Quantcast

Would You Back a Preemptive Strike on Iran?

Fox Report with Shepard Smith 2012/02/16 12:41:18
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Pat Mr. Won... 2012/02/21 00:13:24 (edited)
    Pat
    +1
    Come on!

    You're blaming me for others' posts?

    Please!

    It's very apparent that many muslims want to destroy Israel. AND they've backed up their rhetoric with numerous decades of attacks.

    I'd back Australian Aborigines in this situation.

    Tell you what.

    YOU love the muslim terrorists so much get you an AK & put YOUR @$$ on the line to vaporize Israel.

    You sent Hamas any $ lately?
  • Mr. Won... Pat 2012/02/21 03:45:09
    Mr. Wonderful
    I don't support the looney Muslims that yell they want to destory Israel any more than I support looney fans of Israel that want to destroy a weapon that doesn't even exist yet. There's no difference between either camp. Both are nuts. People voting no generally see that.
  • Pat Mr. Won... 2012/02/25 15:16:20 (edited)
    Pat
    It's only smart to prevent Iran getting doomsday weapons for as long as possible.

    By advocating to restrict Israel's defence, you ARE supporting the muslim attempt to kill all those Jewish people (like it or not).
  • Met Pat 2012/02/21 04:31:36
    Met
    Yes i do believe the CIA worked harder under Obama than under Bush.


    For the exact same reason i know i work harder when my ball buster of a boss is there instead of the pushover who don't read too good.

    Bush admitted he didn't have our resources looking for him. Forget about bias, your lack of basic knowledge of the world around you and the events that happen within is showing.
  • Pat Met 2012/02/25 15:23:21
    Pat
    You're just confirming your bias.

    CIA employees came under threat of prosecution for simply doing their jobs under Obama.

    Getting Bin Laden was a "sooner or later" situation, no matter who was president.

    Do you think it's smarter to assess each issue with an open mind & decide a position on an issue due to it's merits, OR does it look more intelligent to twist & spin every situation totally out of reality to fit a pre-formulated partisan ideology?

    Forgdt about bias & politics. Your lemming-like willingness to be lead by the nose to follow the liberal persuasion makes you look ridiculous & ignorant.
  • Met Pat 2012/02/27 22:52:01 (edited)
    Met
    Democratic politicians were imprisoned simply for being a democrat on the ticket under the republican establishment's Legal system, or don't you remember? You gonna throw stones, move out of the glass house, what did the CIA employee's job description include?

    If my job description included misleading the American People to further my puppet masters agenda, I'd fully expect to come under threat of Prosecution for simply doing my job.

    Your attempt to over generalize, and de-specify the situation confirms your bias.

    Bin Laden was a "later or never" situation under bush, and "public enemy #1" under Obama, which is why the program that got him was started under Obama, and Bush himself told us he wasn't even looking for him, nor did he care if we found him. Which is why the intelligence gathering that led to the revocation of OBL's life privileges didn't even happen till Bush left office.

    Reality, fact, truth, not being a fcking retard like you - kinda important.
  • Pat Met 2012/02/27 23:58:11
    Pat
    The GOP created our legal system?

    What imprisoned Dems are you talking about?

    Just where did you get the idea that Bush's adminstration gave Osama a pass?
  • Met Pat 2012/02/29 11:27:42
    Met
    The legal system has been notoriously conservative, it's kinda their job, to error on the side of caution. The legal system also serves as a conduit for religion to sneak it's way into government, as i've seen time and time again from bible thumping judges. Religion again usually imparts conservative ideals.

    For one my former Governor Don Siegelman. But if you examine election year prosecution patterns under the bush admins legal debt, you'll find that many campaigning and incumbent democrats around the nation were investigated and prosecuted under questionable circumstances. If any of the prosecutors refused to violate their ethics and not participate, they were fired. Surely you remember Gonzo.


    The idea that bush gave him a pass came from bush himself. Look at his mannerisms, he's annoyed OBL was brought up, and obviously wishes everyone would forget about him, and the failure of letting him walk out of Afghanistan when we had him pinned down.
  • Pat Met 2012/02/29 23:48:37 (edited)
    Pat
    My it is that he thinks the efforts should be kept more out of the spotlight.

    Potato-potahto.
  • Met Pat 2012/03/01 00:30:23
    Met
    If that were the case, he'd have a prepared cool headed comment to segway to the next question.

    However, his annoyance at the question, visible frustration, and shifty body gestures suggests a less actionable approach. One which coincides with Bush's success rate at killing Bin Ladens.
  • Pat Met 2012/03/01 00:42:48
    Pat
    Hey, I didn't even like Bush, for fiscal reasons.

    You think he literally told the CIA to lay off?

    Right.
  • Met Pat 2012/03/01 02:03:37
    Met
    You do understand that the administration sets priorities and goals for engagements right?

    Which is why under bush we had 8 years of aimless wars, off the books funding, and no dead bin laden.

    Once we got someone in with his head on straight, both wars are winding down with specific goals leading up to withdrawal, dead ass Osama, and real democracy in the middle east.

    Yes we did.
  • Pat Met 2012/03/04 01:11:46
    Pat
    Sure they do.

    I was wondering where the (non-existant) evidence was where Bush told the CIA to lay off.

    There were so many other important things they had to do.....
  • Trust N... Mr. Won... 2012/02/21 02:44:26
    Trust Noone
    +1
    You assume I supported all of the Bush policIes. I don't judge politicians or take sides as Dems or repubs, or if I like them or not, I look at the how their policies affect our freedom. Which Obame is slowly eroding. this is not about sides it's about freedom.
    Open your eyes because you are not part of their circle.
  • Mr. Won... Trust N... 2012/02/21 03:38:05
    Mr. Wonderful
    What freedom has Bush enhanced? It was he that created the Patroit Act and took away some freedoms. What has Obama done? Be specific.
  • Trust N... Mr. Won... 2012/02/23 02:38:18 (edited)
  • Mr. Won... Trust N... 2012/02/23 02:41:23
    Mr. Wonderful
    Obviously you can't list a single thing Obama done to "take away freedoms" so you just confirmed your full of sh**. Thanks for playing.

    Next.
  • Trust N... Mr. Won... 2012/02/23 02:46:02
    Trust Noone
    Obamacare, 1 of many, do the research and not with the talking heads on TV
  • Mr. Won... Trust N... 2012/02/23 02:58:55
    Mr. Wonderful
    Sorry bubba, Obama's health care program which was approved by both houses of Congress or it never would have got to Obama's desk you lame brained moron, doesn't even kick it for all practical purposes until 2014. So again, as always I make mince meat out of another clueless right wing dummy. Thanks for playing. You are way out classed. Just go away.
  • Trust N... Mr. Won... 2012/02/23 03:14:32
    Trust Noone
    You dumbass, both the house and the Senate were controlled by the Dems. If only you would take your head out of your ass and read the bill you would see that the health care bill contains more the just health care. They have full control of your life. O and death?
  • Mr. Won... Trust N... 2012/02/23 03:29:34
    Mr. Wonderful
    So? Damn you right wingers are full blown morons. Every day, every topic, you prove that over and over again. The point doofus is CONGRESS voted and sent it to the president and it became law. Whine and bitch all you want if further proof of your idioticy was needed.

    EVERY freaking bill has pages, sometimes HUNDREDS of pages of extras that have absolutely nothing to do with the bill. Again, normal. Sure stupid, but it has been like that forever. You don't get out much do you.
  • Trust N... Mr. Won... 2012/02/23 03:39:26
    Trust Noone
    Notice to visitors there is no intelligent life found here. Over and out
  • Wolf97 Mr. Won... 2012/03/02 04:17:21
    Wolf97
    I support Obama (to a point) and dislike Bush. But een I can see your agrument is stupid. Bush tried several times to kill Bin Laden and it wasnt his fault they didnt work.
  • Mr. Won... Wolf97 2012/03/02 04:48:52
  • DizziNY Trust N... 2012/02/22 03:23:21
    DizziNY
    Hitler used the preemptive strike doctrine to invade Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Greece, Russia, and France.
  • Ze End 2012/02/20 19:58:00 (edited)
    Yes
    Ze End
    +1
    I'm more yes then no on this (but not 100% yes). Attacking Iran for no reason is not a good idea, but if Iran shows aggression (AKA: attacking Israel), then all we need is our navy and air-force to give the Israelis support, the Israelis have shown that their ground forces are more then able to do it themselves.



    so yes, but NO ground forces.
  • Wolf97 Ze End 2012/02/20 21:48:35
    Wolf97
    Isreal is has very effective ground forces, yet I still feel it wouldnt be enough. What makes you think that Isreal alone could handle Iran? I am just curious because it seems to be that, while they are very capable, they would need more ground support from Nato.
  • Centrist_Bill 2012/02/20 19:26:42
    No
    Centrist_Bill
    +3
    One of the many things that make America great is our rule of law. We wrote and signed a little thing called the Geneva Conventions. it states in a nutshell that if we are attacked we can go to war. However if we ARENT ATTACKED we cant go to war. If we do we are no better than the Nazi's and look what happened to them. Besides if any of you know anything about our advanced weapons you know we can knock out any missile heading this way LONG BEFORE it hits our shores. Iran inst a threat. Its time we get the hell out of the area and let them kill each other.
  • Mr. Won... Centris... 2012/02/20 19:58:46
    Mr. Wonderful
    +5
    Good points. The sky is falling crowd never thinks straight. There's only two countires that pose any real theat to the United States, Russia and China. It would make absolutely no military or political sense for either of them to attack us.

    Russia, in the past 12 years or so as been doing quite well. China way better. If either out of lunancy would try to rain nukes down on us, what would they have 'won', vast piles of rubble as far as the eye could see, tens of millions of corpses to bury, flattened cities that couldn't be salvaged. No matter what they do, at least a few of our subs would have done the same to them. Nobody wins a nuclear war.

    What would Iran gain or anyone for that matter attacking Israel with nukes? Even if an attack destoryed Israel and they couldn't strike back, whoever attacked would face such wrath from other countires right after even if just using conventional weapons they would in turn be destroyed. Again, nobody wins.

    The biggest threat the world faces is some nut job getting a hold of materials and creating some suitcase sized tactical nuke and setting that off in some major city. Obviously you don't need to be an Einstein to figure out if the hot headed government of Israel does something stupid like a premptive strike, that greatly increases the risk of some looney trying to do what I just said.
  • Centris... Mr. Won... 2012/02/20 20:31:20
    Centrist_Bill
    QFT. Good Job.
  • \V/ Mr. Won... 2012/02/20 21:31:30
  • JCD aka... Centris... 2012/02/20 20:01:58
    JCD aka "biz"
    Sorry to intrude, but, again, it"s mostly the non-males and non-females who have voted "yes".

    Only 35% of the women and 42% of the men voted "yes", but the overall vote is 56% "yes".

    How strange.
  • Centris... JCD aka... 2012/02/21 02:54:29
    Centrist_Bill
    Sir(?) Im here to make an opinion. Only iggies even bother with the numbers on this site.
  • Wolf97 Centris... 2012/02/20 21:49:48
    Wolf97
    +1
    We have things called "Mutual Security Pacts" with countries in that area, that is why we would be invovled.
  • Centris... Wolf97 2012/02/21 02:56:30
    Centrist_Bill
    Time to get rid of them. Look at what it got us. Besides anyone that is or was in the service knows they are a fancy bunch of words for saying my weapons are bigger than your weapons or you send one nuke we will launch the Patriots and then 100 nukes.
  • Wolf97 Centris... 2012/02/21 15:42:52
    Wolf97
    Alliances are effective at keeping the world in balance.
  • Centris... Wolf97 2012/02/21 19:57:28
    Centrist_Bill
    Under normal circumstances yes but at this point in time we NEED to think about US not some nation on the other side of the world. Israel has a huge arsonel and can take care of themselves. We dont need them. As the old saying goes their is a time and place for everything. Its time to be selfish and handle OUR DAMNED PROBLEMS and let them deal with theirs.
  • TKramar Wolf97 2012/02/21 10:24:50
    TKramar
    Does that mean if your buddy keeps poking the bear, that you should step in and blame the bear when he mauls him?
  • Eric Centris... 2012/02/21 01:54:55
    Eric
    Somewhere between the aerial bombings in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Gitmo, rendition, and assassinations I think that we can say goodbye to that rule of law, unfortunately. But a nice thought. Always hope.
  • Centris... Eric 2012/02/21 02:58:28
    Centrist_Bill
    I think that is why we are in the situation we are in in that area. We have lost all cedibility and have broken OUR OWN LAWS and then didnt even bother to investigate let alone prosecute the people that broke the laws.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Fun

2014/10/26 03:17:03

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals