nuking Iran before they nuke us

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:27 pm

a quickie poll to determine current sensibilities.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:29 pm

No nukes on Iran

but I won't eat their Pistachios

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:30 pm

sorry zink, took me a minute or two to actually create the poll. please vote now!

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:36 pm

It seems to me the poll suggests that if the US does'nt nuke Iran first then Iran will surely nuke the US. On that premise I would nuke Iran first. But I would rather no nuking occur.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:40 pm

I'm a U.S. citizen and I vote NO on the issue of ''nuking Iran before they nuke us."

Absolutely idiotic idea! An unprovoked attack on Iran puts us in the same camp as Bin Laden. They're not idiots and they know an attack on our country would mean annihilation for them.

They're no more dangerous than anyone else who has nuclear weapons, including the United States.

(Edited to add that I agree the poll is almost frivolously written...that's the way I understood it, anyway. The old "I'd rather nuke 'em on THEIR land than OURS" concept.)

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:41 pm

Lulu2 wrote: I'm a U.S. citizen and I vote NO on the issue of ''nuking Iran before they nuke us."

Absolutely idiotic idea! An unprovoked attack on Iran puts us in the same camp as Bin Laden. They're not idiots and they know an attack on our country would mean annihilation for them.

They're no more dangerous than anyone else who has nuclear weapons, including the United States.

could you actually vote in the poll please? it'll make it a little more 'scientific'.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:42 pm

anastrophe wrote: could you actually vote in the poll please? it'll make it a little more 'scientific'.

doh, nevermind, it took a few seconds for the vote to show up. sorry!

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:43 pm

Always assuming the best about me, eh, Anastrophe?

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:48 pm

I think you should have put a choice like "other" on it, I voted no nuke-but I really don't believe they are going to nuke us. So it really didn't fit the given categories.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:51 pm

Lulu2 wrote: Always assuming the best about me, eh, Anastrophe?

i wasn't assuming anything, as a matter of fact.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:53 pm

chonsigirl wrote: I think you should have put a choice like "other" on it, I voted no nuke-but I really don't believe they are going to nuke us. So it really didn't fit the given categories.

true enough, but it's an fictional scenario, so we're positing fictional choices within the given confines.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:02 pm

i should probably just build a new poll. the ambiguity is probably rendering the results a little misleading. it was based upon a member's statement that there are many people on FG who are gung-ho for us to 'nuke iran before they nuke us'. the reality i suspect is that nobody *wants* to nuke iran, but that there are those who feel that *if* iran were to build a nuclear weapon, *then* some form of pre-emptive action should be taken - but likely not 'nuking them'.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:08 pm

anastrophe wrote: i should probably just build a new poll. the ambiguity is probably rendering the results a little misleading. it was based upon a member's statement that there are many people on FG who are gung-ho for us to 'nuke iran before they nuke us'. the reality i suspect is that nobody *wants* to nuke iran, but that there are those who feel that *if* iran were to build a nuclear weapon, *then* some form of pre-emptive action should be taken - but likely not 'nuking them'.

exactly right anastrophe, we wouldn't need nukes to defeat Iran even if they used one on us first..

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:13 pm

zinkyusa wrote: exactly right anastrophe, we wouldn't need nukes to defeat Iran even if they used one on us first..

just because Iran has nucleur capabilities does not nessessarily mean they are ever going to nuke the U.S. That would be the equivelent of mass suicide on their part and i am sure they are aware of that. We are making way to big a deal out of it. , i think anyway.

overlook the spell. errors. :p

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:15 pm

zinkyusa wrote: exactly right anastrophe, we wouldn't need nukes to defeat Iran even if they used one on us first..

Agreed.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:24 pm

I would also like to say, Being a US citizen I don't want to be at war any where in the world let alone nuke someone. I wish our troops could concentrate on our own borders. Round up and expel all illegals muslim, mexican, and especially those little green buggers. Make it harder and more regulated to get in here. Then we would'nt have to worry as much about the Islamic extremists near as much. Now if Iran puts on T.V. a picture of a nuclear war head that is operational and they say they will deploy it against the US On say OCT. 3. Then so sorry they are history .

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:02 pm

guppy wrote: just because Iran has nucleur capabilities does not nessessarily mean they are ever going to nuke the U.S. That would be the equivelent of mass suicide on their part and i am sure they are aware of that. We are making way to big a deal out of it. , i think anyway.

overlook the spell. errors. :p

if iran should build a nuke, they'll use it on israel first. count on it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:07 pm

Lulu2 wrote: I'm a U.S. citizen and I vote NO on the issue of ''nuking Iran before they nuke us."

Absolutely idiotic idea! An unprovoked attack on Iran puts us in the same camp as Bin Laden. They're not idiots and they know an attack on our country would mean annihilation for them.

They're no more dangerous than anyone else who has nuclear weapons, including the United States.Yup yup. Mm Hm

Wolverine · Post by **Wolverine** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:09 pm

because of Prez Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, i personally boycott CitGo gasoline.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:14 pm

HUGO WAS RIGHT! Bush is the anti-Christ! :wah:

Wolverine · Post by **Wolverine** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:20 pm

Lulu2 wrote: HUGO WAS RIGHT! Bush is the anti-Christ! :wah:
yeah. ok.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:47 pm

OK...so far, only 4 people have voted "to nuke" and two of them say they voted as they did because of the ambiguity of the question.

Meanwhile 8 of us have voted "no nuke."

Where are all these HAWKS?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:36 pm

No one is nuking anyone. The only thing getting nuked is my leftover chile. Now stop this nonsense.

seekerw · Post by **seekerw** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:10 pm

I'm not in favor of nuking them, but I would like to see us destroy their nuclear plants before they get the chance to use nuclear weapons on anybody else. I have no doubt their nuclear weapons would sooner or later fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists.

Post by **spot** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:29 pm

Lulu2 wrote: Where are all these HAWKS?Trying not to embarrass their spokesman, presumably. Or in hospital, in one case. Some people seem to be reluctant to add to your woes, anastrophe. I wonder whether we can add a few missing names to the poll of gung-ho supremacist powershakers while this is in progress? Bronwen, US citizen wanting to nuke preemptively. BabyRider, US citizen wanting to nuke preemptively. Captain Ray, US citizen wanting to nuke preemptively.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:47 pm

seekerw wrote: I'm not in favor of nuking them, but I would like to see us destroy their nuclear plants before they get the chance to use nuclear weapons on anybody else. I have no doubt their nuclear weapons would sooner or later fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists.Freedom, baby. Freedom. Another sovreign nation has as much right to what they can buy or make as we do. The possession is not evil; the use might be. Supporting freedom is worth the risk.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:49 pm

regrettably, there's still one lingering, remaining shortcoming to the ignore function. while it no longer advises the 'ignoree' that you're adding them to your 'buddy list', it continues to email a copy of their post if it's in a subscribed thread.

pity.

unremarkably, spot spews more drivel. for one thing, failing to note how the person who posted the poll voted in his own poll.

i expected no less.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:51 pm

Accountable wrote: Freedom, baby. Freedom. Another sovreign nation has as much right to what they can buy or make as we do. The possession is not evil; the use might be. Supporting freedom is worth the risk.

the small problem with that is that waiting for the use to occur is rather too late, and quite irrevocable.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:52 pm

anastrophe wrote: the small problem with that is that waiting for the use to occur is rather too late, and quite irrevocable.and worth it.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:53 pm

Accountable wrote: and worth it.

really? you'd have no problem with iran wiping several tens of millions of israeli's from the map? that's worth it?

i think not.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:56 pm

OK, I have a question. When this poll first came up, I voted and realized it hadn't registered. I knew that because I was seeing people's names in the line under their vote! Now the names are gone and we only see the votes. How'd THAT happen?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:59 pm

anastrophe wrote: really? you'd have no problem with iran wiping several tens of millions of israeli's from the map? that's worth it?

i think not.I'd have a HUGE problem with that! I'd also have a problem with another nation(s) stepping in to limit our freedoms. We represent freedom. How can we not support it elsewhere? We have interceptors, et al. I truly don't think it likely that Iran will use a nuke, even if they get one.

Even if they do ............ yeh, it's worth the risk.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:05 pm

Yes...remember those terrifyingly ominous WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! Striking offensively got us into this mess.

seekerw · Post by **seekerw** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:40 pm

Accountable wrote: Freedom, baby. Freedom. Another sovreign nation has as much right to what they can buy or make as we do. The possession is not evil; the use might be. Supporting freedom is worth the risk.

Do you believe that Iran's nukes, if they develop them, will stay out of the terrorist's hands? Remember, all they need is a dirty nuclear bomb smuggled into the US to kill thousands of people. Is THAT really worth the risk? Iran is hostile toward us, you know.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:40 pm

STILL waiting for all the HAWKS.....

seekerw · Post by **seekerw** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:42 pm

Lulu2 wrote: Yes...remember those terrifyingly ominous WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! Striking offensively got us into this mess.

Intelligence agencies of many nations also believed Iraq had WMD before we invaded. And we have found some since the invasion of Iraq. Would you rather we waited until we knew Saddam had them before trying to invade?

Post by **spot** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:49 pm

seekerw wrote: Do you believe that Iran's nukes, if they develop them, will stay out of the terrorist's hands?Just for the record - yes, I do. Were they developed. Were a program set in place to build them, and completed. Not that there is any evidence of such a program.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:50 pm

seekerw wrote: Do you believe that Iran's nukes, if they develop them, will stay out of the terrorist's hands? Remember, all they need is a dirty nuclear bomb smuggled into the US to kill thousands of people. Is THAT really worth the risk? Iran is hostile toward us, you know.Yes, it's worth the risk. We take lots of risks to preserve our freedom.

We'd be safer if we knocked out everybody else's nukes.

We'd be safer if we stopped immigration.

We'd be safer if we halted international flights.

We'd be safer if we installed surveilance equipment in every home, office, and gathering place.

I'd rather show the largesse of allowing others the freedom we insist upon. That would be a more likely way of gaining peace. Strike only when struck.

Post by **spot** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:50 pm

seekerw wrote: Intelligence agencies of many nations also believed Iraq had WMD before we invaded. And we have found some since the invasion of Iraq.We have? Where and what?

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:53 pm

I just have to say that we need to pull our trops out and glass all those people who INSIST on killing their own people............Yes I'd like to glass the terorists but I want ALL the indigenous population out of there............. They are TOO important and so we cannot do that.

I just had to express an emotion equivelent to the twin towers. Does that make me more or less caring than a terrorist?

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:55 pm

Who the heck said they were going to NUKE us?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:56 pm

SEEKER

"And we have found some since the invasion of Iraq."

+++++++ Would you say more about that for me, please?

Post by **spot** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:59 pm

nvalleyvee wrote: I just had to express an emotion equivelent to the twin towers. Does that make me more or less caring than a terrorist?That depends on what you meant by the following:

nvalleyvee wrote: Get the danged ##%%@)#$#@(* MOFO thing over with. Let us - the US - say b*llsh*t and just put an end to all this nonsense. We have the weapons - we have the troops. What the Hell are we doing - my opinion - I want to say nuke the f**ckers but that doesn't apply. I do think we could go into Irag and end this within 6 months."I want to say nuke the f**ckers"?

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:59 pm

Lulu2 wrote: "And we have found some since the invasion of Iraq."

+++++++ Would you say more about that for me, please?

I am assuming you mean they did not have nukes.........

I have a problem with this war.................and I agree with this war...........Can you say CONFLICTED??????????

Is it really a war? Sadam is out of office...........so give government over.........What is up with this.

A country can either govern OR not.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:04 pm

No. I was referring to the WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION which Bush used as justification for invading, bombing and devastating Iraq, in addition to destroying many of the tenuous relationships we had with countries around the world.

So--which weapons did we find there?