My guess is that it's coming SOON, but I think it will be from our ships, planes and subs . Probably no ground troops, other than squads of covert action .
Even if you disagree with the first-strike action, would you support it ????
2006-12-19 11:22:41 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
EDIT* - Wow !! You wouldn't support the security of your own nation ?!?!
Maybe all those people who say that Liberals are dangerous to our society were RIGHT !!!!
2006-12-19 11:28:27 · update #1
Not at all. The Iranian conflict needs to be handled diplomatically.
2006-12-19 11:26:52 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
First, you wanted to know who would support nuking Iran. The answer is, undoubtedly, anybody who puts Israel first than America; the common characteristics is among these people is that they do not give a hoot to America; their main interest lies elsewhere.
Your second question, in smaller fonts, was whether I would support it or not? The answer is a resounding No. And that is because I put America first. If my President tells me to do otherwise, I would respectfully say, Mr. Prez. your record on saying the truth to the American public is dismal.
2006-12-23 02:54:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. identity rather have it Vice versa, yet i do not imagine thats taking position! The Israelis have oppressed the Palestinians for too lengthy and may pay for all the youngsters, women, and innocuous adult men they deliberately ethnically cleansed tens of millions over the surprising 60 years. And them "protests". those are the foo foo iranians. in case you actual flow to Iran (that is a very vast usa) maximum of her voters are for Ahmedinejad, no longer the oppostion. Teran is one city out of tens of millions!. the reason the protests look so "vast" is because human beings are protesting different issues (no longer having to do with the competition) and the few opositionists make it look like they're inquisitive about them. properly I say to them reinforce up because Ahmedinejad received, supply up throwing a tantrum and attempting to create yet another revolution and burning homes and causin all sorts of chaos. It received't artwork with the authorities the human beings elected.
2016-11-27 21:00:17 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iran is a threatening nation. They proved that when they took our embassy. It also threatens Israel almost every day. That is an indirect threat towards us.
If our government honestly and truly believes that Iran is about to obtain nuclear weapons or the ability to make them, like they honestly believed Iraq had WMDs, then I say strike. Either we hit them or Israel should hit them. Personally I'd prefer Israel. The US does enough as it is. A nuclear Iran is not an option.
2006-12-19 11:35:14 · answer #4 · answered by T 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
... depends... I'm a little weary of our intelligence right now...
but... if we could hit sites that were working on nuclear weapons... and we could prove it... I would probably support it...
but it could be shaking up the hornet's nest a bit... and we haven't even gotten Iraq under control... and this could make that harder if Iran wants to cause even more trouble...
and assuming it's critical to the safety of our nation is being presumptuous...
2006-12-19 11:28:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We are at war with words with Iran, Syria, N. Korea....etc... that could eventually end into an all out world war. Yes, I will support my country if threats were made against safety of our own children,and our US citizens. Remember these countries are getting more aggressive with their threats.
I support any attack on all aggressive countries, that calls out the US. For you objectors, I also have 2 sons militarily active in Iraq.
2006-12-19 11:38:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not me. They bear no grudge or ill-intentions against the U.S., why would we want to do something provocative? Besides, when dealing with an adversary, talk always works better than striking, especially first-strikes. Furthermore, aren't they building these nuclear weapons for peaceful purposes?
2006-12-19 11:28:13 · answer #7 · answered by Yo it's Me 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I would definately support it. Iran is becoming much too dangerous and volatile. It's leader's goals are to wipe out Israel and the Western world so put 2 and 2 together...
2006-12-19 11:27:43 · answer #8 · answered by Jake 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It is not a security issue, why killl thousands of innocent people? Your just another money, and war hungry republican. Can you prove that they have nukes? or are you gonna be like or GVT. And lie about it like WMD's in Iraq?
2006-12-19 12:03:07 · answer #9 · answered by skorski family 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No way in hell would a person in their right mind support it until Iran showed they were indeed hostile to the US or one of our allies. But, have no fear, Bush probably has his finger poised above the red button, just waiting for the right moment when he can plunge the world into nuclear (NOT pronounced Nuke-you-lar) holocaust.
2006-12-19 11:25:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Then they would not buy fuel rods from Kerr McGee
Go big Red Go
2006-12-19 12:03:29 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋