Would You Support a U.S. Attack on Iran? (Debate)

[septbride2002]

1st democratic elections in Iraq in less than 2 weeks.

The last time I checked that was not the reason why we went to Iraq. I believe it had something to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction that later we found out didn't exist. But that was a nice try, see ya next time!

~Amanda

 

[swea_pea1]

Nope, sure wouldn't. I, too, would like to see us refocus our attention on capturing OBL.

 

[peachgirl]

1st democratic elections in Iraq in less than 2 weeks.

Oh please....where the "candidates" aren't free to campaign because they'll get killed? The "elections" that even the administration expect to have less than 20% voting because they aren't safe to vote?

Just because bush calls this an election doesn't mean it is one.

And as was previously said, democratic elections weren't the reason for going to war.

 

[dmadman43]

It matters to me - which is why I asked. There really is no need to be such a confrontational person all the time.

~Amanda

Not trying to be confrontational. Just trying to understand the question, given the UN's past history of "success" in these matters. (which has been zero)

 

[dmadman43]

And as was previously said, democratic elections weren't the reason for going to war.

Agreed. We accomplished the goals we set out to acheive. The question of the existence of WMD's has been sufficiently addressed and it is now no longer a threat. Whether that would have been resolved despite the incompetence of Han Blix and the UN we will never know. But, better safe than sorry.

 

[Charade]

That's not why Bush attacked Iraq.

It's a by product of the ("absolutely no reason whatsoever") deposing of SH which part of the "serious consequences" the UN passed in a resolution.

 

[Charade]

Oh please....where the "candidates" aren't free to campaign because they'll get killed? The "elections" that even the administration expect to have less than 20% voting because they aren't safe to vote?

Just because bush calls this an election doesn't mean it is one.
.

No one ever said it would be easy.It must be tough to be such a Debbie Downer.

Can you see no good whatsoever coming from the actions in Iraq? All of the Iraqi's that live in the US that are registering to vote think it's great that they can finally vote.

 

[peachgirl]

It's a by product of the ("absolutely no reason whatsoever") deposing of SH which part of the "serious consequences" the UN passed in a resolution.

The UN didn't go to war. Bush did. Bush said WMD were the reason.

It really is that simple.

 

[Teejay32]

It matters to me - which is why I asked. There really is no need to be such a confrontational person all the time.

~Amanda

I don't think it's a UN matter right now. The EU is working with Iran, with the governments of the UK, Germany, and France, (is it ok to consider the EU a "government", someone help me out with that...) and is trying to reach a deal in which Iran won't pursue nuclear development. The US will not take part in making deals with Iran.

 

[peachgirl]

It must be tough to be such a Debbie Downer.

I imagine it is easier just to drink the koolaid and become a follower.

All of the Iraqi's that live in the US that are registering to vote think it's great that they can finally vote.<!-- / message -->

Really? I'd love to see some stats that show ALL Iraqi's living in the US think bush's actions are great!

Got some proof to back that up?

 

[simpilotswife]

No unless we are willing to go to war with every other nation that has nuclear capabilities.

 

[jrydberg]

The UN didn't go to war. Bush did. Bush said WMD were the reason.

It really is that simple.

No, it's not that simple. There were a multitude of reasons for going to war. WMD was highlighted as it was believed to be one of the strongest reasons. Obviously it didn't work out that way. But there was never just one reason.

 

[Cinderellagrl]

No, we need to finish what we started first of all (Iraq). IF the US goes after Iran b/c of nuclear weapons, then I guess North Korea is next on the list and North Korea IS ready & waiting for us. I think Osama Bin Laden/Al-Qaida are a much bigger threat to us than anyone else. With all of our troops scattered among these other countries fighting these wars, who in the world is going to be on our homefront protecting us from terroristic attacks?

 

[Grog]

No

...

 

[Snowysmom]

I would definately not support going into Iran. We have no reason to attack them. We do however have reason to watch Iran and also North Korea. IMO North Korea is more of a threat. We need to stop policing the world and start protecting our borders.

 

[momof2inPA]

No, we need to finish what we started first of all (Iraq). IF the US goes after Iran b/c of nuclear weapons, then I guess North Korea is next on the list and North Korea IS ready & waiting for us. I think Osama Bin Laden/Al-Qaida are a much bigger threat to us than anyone else. With all of our troops scattered among these other countries fighting these wars, who in the world is going to be on our homefront protecting us from terroristic attacks?

So, is your answer "no" period, or "no, not until we are finished in Iraq?"

 

[Cinderellagrl]

So, is your answer "no" period, or "no, not until we are finished in Iraq?"

My answer is no, period. Yes, we do need to finish what we started in Iraq, we do need to "watch" Iran and North Korea, but I think we need to focus more on terrorism instead of starting another war.

 

[palmtreegirl]

No.

..

 

[Charade]

Really? I'd love to see some stats that show ALL Iraqi's living in the US think bush's actions are great!

Got some proof to back that up?

I didn't say that. I didn't say all were happy with our actions in Iraq.

(I reread what I wrote) What I meant to say was the one's I've heard interviewed about the elections have said they are glad they can vote.

 

[Sirius]

Agreed. We accomplished the goals we set out to acheive. The question of the existence of WMD's has been sufficiently addressed and it is now no longer a threat. Whether that would have been resolved despite the incompetence of Han Blix and the UN we will never know. But, better safe than sorry.

Do you really believe this? Face it. You and 59,054,086 other Americans were duped.

As for Hans Blix, what makes him incompetent?

Better safe than sorry? Why not attack North Korea?