After joining a half dozen other women in a conference room, she discovered that she had been called in for what seemed an unusual assignment: to help test-market language that could be used to sell military action against Iran to the American public. "The whole basis of the whole thing was, 'we're going to go into Iran and what do we have to do to get you guys to along with it?" says Sonnenmark, 49.
Soon after the leader of the focus group began the discussion, according to Sonnenmark, he directed the conversation toward recent tensions between Iran and the United States. "He was asking questions about [Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad going to speak at Columbia University, how terrible it was that he was able to go to Columbia and was invited," Sonnenmark says. "And he used lots of catch phrases, like 'victory' and 'failure is not an option.'"
According to Sonnenmark, two fliers distributed at the focus group session bore the logo and name of Freedom's Watch, a high-powered, well-connected group of hawks. This summer, Freedom's Watch launched a $15 million ad campaign to support the escalation of troops in Iraq. It counts former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and former deputy assistant to President Bush Bradley A. Blakeman among its leaders.
And the upshot of this focus group? "After two hours, [the leader] asked three final questions," Sonnenmark recalls: "How would you feel if Hillary [Clinton] bombed Iran? How would you feel if George Bush bombed Iran? And how would you feel if Israel bombed Iran?" Sonnenmark says she responded, "It would depend on the circumstances....What is the situation in Iraq? Do we have international support?"
Mizrahi says that her group and Freedom's Watch share a common interest in "thwarting the threat of Islamic extremism" and in "dealing with the threat of Iran." But Freedom's Watch "in no way is directing our work, and it's not funding our work." She pointed out that the Israel Project is not "involved with Iraq," a major concern of Freedom's Watch. But the two outfits, she said, "shared information" produced by this focus group. She insisted the focus group was designed to help the Israel Project promote "our belief in pushing sanctions." She added, "We're working day and night to persuade people the options [concerning Iran] are very limited. We're pushing really aggressively on the economic and diplomatic fronts."
"Of all the focus groups I've ever been to," Sonnenmark wrote in a subsequent email to a group of fellow volunteers for the 2006 Senate campaign of Jim Webb, "I've never seen a moderator who was so persistent in manipulating and leading the participants." (Webb is lead author of a Senate letter warning President Bush not to attack Iran without congressional approval; see here and here.)) The gist of the event was "anti-Iranian," says Sonnenmark.
If the group's organizers were testing the case for military action against Iran�even as a last resort�Sonnenmark believes they could not have been encouraged by the results of this focus group. "I got the general feeling that George Bush didn't have a shot in hell" of winning public support for an Iran attack, she says. Some members of her group suggested that if Hillary Clinton were elected president she might have more credibility in making such a case. As for the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran, Sonnenmark's impression was that the group's members did not believe it was up to them to judge.
Sonnenmark left the session wondering if foreign policy hawks would soon be pushing publicly for military action against Iran using language that had been tested on her. But, she says, "It is not going to be so easy this time around." |
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/11/freedoms-watch-iran.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
US General Says Iran Helping Stop Iraq Bloodshed
AFP - Wed Nov 21, 8:44 AM ET
BAGHDAD (AFP) - A US general on Wednesday acknowledged Iran's role in helping quell the bloodshed in Iraq, saying Tehran had contributed to stopping the flow of arms across the border into the country.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071121/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestusiran
;_ylt=AlOkE9EnGD2RQwEshQL03RgDW7oF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgeezer
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| BAGHDAD (AFP) - A US general on Wednesday acknowledged Iran's role in helping quell the bloodshed in Iraq, saying Tehran had contributed to stopping the flow of arms across the border into the country |
That won't be enough to convince Joo....He will say, "It doesn't matter...Iran should give up their war with America" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
all it shows is that Iran can turn it on and turn it off.
How about all the other stuff Iran has done? Does it make up for everything that Iran has done? and still does? As I said the US needs an insurance policy for Iran. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yetanotherSarah
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
all it shows is that Iran can turn it on and turn it off.
How about all the other stuff Iran has done? Does it make up for everything that Iran has done? and still does? As I said the US needs an insurance policy for Iran. |
Like what? what exactly does Iran do that the officials in the US and many other nations don't? Yes, the regime against their own people is terrible, but Iraq proves that an attack won't make that any better, only much, much worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Depends on what you fight for that is even more important than what you do.
I haven't said the US ought to attack Iran I have said the US ought to invest in an insurance policy to keep Iran honest.
Iran deserves to be hit that doesn't mean it is a good idea for the US to do it . Now anyway.
PROJECT THOR (RODS FROM GOD) is the answer for Iran's nuclear program.
If Iran behaves themselves then they won't have a problem. If they do any kind of terror attack like at Kobar then they will loose their nuclear program. Iran's nuclear program would no longer be an asset but rather a hostage. Most everything Iran wanted to gain from having nuclear weapons is now gone.
Here is another insurance policy
Insurance Policy
What an Insurance Policy Looks Like
More Insurance |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keysbottles
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Location: AnJung
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Speak softly and carry a big stick??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Depends on what you fight for that is even more important than what you do.
I haven't said the US ought to attack Iran I have said the US ought to invest in an insurance policy to keep Iran honest.
Iran deserves to be hit that doesn't mean it is a good idea for the US to do it . Now anyway.
PROJECT THOR (RODS FROM GOD) is the answer for Iran's nuclear program.
If Iran behaves themselves then they won't have a problem. If they do any kind of terror attack like at Kobar then they will loose their nuclear program. Iran's nuclear program would no longer be an asset but rather a hostage. Most everything Iran wanted to gain from having nuclear weapons is now gone.
Here is another insurance policy
Insurance Policy
What an Insurance Policy Looks Like
More Insurance |
I agree with Joo.
We can't know whether Iran will have nuclear weapons until they acquire them. Striking Iran is not a failsafe plan for denying them weaponry.
The standard argument is that US aggression and hostility present a reason for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons (although this is a half-hearted argument to argue that Iran should be doing so while hood-winking the IAEA). If that is the case, Iranian development of deterrent technology creates a prima facie case for further US build-up and preparation.
Iranian nuclear weapons will be able to threaten everyone in the region. Everyone. Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, and of course Israel.
The logic of deterrance applies back against Iran. If Iran wants to play the technological development game against the US, well, Iran can try to beat the US. [/i] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yetanotherSarah
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know....
The problem with nuclear arms for countries the west wants to rape for resources is that they are democratizing. Sick megalomaniacs live everywhere and are in power in many countries. Iran is no more dangerous with nuclear power than America is. But they are less rape-able, its like an atomic chastity belt. With our water and that giant Florida sized hole in Alberta, if Canada still had an arms program we'd be a threat too. But we don't and we're unfortunately friends, allies and trading partners. Making us highly rape-able.
Frankly, the more countries have the bomb, the safer we all are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yetanotherSarah wrote: |
I don't know....
The problem with nuclear arms for countries the west wants to rape for resources is that they are democratizing. Sick megalomaniacs live everywhere and are in power in many countries. Iran is no more dangerous with nuclear power than America is. But they are less rape-able, its like an atomic chastity belt. With our water and that giant Florida sized hole in Alberta, if Canada still had an arms program we'd be a threat too. But we don't and we're unfortunately friends, allies and trading partners. Making us highly rape-able.
Frankly, the more countries have the bomb, the safer we all are. |
The US doesn't want to steal their oil. The US wants them to give up their war against the US.
Iran fights for different reasons than the US.
Iran would be far more dangerous than the US if they had the same power. What you said is foolish. Iran does stuff like blow up Jewish commuity centers not in Israel but in Argentina and they do stuff like kill the translators of the satanic versus.
You know nothing of the situation.
the more countries that have nuclear weapns the better? How about the Taliban? How about Saddam Hussein?
See how North Korea blackmails South Korea?
I have seen a dumber post than yours in a while. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yetanotherSarah wrote: |
| Sick megalomaniacs live everywhere and are in power in many countries. |
| yetanotherSarah wrote: |
| Frankly, the more countries have the bomb, the safer we all are. |
Care to reconcile these two statements?
The America-will-come-steal-Iran's-oil-if-Iran-doesn't-develop-nuclear-weapons is an assumption. Its an assumption that has less support considering that:
A) the American military is dead-set against an invasion
B) the American populous is war-weary from Iraq and Afghanistan
C) Bush has 14 months left in office
Its amazing people will move from this assumption and argue that another power should have nuclear weapons. Especially when Iran's development of nuclear weapons, peacefully they say, is already spawning a nuclear development race in the region. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attacking Iran is no joke. It won�t be like Somalia, Iraq or Yugoslavia. Every Iranian embassy on earth is a potential source of terrorism (ask the Argentines). They also have the ability to sink aircraft carriers and may disrupt sea traffic in the Gulf and the Straits between Singapore and Indonesia (via piracy and terrorism).
If the United States military in Iraq sustained massive losses (a few scuds lobbed into the green zone, for example) or, as is also likely, a few dozen car bombs go off in DC/NY/LA, won�t the average American be screaming for (more) blood? What if an aircraft carrier gets sunk, how will the Republican base deal with that? The call for an all out war will be loud. Very loud.
And Darth Vader, never one to shy down from a fight with other people�s kids, will embrace the new warrior spirit in the American people. The �threat level� will be elevated and talk of a new, longer war will dominate discussion. Hell, they might even start showing the flag-covered coffins of soldiers returning home from the massacre of American good�ol�boys just defending freedom (in a region that doesn�t want/deserve or understand it). People will be enraged. THIS doesn�t happen to US. WE do this to THEM!! The presidential race will lose track of Iraq, just as it has Afghanistan, as a new boogie man has now been manufactured, packaged and presented to the public. A full war will be inevitable.
And the war will start. Iran will continue to hit the USA (while watching the whole of Iran get destroyed by �smart bombs� being dropped on hospitals, wedding parties and the like) and the Americans will continue to demand more action.
The end result? Bankruptcy, mass death, a more insecure world. 250$ oil (no exaggeration). And the ONE hope we have in the so-called �islamic world�, the Iranian youth, will be lost to feelings of nationalism and religious solidarity.
Let�s roll! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
Attacking Iran is no joke. It won�t be like Somalia, Iraq or Yugoslavia. Every Iranian embassy on earth is a potential source of terrorism (ask the Argentines). They also have the ability to sink aircraft carriers and may disrupt sea traffic in the Gulf and the Straits between Singapore and Indonesia (via piracy and terrorism).
If the United States military in Iraq sustained massive losses (a few scuds lobbed into the green zone, for example) or, as is also likely, a few dozen car bombs go off in DC/NY/LA, won�t the average American be screaming for (more) blood? What if an aircraft carrier gets sunk, how will the Republican base deal with that? The call for an all out war will be loud. Very loud.
And Darth Vader, never one to shy down from a fight with other people�s kids, will embrace the new warrior spirit in the American people. The �threat level� will be elevated and talk of a new, longer war will dominate discussion. Hell, they might even start showing the flag-covered coffins of soldiers returning home from the massacre of American good�ol�boys just defending freedom (in a region that doesn�t want/deserve or understand it). People will be enraged. THIS doesn�t happen to US. WE do this to THEM!! The presidential race will lose track of Iraq, just as it has Afghanistan, as a new boogie man has now been manufactured, packaged and presented to the public. A full war will be inevitable.
And the war will start. Iran will continue to hit the USA (while watching the whole of Iran get destroyed by �smart bombs� being dropped on hospitals, wedding parties and the like) and the Americans will continue to demand more action.
The end result? Bankruptcy, mass death, a more insecure world. 250$ oil (no exaggeration). And the ONE hope we have in the so-called �islamic world�, the Iranian youth, will be lost to feelings of nationalism and religious solidarity.
Let�s roll! |
That is why the US needs to invest in an insurance policy against Iran.
If Iran behaves themselves they would not have anything to worry about.
But if they don't then they are responsible for what happens next.
Let me say Peel even though we disagree a lot you seem to understand alot about Iran. And I agree with about 75% of your analysis here.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Iran is an impoverished country. The people do not like their government.
You do not understand, joo. Attacking Iran is good for the Iranian government. It will solidify their support. It will make them more powerful.
From your avatar, it seems you like sci-fi. Remember the scene when Darth Vader and Kenobi are fighting on the Death Star? Ben said "if you strike me down, darth, I'll only become more powerful than you could even imagine". Well, same goes for Iran. If America hits them, the mullahs become more powerful than you could even imagine. You are blindly playing into their hands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
Iran is an impoverished country. The people do not like their government.
You do not understand, joo. Attacking Iran is good for the Iranian government. It will solidify their support. It will make them more powerful.
From your avatar, it seems you like sci-fi. Remember the scene when Darth Vader and Kenobi are fighting on the Death Star? Ben said "if you strike me down, darth, I'll only become more powerful than you could even imagine". Well, same goes for Iran. If America hits them, the mullahs become more powerful than you could even imagine. You are blindly playing into their hands. |
If Iran does another Khobar? I don't think the US ought to bomb Iran. I think the US ought to invest in an insurance policy.
I don't think the US has enough now to impose its prefered method of war on Iran but if the US has better weapons it will.
Once Iran has nuclear weapon then they are big enough to understand the consequences of what they do.
And Iran won't like the consquences . And their govt would not survive .
But again all Iran has to do is behave themselves.
All the US would be doing is matching Iran and canceling out the strategic benefit of Iran's nuclear program. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
