Would you back a preemptive strike by Iran against the USA?

by Disko Pickle Posted 2012/02/18 03:36:21

Related Topics: Iran, Military, Moral, Population, America, Launch, Protect

67 votes
Read all 94 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	No. Iran should just get used to being victimized by the US.	14 votes	21%
	Yes. Iran has the moral obligation to defend itself.	29 votes	43%
	Undecided	24 votes	36%

The USA has been deliberately and aggressively provoking a confrontation with Iran for decades. Anyone who has been paying attention recently has noticed that America's belligerency has increased radically in recent weeks, leaving little doubt that this rogue nation with a long history of trying to conquer and control countries all over the world for its own interests is planning to unilaterally attack Iran. If recent history tells us anything, the US military will systematically concentrate its attacks on the civilian population, primarily women and children. Most people would argue that the Iranian government has a moral responsibility to prevent such an attack and to protect the lives of its citizens. Should Iran launch a preemptive strike against to US?

+15

Add a comment above

Philo-Publius 2012/02/18 03:44:41

Yes. Iran has the moral obligation to defend itself.

+8
Iran, no less than the United States and Israel, must be free to pursue the time-tested American national defense policy of Peace Through Strength.

Go win one for the Gipper, Mr. Ahmadinejad!
>> See Replies

More polls by Disko Pickle

sodabox 2012/06/03 17:16:25

Yes. Iran has the moral obligation to defend itself.

+1
Sanctions are an act of war, thus, it would not be preemptive. It would be self defense.

reply
Met 2012/04/26 16:36:40

No. Iran should just get used to being victimized by the US.

Sorry. but fck them. And fck North Korea too.

The little slightly retarded kids on the play ground shouldn't act like a bully, no matter how many times we take their lunch money. They should concentrate on keeping their heads down and trying to act normal.

reply
Disko P... to Met 2012/04/28 01:29:55

The only retard acting the bully in this scenario seems to be the USA.

reply
Met to Disko P... 2012/04/28 02:58:34

yeah because letting a nation ruled by people who feel it's their god appointed duty to end the world by nuclear fire sit back and build the bombs is just retarded.

You swat flies.

reply
RogerCoppock 2012/03/19 08:18:00

Undecided

+1
LOL! Oh, Disko Pickle, you are the 53rd card in the deck.

reply
HAlex1972 2012/03/17 10:33:44

No. Iran should just get used to being victimized by the US.

+1
I completely misread the question. I meant to pick the green answer, "Yes."

reply
Sarah 2012/03/09 15:38:45

Yes. Iran has the moral obligation to defend itself.

+2
Iran and the USA have been very hostile towards each other for many years now but it's never gotten to attacking each other. I don't think the Iranian government is stupid enough to attack the world's super power. The US couldn't just attack Iran. There would be serious protests from all over the world AND from the Americans themselves.(many of them anyway...)

reply
hat man 2012/03/06 19:23:16 (edited)

No. Iran should just get used to being victimized by the US.

+1
I only agree with the NO in this option. I think Iran has the right to defend itself. But attacking the USA will not get it anywhere, nor do I see it as right. The USA should stay to its own and Iran to its own.

reply
I NEED A HORSE 2012/03/04 02:15:44
The Thinking Woman 2012/02/28 04:26:49

Yes. Iran has the moral obligation to defend itself.

+2
We should get the heck out of the middle east.

reply
justfred 2012/02/27 18:26:48

Undecided

+4
I am against 'preemptive strikes' by anyone.

reply
Julian 2012/02/27 03:33:01

Yes. Iran has the moral obligation to defend itself.

+2
Wait, what?

reply
socokid 2012/02/27 03:05:08

No. Iran should just get used to being victimized by the US.

+2
We have several times more WMDs, and in plain view.

reply
☥☽✪☾DAW ☽✪☾ 2012/02/27 02:22:22

Yes. Iran has the moral obligation to defend itself.

+3

reply
Not A Fool 2012/02/27 02:08:04

No. Iran should just get used to being victimized by the US.

+1
I've gotta say, that's a real TROLL of a question. First of all, if a country can't win against a stronger foe in war what would be the use of striking first? It seems that would only hasten the U.S. attack, if that is actually what's going to happen. Secondly, I don't believe in any kind of attack. I believe in defense. The amount of rationalizing that goes on to justify an attack as a form of self defense shows just how flimsy the whole thought process really is. Anyways, I don't think Iran is in a position to be able to attack the U.S. with a preemptive strike, so you're question is rather pointless, in more ways than one.

reply
sjalan 2012/02/27 01:13:08

Undecided

+1
You must be nuts. They already did that on 9/11.

reply
Disko P... to sjalan 2012/02/27 01:16:54

+6
You're lucky the innocent people who were murdered on 9/11 are dead because quite a few of them would be quite angered by your using their deaths to justify murdering innocent women and children in a country which was completely unrelated to their deaths.

reply
sjalan to Disko P... 2012/02/27 06:08:47

+1
It is obvious that you don't realize that Iran was one of the funders of the project that brought us 9/11, along with the other terrorist groups. The way the question was worded had no other reasonable response than to remind the asker that a agressive pre-emtive attack had already taken place on US soil.

I suggest you re-read the question.

reply
Disko P... to sjalan 2012/02/27 08:18:41

+2
Sunnis are working together with Shias, huh?

reply
sjalan to Disko P... 2012/02/27 14:50:35

+1
The enemy of your enemy is my friend.

reply
Disko P... to sjalan 2012/02/28 01:34:26

+2
Osama bin Laden pledged to exterminate every single Shia Muslim on the face of the Earth. The Iranian government was ranked higher on his hit-list than the US, right after the Saudi family and Saddam Hussein. bin Laden would have been more likely to team up with the US against Iran than to partner with heretics like the Shias.

reply
sjalan to Disko P... 2012/02/28 04:14:56

+1
Yet the common enemy was the US and the clerics knew it and it would untie some of the different parts of the Islam religion to a common goal. After that then maybe they'd kill each other. As it is the Arab world has indeed been more united since 9/11

reply
Disko P... to sjalan 2012/03/01 05:52:28

+2
Iran is not part of the Arab world.

reply
Atmara 2012/02/24 01:54:15

Yes. Iran has the moral obligation to defend itself.

+3
God told me personally that you're screwed.

Sorry!

reply
Disko P... to Atmara 2012/02/24 01:55:22

+5

reply
☥☽✪☾DAW... to Disko P... 2012/02/27 02:24:16

+2
Well God told me that she loves you

reply
Jesterz 2012/02/21 17:46:08

Undecided

+4
I'm against any "pre-emptive" strikes... It's an hypocritical way to say agression...

I would be very disappointed if Iran did such a thing, they haven't started a war since 1826...

I very much doubt this will happen of course..

reply
Sadisticon 2012/02/20 16:29:41

Yes. Iran has the moral obligation to defend itself.

+1
Oh, yes. I want that. The retribution will vaporise the rest of that antagonising sandbox.

reply
wtxwoman 2012/02/20 02:26:24

Undecided

+4
No, because I live in the USA. Why would I want another country to strike us? I don't want any country striking anyone. The wars should end.

reply
gkirmani 2012/02/19 19:33:05

Undecided

+3
Actually I dont want to side with anyone who talks of WAR instead of Peace specially US and its other evil and rogue partners.....France and Britain... who always prefer to create atmosphere of war and anarchy to suit thier antihuman activivties............

history tell us that UN is a bunch of impotent hypocrite countries.......everytime it has dittoed the the lines of imperialist powers

War NEVER has been a solution......it always breed more war and destruction........but sure satanic forces like that

and the Irony is that the citizen support the criminal activities of thier "LEADERS'' forgetting the collaterall consequences on themselves.......... what poor hapless incapable souls

May wiser sense prevail and PEACE gets a chance.......amen

reply
Sadisticon to gkirmani 2012/02/20 16:32:25

+1
oh. You went for the serious, measured approach. I'm humbled.
I'm out.

reply
flaca BN-0 2012/02/19 04:52:01

Undecided

+4
I haven't the knowledge to make a decision, since I have to rely on the media. And we all know how they skew everything.

reply
Bureauc 0webama 2012/02/19 02:57:02

Undecided

Gee, I thought the Messiah 0bama was going to change the world.
His 'Talk Nice foreign policy not working? Turns out he is Bush on steroids.
I am curious Mr Pickle, who will you progressives turn to for leadership now?

reply
Disko P... to Bureauc... 2012/02/19 07:43:40 (edited)

+3
Provoking a war with Iran is "Talk Nice foreign policy"?????

As of today, all Americans have 5 progressive candidates to choose from. No matter who the next president is, the progressives have already won.

reply
Bureauc... to Disko P... 2012/03/02 03:03:49

0webama is still kissing their @ss.
RP doesn't strike me as a progressive.

reply
Disko P... to Bureauc... 2012/03/02 06:14:02

That's probably because you're a communist.

reply
Bear 2012/02/18 23:10:24

Undecided

+1
They don't have definitive proof of any of those accusations. We deserve to live free. We just want to go about our business.

reply
Disko P... to Bear 2012/02/19 01:33:03

+6
Unfortunately, the USA has proven repeatedly that their business includes dropping cluster bombs on Muslim wedding parties and shooting Muslim children through the head with automatic weapons.

reply
Bear to Disko P... 2012/02/19 22:22:54

+1
All that being true indicates that Iran would not be taking a preemptive strike but in fact a retaliatory one.....next question....

reply
Disko P... to Bear 2012/02/20 02:06:54

+4
None of that happened in Iran.

reply