Would You Support War With Iran?

[TruthSeeker56]

No to all "pre-emtive" wars, no matter what the excuse.

It's always best to take a "defensive" position, and wait for thousands of Americans to die.

That way, the "international community" won't criticiize the USA as much when we do decide to take care of business and kick some ass.

 

[Dick Tuck]

What a stupid question. Under what circumstances?

 

[paulitician]

If they would attack one of our allies, I would support war
If they would be going further toward production of a nuke, I would support bombing that facility or backing up one of our allies that would complete that action
If they would be proven to be caught financing or supporting a terrorist attack of America or Americans, I would support war
If they (somehow) would be stupid enough to attack us or one of our ships or something like that, I would support war

But as things stand now... why would I support a war with Iran??

Oddly, I'm with Paulitician on this.

How does bombing another country not qualify as an act of war?

What do you think our reaction would be if Iran bombed our nuclear facilities?

Yeah, some have this strange notion that Bombing & Killing does not = War. I'm pretty sure if we were bombed by a foreign Nation, Americans would call that an act of War.

 

[Charles_Main]

Yet another Childishly Simply Poll on USMB Shocker.


Invasion, Hel No.

Attacks on their Nuke Programs. Hell yes.

Attacks on Military and Government Installations. Hell yes.

Yeah, i'm pretty sure that qualifies as War. So you support War with Iran.

At this point yes. I think we have tried everything else to stop them from Becoming a Nuclear Power, and we have ran out of time. I Hope I am wrong, Because I seriously doubt we are going to do anything about it, and Israel simply is not capable of doing it effectively with out our Help, So I really do Hope I am wrong. Because I Firmly believe if I am right and Iran does get Nukes, that it is only a matter of time before they are used. Probably not on us, But on Israel or the Sunni Muslim Nations.

Even if there are not actually Used, Iran would be able to Effective Dominate the Entire Region Just with the Threat of their Us if we or anyone else did anything about it.

Either Scenario is something I think warrants Military Action to Avoid.

Still not Checking Yes, Because I don't Support Blanket war with Iran. If they came out today and said we invading I would be Dead set against that fucking Lunacy.

 

[paulitician]

What a stupid question. Under what circumstances?

It's not a stupid question. You calling it a stupid question, is stupid. Just vote and then discuss why you voted that way. Or don't, whatever. Who cares?

 

[TruthSeeker56]

If they would attack one of our allies, I would support war
If they would be going further toward production of a nuke, I would support bombing that facility or backing up one of our allies that would complete that action
If they would be proven to be caught financing or supporting a terrorist attack of America or Americans, I would support war
If they (somehow) would be stupid enough to attack us or one of our ships or something like that, I would support war

But as things stand now... why would I support a war with Iran??

Oddly, I'm with Paulitician on this.

How does bombing another country not qualify as an act of war?

What do you think our reaction would be if Iran bombed our nuclear facilities?

Are you trying to draw some sort of parallel between a radical, despotic, anti-Jew, anti-western hemisphere regime producing nuclear weapons of mass destruction, and the non-aggressive, strictly defensive use of our nuclear capabilities here in the United States Of America?

 

[kaz]

Yet another Childishly Simply Poll on USMB Shocker.


Invasion, Hel No.

Attacks on their Nuke Programs. Hell yes.

Attacks on Military and Government Installations. Hell yes.

Yeah, i'm pretty sure that qualifies as War. So you support War with Iran.

You kind of screwed the pooch by your phrasing of the question. I don't think you defined "war" well enough. I was thinking "invasion" not attacks on facilities. I'm not objecting to your definition, just saying as a survey question asking in a way different people will interpret differently you invalidate the results. And yes, I'm an expert in surveys, a GE Six Sigma blackbelt.

 

[paulitician]

Yet another Childishly Simply Poll on USMB Shocker.


Invasion, Hel No.

Attacks on their Nuke Programs. Hell yes.

Attacks on Military and Government Installations. Hell yes.

Yeah, i'm pretty sure that qualifies as War. So you support War with Iran.

At this point yes. I think we have tried everything else to stop them from Becoming a Nuclear Power, and we have ran out of time. I Hope I am wrong, Because I seriously doubt we are going to do anything about it, and Israel simply is not capable of doing it effectively with out our Help, So I really do Hope I am wrong. Because I Firmly believe if I am right and Iran does get Nukes, that it is only a matter of time before they are used. Probably not on us, But on Israel or the Sunni Muslim Nations.

Even if there are not actually Used, Iran would be able to Effective Dominate the Entire Region Just with the Threat of their Us if we or anyone else did anything about it.

Either Scenario is something I think warrants Military Action to Avoid.

Still not Checking Yes, Because I don't Support Blanket war with Iran. If they came out today and said we invading I would be Dead set against that fucking Lunacy.

I hear ya, but it sounds like you do support War with Iran. It's ok to vote that way and discuss your reasons. You don't need to hedge your bets. You can be honest. It's a Message Board, you're supposed to discuss these things openly & honestly. You're entitled to your opinion. I respect it.

 

[Vast LWC]

Seriously, Well lets examine your Questions.

If they would attack one of our allies

Iran is Running Proxy Wars from Israel to Morocco, From Syria to Afghanistan. Iranian Support has helped Kill US troops in Both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Again If? They are going Further Toward a Nuke Everyday.

So are we...

If they would be proven to be caught financing or supporting a terrorist attack of America or Americans

Again If? Long History of Iran Financing and Supporting Terrorist. Who have on Documented Occasions Killed Americans. Hezzbollah, Hama's Both Well Supported by Iran.

We have supported resistance groups inside Iran and Iraq that use terrorist tactics, and continue to support them.

The Kurds in Iraq were a perfect example of this. They carried on a campaign of terrorist attacks against the Hussein government for pretty much the entire time between Desert Storm and the second Gulf War.

Now, I'm not going to say Hussein didn't deserve anything he got, the man was brutal. But they were terrorists, and we did support their efforts.

If they (somehow) would be stupid enough to attack us or one of our ships or something like that

Again, Sounds pretty silly to Pretend they have not been doing this all along. Iran is Never going to be stupid enough to try to attack the US directly, It will always use it's Proxies.

I doubt they would ever even be bold enough to Attack US boats in the Area. They are much more Savvy than That. I believe they understand from the Last half a century or so that you don't beat America on the Battle Field, You beat them in the Game of PR. We lose wars because we lose the will to fight, not because were are beaten on the Field. Even Nam, Experts call a war in which we won all the Battles and lost the war. Because we simply lost the will to continue to not lose.

That would be true of pretty much any nation in the world with an educated populace. People get war fatigue after a decade or so, especially when the original point of the war was based on bullshit, like in Vietnam, or Iraq.

World War II lasted for 6 years in total, from the invasion of Poland to the atomic bomb. War fatigue didn't set in because there was a clear reason for our involvement, and a clear goal.

What do you expect when you have a situation like Iraq, for instance, and the only clear goal in sight is nation building, with an open-ended occupation looming?

 

[hjmick]

I thought we had been at war with Iran since November 4, 1979...

 

[paulitician]

Yet another Childishly Simply Poll on USMB Shocker.


Invasion, Hel No.

Attacks on their Nuke Programs. Hell yes.

Attacks on Military and Government Installations. Hell yes.

Yeah, i'm pretty sure that qualifies as War. So you support War with Iran.

You kind of screwed the pooch by your phrasing of the question. I don't think you defined "war" well enough. I was thinking "invasion" not attacks on facilities. I'm not objecting to your definition, just saying as a survey question asking in a way different people will interpret differently you invalidate the results. And yes, I'm an expert in surveys, a GE Six Sigma blackbelt.

Bombing & Killing people in a foreign Nation qualifies as War. If we were bombed by a foreign Nation, im pretty sure Americans would call that War.

 

[kaz]

That would be true of pretty much any nation in the world with an educated populace. People get war fatigue after a decade or so, especially when the original point of the war was based on bullshit, like in Vietnam, or Iraq.

World War II lasted for 6 years in total, from the invasion of Poland to the atomic bomb. War fatigue didn't set in because there was a clear reason for our involvement, and a clear goal.

What do you expect when you have a situation like Iraq, for instance, and the only clear goal in sight is nation building, with an open-ended occupation looming?

Good point. What if our "war" was restricted to taking out their nuclear capabilities and doing only enough damage to the right parts of the military infrastructure to give the people a chance to rise and overthrow the government, which they very well might do. If we did do that, it should be with follow up air cover and support or we could end up with another Bay of Pigs or Gulf War I slaughter in Iraq.

 

[kaz]

Yeah, i'm pretty sure that qualifies as War. So you support War with Iran.

You kind of screwed the pooch by your phrasing of the question. I don't think you defined "war" well enough. I was thinking "invasion" not attacks on facilities. I'm not objecting to your definition, just saying as a survey question asking in a way different people will interpret differently you invalidate the results. And yes, I'm an expert in surveys, a GE Six Sigma blackbelt.

Bombing & Killing people in a foreign Nation qualifies as War. If we were bombed by a foreign Nation, im pretty sure Americans would call that War.

I didn't say otherwise, that wasn't my point.

The question is if you want to make a point with your poll or ask people what they think.

 

[Vast LWC]

Are you trying to draw some sort of parallel between a radical, despotic, anti-Jew, anti-western hemisphere regime producing nuclear weapons of mass destruction, and the non-aggressive, strictly defensive use of our nuclear capabilities here in the United States Of America?

Has Iran used Nuclear weapons in aggression?

I must have missed that.

I do remember us using them on another nation...

Also, doesn't Israel have nuclear weapons?

 

[paulitician]

You kind of screwed the pooch by your phrasing of the question. I don't think you defined "war" well enough. I was thinking "invasion" not attacks on facilities. I'm not objecting to your definition, just saying as a survey question asking in a way different people will interpret differently you invalidate the results. And yes, I'm an expert in surveys, a GE Six Sigma blackbelt.

Bombing & Killing people in a foreign Nation qualifies as War. If we were bombed by a foreign Nation, im pretty sure Americans would call that War.

I didn't say otherwise, that wasn't my point.

The question is if you want to make a point with your poll or ask people what they think.

Just asking a question. You're thinking too deeply. Just vote and then discuss why you voted that way. It really isn't as complicated as you think. You're entitled to your opinion. So lets hear it. It's what Message Boards are all about.

 

[kaz]

Are you trying to draw some sort of parallel between a radical, despotic, anti-Jew, anti-western hemisphere regime producing nuclear weapons of mass destruction, and the non-aggressive, strictly defensive use of our nuclear capabilities here in the United States Of America?

Has Iran used Nuclear weapons in aggression?

I must have missed that.

I do remember us using them on another nation...

Also, doesn't Israel have nuclear weapons?

So we used them in aggression on another nation? When was that?

Liberal logic, you can't follow it with a program.

Also, Israel isn't a rogue nation who's terror starts with it's own people. I'm not for invading Iran, I'm just talking about the silliness that was your post. I am open to limiting the damage they can do with nuclear weapons, but I'm not interested in another round of the US takes it on themselves to do the world a favor, the world returns the favor by kicking us in the balls. If Israel deals with them, I'm all for it.

 

[Vast LWC]

Good point. What if our "war" was restricted to taking out their nuclear capabilities and doing only enough damage to the right parts of the military infrastructure to give the people a chance to rise and overthrow the government, which they very well might do. If we did do that, it should be with follow up air cover and support or we could end up with another Bay of Pigs or Gulf War I slaughter in Iraq.

Sure, good tactics all.

However, Iran has a pretty damn large military infrastructure.

I remember what happened in the very similar situation that was Iraq, after we destroyed their defensive capabilities and then watched and waited. That didn't work very well, did it?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Hell fucking NO!!! I think the MIC private contractors are pretty flu$$$h at this point. Mission accomplished, right corporatists? No reason to flush another 2 trillion dollars down the toilet while
the country is in this state. Screw Israel. They have nuclear weapons and a large standing army. They can take care of themselves. We need to stop billions and aid to them too. They want to steal land? They can do it on their own dime.

 

[Vast LWC]

So we used them in aggression on another nation? When was that?

Liberal logic, you can't follow it with a program.

Also, Israel isn't a rogue nation who's terror starts with it's own people. I'm not for invading Iran, I'm just talking about the silliness that was your post. I am open to limiting the damage they can do with nuclear weapons, but I'm not interested in another round of the US takes it on themselves to do the world a favor, the world returns the favor by kicking us in the balls. If Israel deals with them, I'm all for it.

Umm, Japan? World War II?

Ring a bell?

Israel was actually built by terrorists. The original Zionists used terrorist tactics all the time to try and create a homeland in Israel.

And Israel makes no bones about all the targets they've destroy with surprise attacks, which is pretty much anything they consider a threat. Does having their military carry out attacks make said attacks more palatable to you?

Now, I don't take the side of the Arabs in this situation, certainly, as they use terrorist tactics all the time themselves, but the Israelis sure as hell aren't innocent in that situation, not by a long shot.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No but we may not have a choice. Mitt and the Rs have said that Obama is too soft on our enemies, Mitt has said he wants to enlarge our already bloated military and that he wants a war of his very own.

Apparently, "too soft" means the incredibly surgical and accurate strikes against bin Laden (that the Rs tried and failed to take credit for!) as well as Obama's taking out others of our enemies without a huge war debt, and hundreds of thousands dead or wounded/maimed for life.

The Rs have also criticized President Obama's so-called "kill list", which, of course, EVERY president or head of country has. While Bush wiped out hundreds of thousands of women and children without any question from American citizens or congress, a source has said that those standing within a few feet the target would be collateral. Like it not, that is probably true and the rw's/congress have been apoplectic about it.

As we speak, President Obama is meeting with Putin in Mexico ... Even though Mittens (incredibly!) said that Russia is our biggest enemy, we should be fine. Gawd help us if Mittens and Putin are ever together in the same room. We'd likely be at war within a very few minutes.