New poll reveals 52% americans favour military strikes on Iran

[CptStern]

for what exactly? WMD? you didnt learn your lesson the first time around when all your idiotic claims of Iraq having WMD turned out to be a fabricated lie?

A majority of likely voters - 52 percent - would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53 percent believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.

once again republicans forget recent history and support insanity:

Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71 percent), than Democrats (41 percent) or independents (44 percent).

you really have no one but yourselves to blame for all the hate leveled at the US


'Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again' - GW Bush

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/zogby_iran_nuclear_strike/2007/10/29/44978.html

 

[Solaris]

I would support a military strike if Iran tried to become nuclear.

If America wasn't already Nuclear, and where trying to be, an we had the capacity to stop them I'd support that action.

 

[Saltpeter]

No surprise, since 51% of the Americans was stupid enough to reelect Bush.

 

[CptStern]

I would support a military strike if Iran tried to become nuclear.

then you're being hypocritical ..pre-emptive strikes are illegal

 

[Nitre]

I'm not surprised. 52% of Americans are probably stupid enough to agree with Bush and all that lot.

 

[lePobz]

The real shock here is that 48% of Americans aren't as stupid and gullible as I thought.

 

[Dynasty]

*faceplants*

 

[Baserape>]

Public opinion= Israel's governing body says jump, the war hawks in Congress say how high?

 

[Mr Stabby]

Iran should be prevented from getting nuclear weapons, and if diplomacy fails, then action should be taken.

 

[Hondo]

Bear in mind that this was a telephone poll so the only people who gave their opinions were the ones too stupid to hang up when they heard "this is a telephone poll."

 

[Absinthe]

While I can't say I necessarily favor military action, I can certainly understand the concern.

 

[Gunner]

'Fool me once, shame on ? shame on you. Fool me ? you can't get fooled again' - GW Bush

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/zogby_iran_nuclear_strike/2007/10/29/44978.html

Did he really say that? oh my ****ing gawd. It's hilarious, there's this famous french comedy where the bad guy tries to say that expression and he ****s it up like that.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109440/

 

[TheDude]

I would like to see the data behind these polls. If our incompetent shit stain of a president does strike Iran, I give permission to all you Canadians and whoever else wants to join to invade our country and establish a president who doesn't suck dick.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

then you're being hypocritical ..pre-emptive strikes are illegal

When was the last time that stopped anyone?

 

[Mr Stabby]

The Americans don't need to invade Iran, and they haven't the troops to do it. Just bomb nuclear facilities, which Israel is probably going to do.

 

[evil^milk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-eyuFBrWHs

 

[CptStern]

When was the last time that stopped anyone?

Saddam Hussein, invasion of Kuwait 1990

 

[The Monkey]

If Iran gets a nuke then the UN needs to act with military force. However, we have to be sure that that's what they're trying to do.

But lets look at Iran: Their economy is 68 times smaller than that of the US, or the same size of Finland's. Their military spendings are 110 times lower that that of the US. And the president of the US, among other people, thinks that this country, by gaining the knowledge to build a nuclear bomb, could trigger a nuclear war. People are seriously overestimating the capabilities of Iran.

 

[Rapstah]

I don't understand. Pakistan has atomic bombs, and Pakistan is a radical Muslim nation as well.

 

[Qonfused]

Holy ****.

No, I'm overreacting. You're all right. A ****ing telephone poll to citizens in Alabama (or any other redneck, confederate state) applies to the entire U.S. population. Bullshit on that poll. I will not believe that half of the population believes that Iran should be invaded. If it is true, I'm moving to Canada faster than I expected to.

And all of your "lol amerikan" attitudes need to ****ing stop. I'm am not a patriot, and I minimally support this country, but ****ing hell, it's starting to get a bit old, don't you think? Do all of you have an anti-American piece of text copied, ready to paste at a moment's notice? As much as I love to come into a thread, reading pages of knee-jerk comments from English people constantly bashing this country, it needs to ****ing stop. ****.

I know our "leader" is a ****ed up piece. We all hate him (no poll can convince me otherwise). He shouldn't have been even elected in 2000 (apparently an electoral college system is better than a goddamn simple total vote count, holy ****). Yes, there is cause to bash America as it may seem like all of us are in this together. But we aren't. You're wasting your time by constantly typing shit like this, and Stern too, with posting this shit.

And Stern, you know how I feel about 95% of the threads you start, so I don't really need to delve into that, do I?

 

[The Monkey]

I don't understand. Pakistan has atomic bombs, and Pakistan is a radical Muslim nation as well.

No, Pakistan is not, but could turn into, a radical Muslim nation. At the moment it's an authoritarian military state with a reletivly free press and some civil liberties but with a strong central government under general Musharraf that won't give up its powers too easily. It enjoys the support of the US despite a questionable human rights record because it's seen as the only thing standing in the way of an Islamic revolution in Pakistan.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

then you're being hypocritical ..pre-emptive strikes are illegal

Wha-?

for what exactly? WMD? you didnt learn your lesson the first time around when all your idiotic claims of Iraq having WMD turned out to be a fabricated lie?

Is it really 52%? I know your source, but this is really not a plan thought out very well.

 

[CptStern]

Wha-?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war#Legality

Is it really 52%? I know your source, but this is really not a plan thought out very well.

read the link I provided



oh and Qonfused, there's no way you're coming over to canada ..we have rule against allowing your kind :E

 

[K e r b e r o s]

It bars the threat or use of force against any state in the absence of an acute and imminent actual threat.

So, the rhetoric is to blame Iran as having the capacity to produce Weapons Grade Plutonium, therefore simulating that an act of aggression is legal and that the country presents and imminent actual threat.

Gotcha! ... so what if they do have WMD's? Bush should'nt have screwed the Pooch so quickly.

 

[CptStern]

So, the rhetoric is to blame Iran as having the capacity to produce Weapons Grade Plutonium, therefore simulating that an act of aggression is legal and that the country presents and imminent actual threat.

Gotcha! ... so what if they do have WMD's? Bush should'nt have screwed the Pooch so quickly.

even if they have wmd it doesnt legally justify a preemptive strike, that is no way an imminent threat

 

[Ennui]

Pfft, only in America.


... wait wut. I don't know anyone who supports military action against Iran, except possibly in the case that they actually have nuclear weapons (and I might agree on strikes in that situation).

Guess that 48% is pretty ubiquitous in one way or another...

 

[K e r b e r o s]

even if they have wmd it doesnt legally justify a preemptive strike, that is no way an imminent threat

Of course its not -- are we attacking it's words or weapons?
Iran would be more of a believable threat to Israel or Saudi Arabia.

We should be more patient or prove that WMD's exist -- of course, this is the Bush administration.

 

[Druckles]

Omg! Just to like bring this topic from about to die... Why?? I mean... seriously??

First, Iraq, as has been pointed out.

Second, I mean, it's only like they threatened to blow up another country once..

Third, I don't have another point, but seriously!

Don't have many useful points to put forward, I just thought I needed to let off some steam.

 

[delusional]

Why can't Iran have nukes? Even if they did use them they know they would be obliterated. North Korea got nukes and nothing bad happened, and now they are removed from the US list of countries that support terrorism. What's all the fuss.

 

[kirovman]

Why can't Iran have nukes?

Because they don't understand the process of fission (fishing, geddit?)

That was the worst joke in the world.

 

[Nemesis6]

Why can't Iran have nukes? Even if they did use them they know they would be obliterated. North Korea got nukes and nothing bad happened, and now they are removed from the US list of countries that support terrorism. What's all the fuss.

The problem is that these countries aren't exactly stable, when combined with the fact that they have mortal enemies that they've sworn they will destroy - North Korea - South Korea. Iran - Israel, it's kind of worrying.

I'll simplify my critique to this: These countries have bigger problems than their lack of explosives.

 

[delusional]

The problem is that these countries aren't exactly stable

And you think invading the country would make it more stable? Just look at Iraq to see how successful that was.

when combined with the fact that they have mortal enemies that they've sworn they will destroy - North Korea - South Korea. Iran - Israel, it's kind of worrying.

Hasn't America also vowed to destroy Iran if they develop a nuclear weapons? Is that any different than Iran wishing to destroy Israel? The aggressor is always going to be blamed for the war.

I say we let Iran develop nukes so they can have an equal footing with the rest of the nuclear countries. America and Russia both had hundreds of nukes pointed at each other and no war between the two happened. When two countries have nukes it creates a stalemate, avoiding war altogether.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Aye, but Iran is run by an insane theocracy, I think Muslims have end timers too.

 

[Absinthe]

Nuclear weapons should be a ****ing privilege. Not a right.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, but comparing the United States or Soviet Russia to insane, medieval theocracies is stupid. You know why the Cold War never bloomed into a nuclear hell? Because for all their faults, both sides behaved rationally in wanting to prevent getting blown the **** up. But MAD only works if the players involved are sane. All it takes is one loon to throw a wrench into the arrangement and **** everybody over.

Now take a look at Iran. Take a real, good, long look at it. And tell me it's not insane. Any country that officially denies the holocaust, executes homosexuals, imposes religious ideals onto the public, and openly expresses a deep-rooted urge to wipe out other nations, is not mentally healthy. Why entrust nukes to such people?

 

[delusional]

The way things are going, America will start looking like Iran. So would you propose the EU to nuke America before America starts attacking other countries?

 

[Mr Stabby]

American will never be as bad as Iran, yeas America has problems with religion, but it's nothing compared to Iran.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

comments from English people constantly bashing this country, it needs to ****ing stop. ****.

Stern is english?
Looks like you need to take a piece of your own advice and stop bieng a hypocrit.

 

[Absinthe]

The way things are going, America will start looking like Iran. So would you propose the EU to nuke America before America starts attacking other countries?

That is total bullshit. We may be messed up when it comes to the ID theory, our sex ed programs, and our misguided importance placed on faith. But there is no system in place for systematically punishing or killing people who do not share in the Christian faith. The United States might be embarrassing for its embrace of superstitious dogma, but Iran is far more vicious and consistent. If Iran ever had the might and resources of the United States, you can safely bet they'd be wiping out far more people for stupider reasons than America has mustered thus far.

So don't feed me that line of crap. I swear to god, there should be a law on this forum akin to Godwin's, where if you make a comparison of America against some tyrannical third-world shithole, you're stupid.

 

[Nemesis6]

And you think invading the country would make it more stable? Just look at Iraq to see how successful that was.

Never said that.

Hasn't America also vowed to destroy Iran if they develop a nuclear weapons? Is that any different than Iran wishing to destroy Israel? The aggressor is always going to be blamed for the war.

As far as I know, America has not expressed will to destroy Iran.

... America and Russia both had hundreds of nukes pointed at each other and no war between the two happened. When two countries have nukes it creates a stalemate, avoiding war altogether.

Stanislav Petrov. Look him up. He's more or less the reason for the cold war not ending in a huclear holocaust, and pretty much the wind gush that knocks that strawman of yours down.

 

[kirovman]

As much as I love to come into a thread, reading pages of knee-jerk comments from English people constantly bashing this country, it needs to ****ing stop. ****.

Someone needs to take this Frenchie out! Yee liar.