POLL: Would you support Israeli/American pre-emptive strikes on Iranian Nuclear sites?

Are you for or against pre-emptive strikes on nuclear facilities in Iran? There are many threads on the issue, but i couldn't find one with straight up FOR or AGAINST replies.

I'm FOR Isreali pre-emptive strikes. Not american strikes, but isreali strikes. After that, if the US just happens to step in on behalf of the Isrealis, i'd be fine with that...

Thanks.

I agree that if all other medium of policies do not succeed and Iran continues to disregard the warnings a targeting of their plants will be fine.

But not under any circumstances US should invade that country, I think the fiasco in Iraq is experience enough.

I would be in favor of it, but I think that Iran is on the verge of IMPLODING anyway....but the reactor must go soon.....

Only if the U.N. and the Liberal Pacifists are against it!

Really? Yes.

I not only believe in pre-emptive strikes against Iran. I believe we need to go ahead and take out Noth Korea while we're at it too. If any other countries dare to question our actions, then we can make them suffer by cutting off any aid we so kindly give and cease all trade with them.

What have they got that we so desperately need? Notta! That's what!

I have a gun, and you have a gun.
We're both fine and dandy, you stay on your land, I stay on mine.

You have a gun, I have none.
You have the power to push me around because you have a gun, and I don't.

What's the difference between the above scenario, and the fact that Iran wants to defend it's self with the same weapons every other big kid on the block has.

U.S.A.
Russia
Israel
China
N. Korea
(rumors)S. Korea
India
Pakistan
U.K.
France
etc.


There is none.
It's a part of "growing" up as a country, and we need to understand that nukes are a great deterrent for invaders. It doesn't matter if it's for the defense of America, or India.

I would love it if all nukes weren't such a threat to humanity, but it's not feasible to be so idealistic, thinking they'll all disappear at the drop of a hat.

I am AGAINST an attack on Iran, it would only worsen our relations with the world. All countries are sovereign over their own matters, if we like them or not. Get use to it.

I would be supportive of it, as long as it did'nt involve getting our soldiers involved in peacekeeping for a bunch of animals, like the ones in Iraq (Kurds excluded). Less troops, more firepower (preferrably from the air). One or two months of heavy 24/7 bombardment, and all the Iranian army will consist of is a bunch of deaf goons with AK 47's and bicycles. I have no fear that we can leave some semblance of a democracy in Iraq, but if it all depends on those people holding it together, I'm afraid that that boat is sunk before it leaves the drydock.

The situation with Iran makes me thankful that Bush pulled us out of that one-sided ABM treaty. What's the point in commiting ourselves to an agreement like that when most of the signing nations are going to sell nuclear technology out the back door to hostile regimes who don't even recognize the existance of said treaty.

Personally, I don't think that any country should be given or sold that sort of technology unless they have the education and industrial capability to develope it from the ground up themselves if needed. Fanatical terror sponsering Islamists with oil money do not meet those requirements by any measure. Seeing how they don't have a vibrant economy and industry at risk, as well as the fact that they could give two s#!ts about the wellbeing of they're own populations, and that the Ayatollahs are accountable to no one but themselves, it would be safe to assume that they would be less hesitant to use such weapons or give them to an organization that would. They have far less to lose in such an exchange than the rest of the developed world does.

[edit on 30-9-2004 by Crazyhorse]

Originally posted by BeingWatchedByThem
it would only worsen our relations with the world.

Like it could get any worsre? Who needs the world anyway? If they can't get along with us, then destroy them! Bunch of cry-baby losers anyway.

If the U.N. is so great, then why is most of the member countries dirt poor and rely on the U.S. to bail them out of a tight situation?

95% of the world is nothing but a bunch of ingrate losers with the audacity to come to the United States for support when somthing terrible happens to them!

My answer to them? Suck it up and shut up!

Originally posted by Intelearthling

Originally posted by BeingWatchedByThem
it would only worsen our relations with the world.

Like it could get any worsre? Who needs the world anyway? If they can't get along with us, then destroy them! Bunch of cry-baby losers anyway.

95% of the world is nothing but a bunch of ingrate losers with the audacity to come to the United States for support when somthing terrible happens to them!

My answer to them? Suck it up and shut up!

I just read this and had one question, are you a registered voter? If so I am VERY afraid for the world.

>>> Who needs the world anyway? If they can't get along with us, then destroy them! Bunch of cry-baby losers anyway.

Originally posted by Crazyhorse
I would be supportive of it, as long as it did'nt involve getting our soldiers involved in peacekeeping for a bunch of animals, like the ones in Iraq

Which animals, these ones?















It's pretty goddamn sad that you'd call an entire people animals when the insurgency over there is a minority.

Originally posted by Intelearthling

Originally posted by BeingWatchedByThem
it would only worsen our relations with the world.

Like it could get any worsre? Who needs the world anyway? If they can't get along with us, then destroy them! Bunch of cry-baby losers anyway.

Then by all means, give me your arms and I'll take care of you. I'll keep you safe. I'll have a gun and you won't.

How would it feel? Imagine how it must feel with nukes breathing down your neck. Wouldn't you want to be able to defend yourself?

Ignore the whole debate on the democracy/etc. ideology, and look at it this way.

If America wants to survive, it needs to stop making enemies all around the globe. We wouldn't last long if everyone wanted to destroy us, no matter what you think, you can't win the three-legged race without a partner.

America needs friendly relations for trade, (yes we need trade to survive) and just to maintain peace and stability on the planet.

I want to live in a world where the top story is economic successes, like the SpaceShipOne, not a mass of people killed in war. Humans are humans, no matter what nationality they are.

Originally posted by intrepid
I just read this and had one question, are you a registered voter? If so I am VERY afraid for the world.

intrepid,

I've been a registered voter for over twenty years now. And I've always voted for the best person to lead this country. Unfortunately, the wrong person won in 1992 and 1996.

And you shouldn't be afraid for the world with people like me at the helm. No one should have to worry about anything, if they quit provoking us to kick their hind-quarters into the last century.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Which animals, these ones?

Great post! No other words to describe it!

Being born in a nation known as "the melting pot of the world", our diversity should be the beacon of hope for the rest of the world.

Originally posted by Intelearthling

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Which animals, these ones?

Great post! No other words to describe it!

Being born in a nation known as "the melting pot of the world", our diversity should be the beacon of hope for the rest of the world.

Clarification, are you calling these people animals?


"Being born in a nation known as "the melting pot of the world", our diversity should be the beacon of hope for the rest of the world."

Is this the same world that you refer to like :

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Who needs the world anyway? If they can't get along with us, then destroy them!

Originally posted by intrepid
Clarification, are you calling these people animals?

No! Go back to taibunsuu's post when he replied to Crazy horse. These people in the pictures aren't animals. They're people hoping for a better life that only the U.S. can provide for them.

Is this the same world that you refer to like :

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Who needs the world anyway? If they can't get along with us, then destroy them!

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. The "world's governments" is maybe a better way of putting it. There are many people of different ethnic backgrounds that understand the pursuit of freedom. It's to bad they can't pursue it with a totalitarian government saying they can't.

I'm not a hateful, vengeanceful person. I'm for peace and prosperity, and if war is the only road that can be taken to get to this point, then that's the road we'll have to take.

[edit on 30/9/04 by Intelearthling]

Originally posted by BeingWatchedByThem

Originally posted by Intelearthling

Originally posted by BeingWatchedByThem
it would only worsen our relations with the world.

Like it could get any worsre? Who needs the world anyway? If they can't get along with us, then destroy them! Bunch of cry-baby losers anyway.

Then by all means, give me your arms and I'll take care of you. I'll keep you safe. I'll have a gun and you won't.

How would it feel? Imagine how it must feel with nukes breathing down your neck. Wouldn't you want to be able to defend yourself?

This is such flawed logic I don't even know where to begin. Sufice it to say that there are plenty of countries in this world that do not see the need to own nukes. You know why? Because if you are a halfway decent nation, then all you need to do is call on the US for help! Yeah thats right - the big bad bully the US is actually the great defender - ask Kuwait or any NATO countries during the Cold war.

Here is an analogy for you - every law abiding citizen is allowed to own guns. But if you have been convicted of crimes you are not - for a good reason - because you may use that gun in future crimes. Well the same can be said of nukes and terrorist supporting nations.

Ignore the whole debate on the democracy/etc. ideology, and look at it this way.

If America wants to survive, it needs to stop making enemies all around the globe. We wouldn't last long if everyone wanted to destroy us, no matter what you think, you can't win the three-legged race without a partner.

America will only survive if it seeks it's own survival. Basically, we won't survive if shaky countries like NK and Iran develope nukes. And BTW - we have many friends who agree with us. Ever heard of the UK not to mention others.

So to sum it up - BOMB IRAN!

The whole idea of stockpiling nuclear weapons is very unnerving for everyone, but if one country has them then I suppose the mortal enemy of that country should be entitled to possess them also.

Israel, although they will not admit to it, possesses nuclear weapons and this poses as a grave deterrent to any of the neighbouring Arab state's who would like to invade Israel, as has happened several times in the past. But this imbalance in nuclear power (and the staunch US support for the Jewish state) gives Israel a seemingly uninhibited power to launch pre-emptive strikes on any of the Arab states to which it deems to be a threat.

So where does it stop? if Israel continues to proliferate nukes and grows exponentially stronger militarily through US aid and arms, while all of her neighbours grow defenseless, Israel will be able to dictate whatever they like through militaristic means throughout the entire Middle-East (which I'm sure they would not hesitate to do), further inflaming Arab sentiment and therefore excaerbating the asymmetric warfare being conducted by Islamic terrorist groups on Israel and the US.

Iran knows that it would turn into one big glass crater if it attempted to use nukes on Israel or the West, but having nukes would provide a stalemate in the Middle-East and maybe prevent invasions like that of Iraq. Of course, Israel could disarm it's nuclear weapons and therefore we could have a nuclear free Middle-East, but that is never going to happen.

rephrase the question: "Would any SANE person support a strike on an Islamic state for no reason, in a geopolitical region that is already close to war, which would bring about a wider military crises leading to the death of possibly millions?????"

I hope we all agree the answer is NO. One more preemptive strike and its WWIII in my opinon.

quote: Originally posted by taibunsuu
It's pretty goddamn sad that you'd call an entire people animals when the insurgency over there is a minority.

Even though the insurgency is just a minority like you said, the moral support they receive from most of the Iraqis leaves me inclined to have more feelings for a garbage bag full of grass clippings. When DVD's of kidnapped contract workers (who are there trying to help their sorry arses) being beheaded outsells porno and other forms of entertainment, I feel obligated to not give a damn about anyone over there other than our troops, contract workers, and the Kurds.

When we urge them to get tough on the insurgents and former Baathists blowing up everything, they get scared and constantly want to negotiate with them. When we get tough on the insurgents former Baathists blowing up everything, they become brave all of the sudden and tell us there's going to be trouble if we don't stop murdering those poor innocent muslims. I have watched it happen repeatedly.

I'm not against the war on terror, and certainly do not regret us getting rid of Saddam and his degenerate sons, even knowing what we do now. However, I think we need to re-examine these people and their way of thinking, as well as what they deem as tolerable, and determine just how much more we're willing to sacrifice on their behalf. I'm not saying all of them are rotten, but the ones who want a legitimate democracy, not controlled by some fanatical Ayatollah-Assahola, are too afraid to step up and too few in number to stem the tide of Islamic fundamentalism that most of the country seems to long for. Despite our best efforts, it is impossible to help a people who are unwilling to help themselves. Trying to win the hearts and minds of the heartless and mindless after almost two years of trying (usually at great expense) is wasted effort.



[edit on 30-9-2004 by Crazyhorse]

Commenting the thread title and my answer is NO, I don't support the strikes against Iran.

How about discussing sometimes about Israel's nukes? Why doesn't US ever mention those????

And please, let's discuss matter in their right terms, they are NOT insurgents, more like partisans, resistance or freedom fighters. There are no constituted authority in Iraq, only people nominated by an occupying force:

Insurgent:
Is a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against a constituted authority.

Partisan:
A member of a lightly equipped irregular military force formed to oppose control of the area by a foreign power or army of occupation.

Resistance movement:
Is a group dedicated to fighting an invader in an occupied country.

Freedom fighter:
Is a relativistic local term for those engaged in rebellion against an established government that is held to be oppressive and illegitimate.

[edit on 30-9-2004 by Samiralfey]