WOULD you support Iran invasion???

Question

If we pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan and a new president was in office, would you support an invasion of Iran to rid them of nuclear power??And would you honestly feel safe going to war with Hilary Clinton at the charge??i would only support it if we were out of current conflict ...and a woman thinks differently then males, so i would not feel safe she would be bothered by collateral damage, and family emotions would interfere.....(stay safe troops).....Semper Fi

good answers, i dont think it would turn into another iraq , due to the fact were in this mess now and a new POTUS would not want the same backlash

my only concern is when it comes time for military action, were built differently in the mind, i think she ia a highly qualified candidate, and shell probably win

Answer 1

Y E S

Answer 2

As a British citizen I wouldnt support an American lead invasion of Iran, just like i didnt support invading Afganistan and Iraq. Would the British Government support such an act, well that depends on whether a lapdog still works at No. 10 or whether he has been replaced by someone with a backbone who isnt afraid to tell the present American president hes a couple of million/billion/trillion cells short of a brain! I dont think that Iran is a threat to America. And YES you do have a choice. The last time i checked America was a free country and therefore you do not need to invade another country in order to secure your freedom. Americans (well anyone) who think that their own freedoms can be secured by depriving others of theirs make me sick. If you think that it is either a 'with us or against us' choice then I am most certainly against you until you realise that America does not have the power to dictate to the rest of the world they way people should live. Also, I cant stand the hyprocrisy spouted by Americans who ONLY started to give a damn about terrorism/terrorists when a group of Islamic EXTREMISTS decided to fly planes into buildings on American soil. I wonder if the reaction to 9/11 (or more accurately 11/9) would have been quite so extreme if said Islamic extremists had targetted any other country, i very much doubt it. What you cant believe is that someone had the audacity to target America on American soil and you are now acting like children in the playgroup. You have to show the rest of the children that your toys (weapons) are bigger than the other childrens. Oh and American wont invade Iran as unlike Iraq and Afganistan they have the military might to send 100,000s of body bags back to America and im sure American mothers/fathers wont want to see so many of their sons and daughters coming home in that way editted: Sarah C - Which bright spark decided that Islamic extremists are the only terrorists around? Another example of Americas hyprocrisy is its continuing support of the TERRORIST STATE OF ISREAL!!!!!

Answer 3

Hey brother, there's no chance we'll invade Iran. We'd just as soon invade China. When it comes down to it, we don't have the ability to hold Iranian territory. Even if we pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran's too mountainous, too vast, and too prepared for an insurgency. They've got a parallel military, with the Iranian army and the Revolutionary guard. The Revolutionary guard trains specifically for a US invasion. An invasion of Iran is one of the nightmare perfect storm scenarios. Furthermore, the Iran has had a lot of unrest for a good while now. The possibility of and counter-Islamic revolution is very real.

The liklihood of airstrikes or perhaps even a raid is far greater. Bank on airstrikes. If we don't do it, Israel will. Just keep in mind that their nuclear sites are built under villages. They've put their citizens right on top of them, knowing the international reaction to an attack.

As a career soldier, I'm very concerned about the future of our military under Hillary, not because she's a woman, but because I just don't trust her judgement. She has no military experience, and is all about public opinion. She'll follow the masses, which follow the press, which gives them what sells. That puts us on a ship with no pilot brother.

Good question...

Answer 4

We don't need to invade Iran. The Navy could take care of that little problem without stepping foot on soil.

The bigger issue is that we don't know their military capability. Iran may have some nukes which would be a problem. Nobody wants to see a mushroom growing over Washington, D. C.

My guess is they are gonna get hit. We will try a first strike on their weapons manufacturing and try to disable their military will a fast strike. It won't be easy. We are going to lose some men and equipment. But a threat like Iran cannot be ignored. In ten years they will have a fleet of long range missiles and nuclear weapons.

Answer 5

I just wonder if the troops would respect Hilary. I know she is smart and a very driven woman, but would they respect her?

Invade Iran? Well when reading your question I thought of an interview with Iran's leader and one of our top news sources. He was very full of his self and had an air to him that he was some God appointed leader, and the United States was the devil. That was not too reassuring. Iran has been a mess for decades, and the mentality that is charge is unfortunately looking more and more like terrorist theory.

Thank you for serving~

Answer 6

ABSOLUTELY NOT!! If Iran were to attack the U.S. somehow, then that's a different story, but we should never, ever, invade a country unprovoked. As far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, the president doesn't make that decision alone. There is a good reason why we have a checks and balance system in this country ( not that it works that well anymore). As much as I hate "dubya", he couldn't have invaded Iraq without approval from Congress. I don't think the next prez is going to get any support for an unprovoked attack on another country these days.

Answer 7

I am starting to get real pissed with these countries but the fact is that unless we want to go in to these places and create a nazi like regime (which i dont support) they are still going to attack us with suicide bombers, the coalition can attack every country in that area of the world at the same time and destroy there armies with minimal losses, but the hard part as has been proven is fighting people dumb enough to blow themselves up for some backwards cause, they dont even see that we are trying to help them. I support using specail ops teams to destroy there nuclear technology workups. Mass economic sanctions could also help discourage this, if they have no 1st world countries to sell oil to they might consider backing down. Oil sands in alberta can keep us rockin for years.

Answer 8

The military is sworn to follow the orders of the elected president of the United States, regardless of who that may be.

I enforce policy. I don't make it.

That being said, those who claim there are no grounds for a war with Iran or that Iran is not already a threat to us have no clue about Iran, and particularly not a nuclear Iran.

I touched on the dangers and threats of Iran in my article, "Regional Entanglements of the Middle East." http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-DfkctJU7dK5B7LcNROoyVQ--;_ylt=AiNXZokI1G6zowgYXNnJS9m0AOJ3?cq=1

Iran is supporting both Shi'a and Sunni militants in Iraq. Their #2 (favorite) man in Iraq, Muqtada Al-Sadr, has accused them of supporting Al-Qaeda.

Iran has a 25+year history of supporting Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations.

Did we not declare war on ALL state sponsors of terrorism? Do some now believe we should allow them their 'sovereign right' to gain nuclear weapons?

Hezbollah(sponsored by Iran) attacked the US Air Force with a car bomb packed in a sewage truck in Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia.

Hezbollah recently fired hundreds of rockets at Israeli cities, including schools and hospitals.

Again, I remind those here that the deadliest IED's used against the American troops are made in Iran, along with many other armaments used against our troops. Iran was quiet while they considered an invasion by us as a real possibility. They ratcheted it up after certain of our politicians and virtually all of our media undermined our resolve to finish the work we've started.

Considering they already give terrorists their most advanced weaponry, why would anyone think they would safeguard nuclear weapons?

That will be a different kind of war, if we have a president that listens to his generals. And that should not be taken as an indictment of our current commander in chief. It just does not appear he will be sitting in the same seat when that decision is made.

Answer 9

This is going to make me very unpopular with my fellow females. I don't think this country is ready for a female president, especially not if it were Hillary. In time of war, which could be anytime, we need a man at the helm. I am sorry but women just cant detach themselves from the emotional aspect of war enough to make unbiased decisions. Decisions which may and probably would result in collateral damage. Innocent people die in time of war, it's an ugly but unavoidable truth.
And to answer your first question, yes, I would support an Iran invasion/occupation. But do I want a woman at the helm when it happens, no way. Sorry ladies.

Answer 10

My strong belief is we'll be dealing with Iran much sooner than people expect. The latest fear, given the current political climate, is that an incoming Democrat Administration in 2008 would not take the steps necessary to prevent a nuclear Iran.

My hopes would be for a limited strike of Iran to accomplish the goal employing as much standoff weaponry as possible. But unfortunately, every scenario I've seen by reputable military experts (read pundits) seems to point to at least a limited special operations presence on the ground.

I would not wish for a fight with Iran, but I think the alternative of a nuclear Iran is downright scary.

Semper Fi

Answer 11

I guess sexism is still alive and well. I think Senator Clinton will make a fine commander in chief. It's interesting that the same critics who say she's not tough enough to lead also call her "not feminine enough." It's sure a double-bind for women in politics.

As to attacking Iran, it would take an enormous attack of national amnesia for us to repeat the horrendous mistakes in Iraq all over again in a new country. If having nukes justifies an invasion, than it would seem they or anyone else are justified in attacking us. I'm not in favor of nuclear proliferation, but it's just this sort of arrogant hypocrisy that has made so much of the world hate the United States. It's time for us to be a little smarter and more humble in how we deal with the rest of the world.