Yes
No
Not Sure
Poll: 52 percent would back preemptive strike on Iran
Not a preemptive strike under any circumstances, but to avert an Iranian nuclear weapon, according to NBC and the Wall Street Journal:
A new NBC News/Wall Street poll released Monday showed that 52 percent of poll respondents said they backed U.S. military action if the Tehran regime is on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon. Forty percent said the United States should not initiate military action if Iran were about to develop a nuclear weapon.
As the New York Times notes this morning, there's little substantive difference between the candidates when it comes to military options for dealing with Iran. There's certainly a tonal difference, though, between Mitt Romney's claim that Barack Obama will allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon and he will not, and Obama's charge that there has been too much "loose talk of war" recently.
I would have to agree with Mitt Romney -- In an op-ed in the Washington Post on Tuesday, Romney called Obama “America’s most feckless president since [Jimmy] Carter’’
AntwortenLöschenBenjamin Netanyahu is not trust worthy
aren't we all ready at war; war on terror -- seems like a cold war has been going on for a while
It's official: Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism. The words came from the mouth of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. "From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this," Khamenei told followers during morning prayers.
the bottom line is - Israel cannot and will not allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons.
Keep in mind, there are many different ways to fight a war
I just can't fathom how you can have the access to information that you have, and still be supportive of this nonsense.
AntwortenLöschenMy personal opinion is that the world is safer if both Shia and Sunni have nukes; both Israel and Iran; USA, Russia and China. Only a complete f****ng lunatic would use one against a nuclear-armed enemy. Which is why, among other things, you lot haven't just invaded North Korea. Lunatic? In religious terms, the worst of the Zionists are just as bad as the Iranian religious nuts. Have you seen what an animal with teeth and claws does, if you corner it and it feels threatened?
'Pre-empt' what? Pakistan have nuclear weapons. So?
I do recognise that your question asks "...if the Tehran regime is on the brink of developing...". Noted.
That said, I might consider a pre-emptive strike on Israel by Russia, China and every Arab nation who fancies joining in. Or even an invasion of the USA, with Latin America too. Let's see how you like it?
Reply won't work. Dunno why. So, Goodstuff...
AntwortenLöschenre: "It's official: Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism. The words came from the mouth of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei."
Who deliberately mis-translated him this time? MEMRI ?
I just wrote this for you :)
AntwortenLöschenhttp://remixedphoenix.multiply.com/journal/item/86
Iran is attempting to develop nuclear capability. What will they have? One bomb? It's going to take years for them to develop any sort of any serious threat for mass destruction. I think we should monitor them and allow them to develop nuclear power. I don't believe they pose an "imminent" threat to anyone. Let them sabre rattle all they want. It's like a baby's rattle as far as I'm concerned.
AntwortenLöschenAfter Iraq, we should have learned our lesson about preemptive wars. The cost in lives and treasure is not worth the price to pay for the decades it would bog us down in the area.
We don't need a land invasion. Hardly anyone has to die. Maybe a 1000 people max. It can all be done by the air.
AntwortenLöschenWe take out their Navy, secure the The Strait of Hormuz, bomb their nuclear sites & POOF.....problem solved.
It's looking more and more like Obama is on board as well.
As the Larry the Cable Guy would say "Let's git er done."
Iran has no nuclear weapons and has not attacked any country in 100 years. The US has nuclear weapons and has attacked and destroyed two countries recently and trying to destroy the third. The US also dropped two nuclear weapons on two cities causing mass destruction including burning little children and babies to a cinder. Seems like a pre-emptive strike needs to be made against the US before they can destroy another country or decides to drop another nuclear bomb.
AntwortenLöschenI see that the members of S.L.G are not immune to the kool-aid.
AntwortenLöschenThe sad fact is that this is what Americans have become. They support unprovoked wars. They support torture of prisoners that are picked up around the world, and now it will even include American citizens, and thrown into a prison outside of due process of law. It is sad to see the monstrous creatures they have become. Fifty-two percent and there hasn't even been any false flag operations to push them into this support. No member of the royal family crying about babies being thrown out of incubators.
AntwortenLöschenI think Dick Cheney, Obama, George W, Bush, Bill Clinton & Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu are right. Non democratic nations with UNELECTED religious fanatics reading the Koran 24/7 should not posses weapons of mass destruction.
AntwortenLöschenThe question at hand is this; should these guys have WMD's?
No preemptive wars by ANY nation!
AntwortenLöschenNo preemptive wars by ANY nation!
AntwortenLöschenA preemptive war 1939 against Germany would have resulted in saving 70 million fatalities.
Let's take a closer look at that one Randy. Germany after WW1 was obligated by treaty NOT to build any offensive weapons, were paying war reparations out the wazoo, and had a totally collapsed economy. Yet they somehow manged to build up a military machine - under everybody's noses, and made a run at the table.
AntwortenLöschenSomeone HAD fought that preemptive war 20 years earlier. Really put a lid on it didn't it? Yep, those Krauts never bothered anybody again after that. On the other hand, after WW II they were rebuilt, there economy turned into a powerhouse, they re-united with their Eastern piece, and became the rock the rest of Europe will hope will keep them afloat.
So, which do you think would be the better long term solution, building up Iran's economy to the point that they have something to be proud of other than their army, or putting them under more sanctions and attacks without getting at the root of the problem?
Without actually posting a picture, it is a known fact that most US officials have been observed praying to or claiming to believe in invisible supernatural entities. Why should we trust them with nuclear weapons?
AntwortenLöschenI just hope they don't elect the Mormon guy, Mr Rat.
AntwortenLöschen"I just hope they don't elect the Mormon guy, Mr Rat."
AntwortenLöschenStrangely enough Mormons don't believe in invisible supernatural entities exactly.
I totally, 100% support Ron Paul's position on this.
AntwortenLöschenWithout a land invasion, the US won't be able to set up permanent bases there and control the oil, so surely bombing alone won't be enough?
AntwortenLöschenI am not biting
AntwortenLöschenI voted "not sure".
AntwortenLöschenI do not want to see Iran with Nukes or Nuclear technology, but I also think that it would be a mistake invading them.
We will see what happens, I personally will not know till then. But I'm not going to buy into any snake oil or bullshit that the media sells us. The media you have to remember is controlled by the NWO.
No indeed, they believe that they will become gods themselves and be given a planet to rule over when they die. A sort of diety franchise if you will.
AntwortenLöschenGS... re 'biting'...
AntwortenLöschenI wasn't joking mate. I'm serious. That's how the technique works. Permanent US military bases in Iran... let's say by 2020.
Oh, and you know the West Qrna oil fields in Iraq? Check out how many local Iraqis they employ.
It's disgusting, and the willingness to support it when you guys know this stuff, is quite offensive really.
Maybe they should settle the dispute with Sport, perhaps a Soccer match?:)
AntwortenLöschenSoccer can be violent, I hear...for the fans, anyway. How about a chess tournament?
AntwortenLöschenEr, Randy... perhaps you should amend the title? By the looks of your poll, a pre-emptive strike is not the favoured option.
AntwortenLöschenFunniest part is, even here, it was almost certainly mostly Americans who voted. Parallel poll on my own page, asking if people would back a pre-emptive strike against the USA if they were to build their 8,001st nuke, came up very much in favour, by the way.
Is it just me or is Multiply now spectacularly Fooked up?
AntwortenLöschenWhat do you mean? The program, or the membership? lol I'd have to say "both":) lol
AntwortenLöschenI am not seeing any formatting in a lot of the blogs, like the CSS page is missing.
AntwortenLöschenWell Diio, I'm wondering myself if Multiply is going to go bust.
AntwortenLöschenLooks fine here Brian
AntwortenLöschenBizarre. It keeps loading up without the formatting on this page for me. OTOH some pages load fine, so I don't think it is my browser.
AntwortenLöschenLooks OK to me as well. And look! I can reply to people again!
AntwortenLöschenNot that you ever educated anyone anyways, Not:) lol
AntwortenLöschen