Would you support a missile attack on Iran's nuclear efforts?

[Perky]

Seven possible answers or Other

[dusmcj]

1. fix your subject line, it inverts the 'yes/no' sense of the questions

would you be upset ? yes, I think they're a threat.

did you intend the subject to say "would you support" ?

[0007]

2. It would be a hugh mistake at this point in time.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Your poll is inverted from your question. nt.

[William769]

4. Undecided.

[Connie_Corleone]

5. From what I've heard from experts, a missile strike is impossible,

because Iran's nuclear facilities are spread out throughout the country. We'll end up killing thousands of innocent civilians.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

6. Do you really think the NeoCon Junta is concerned about civilian deaths?

[Cooley Hurd]

17. Lawrence Korb was on MSNBC over the weekend and said...

...a successful attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure is impossible because it's spread out and well hidden.

Korb was undersecretary of defense in the Reagan admin...

[acmavm]

7. Don't control Afganistan, the 'insurgency' has Iraq in a total

mess. What thinking human being could possibly be in favor of starting another war? We have two, two, two wars on our hands now that we can't win.

To want to start another one a person would either have to be nuts or need to create a diversion because their criminal activities are coming out. Oh wait. Sounds familiar. Now I wonder... do you think... maybe a combination of both?

[Delphinus]

8. Just so you know,

I'm the second vote for "No. I think their aims are both peaceful and legitimate."

That way, if in the future something turns out to be different than peaceful and legitimate, you'll know you was naive, yet again.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. No - self defense and deterrence are peaceful and legitimate.

Iran seeks to survive as an independent nation not subject to threats and blackmail by nuclear great powers. That is a peaceful and legitimate objective.

[sweetheart]

10. For iranian battle command

I'd wager that iranian command has practiced regularly for a battle
scenario of a US or israeli attack. As usual, such attacks begin with
cruize missiles to take out anti aircraft and Comint. Then they are
followed by sustained bombing of all anti-air installations that total
air superiority is achieved. And with this, bombs are then dropped
with impunity until the facilities are destroyed.

So an iranian battle commander has already prepared to destroy, the
instant of that attack, every single american air base in the middle
east, as a matter of preventive anti-terrorism. Long range sorties
could be launched with refueling and all, with B2's and sea-based
platforms that survive... but the US ability to invade or wage
ongoing war would be severely diminished. The first objective of the
battle commander is to take out all his enemey#s strike capacity starting
at the closest point to the battle.

So, likely within seconds of the amerisrael attack, a volley of pre
programmed missles would be launched with large conventional explosives,
sunburns and all, multiple strikes on all launch platforms in theatre.
You have already designed and built stealth nuclear facilities and all
real enrichment work is being undertaken there. These facilities are
designed for direct strike by nuclear weapons, deep underground.

All seas would be mined heavily to prevent passage to the gulf of all
shipping traffic, and all civilian shipping of oil to the persian
gulf would stop.

The situation today is already MADD. A war against iran would destroy
the entire economy of western nations by ending middle east oil suppy.
It is beyond foolish to underestimate a human being battle commander who
has been western educated. And in iran, the battle command is very very
smart, having studied its opponent a lifetime.

It is not realistic, in any scenario, to launch aggressive war against iran.
Rewarding a medal to a battle commander who shot down an iranian civilian
aircraft, as i recall, supplying saddam with chemical weapons to attack
iran, and so many war crimes of the west in using WMD's against iran, that
cannot be overlooked. Iran has a right to defend itself, and it has a
right to nuclear weapons as well if it wants them.

But even with conventional weapons, iran's battle commanders are fully
capable of bankrupting the united states totally and absolutely on the
debt and losses of its imperial army.

[baby_mouse]

11. No.

It's a bad idea.

[The2ndWheel]

12. No

The hypocracy is obvious. I'm just tired of the crap.

Pakistan and India have them. Isreal has them. Russia has them. China has them. We protect Saudi Arabia. We own Iraq and Afghanistan(to whatever degree in each case, we haven't left yet). Imagine if you were surrounded by nuclear weapons and the first truly global military. What would you do?

[tlsmith1963]

13. While I Think Iran is a Bigger Threat...

...than Iraq ever was, I would say no because I don't trust Bush or the neocons to do the right thing. They are power-mad & completely out of control. If a different, more level-headed President were in power, I might change my answer. As long as the neocons are in power, I don't want them to do *anything*. They are far too dangerous.

Tammy

[The2ndWheel]

14. I wish we were just honest

Our "leaders" just need to come out and say that we're the world's police. Whether it's Bush, or a "more level-headed" chief of police, they just need to tell everyone the truth.

I'm not picking on you, but just the broader mindset. It's the "if my guy was in power, I might change my mind" way of thinking that gets everyone in trouble. It's why some people are able to really believe that the economic sanctions that murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's was somehow better than what Bush has done, because it was Clinton. At least Clinton didn't invade an independent country.

It's the same thing here. If my guy, or someone I can somewhat agree with, had the power to dictate what a country surrounded by the most military power in the history of human "civilization" could do, I might be alright with it(not that it's ever mattered what the consum...citizens think).

Then too many are shocked when they find out that some people hate the US Government(led by Democrat or Republican).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Nah. They better stick to a real danger like Grenada.

Something our glorious military could handle..maybe.

[sandnsea]

16. No

But "Bush is a lying sack of poo" is a terrible basis to make nuclear weapon decisions. France and Germany have both been working on this for years, so it's obviously a problem outside of the fact that Bush is a lying sack of poo.