If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Having seen the successes of the past decade, 49% of Americans support bombing Iran to prevent them from gaining nukes   (thehill.com) divider line 271
    More: Fail, Iran, United States, Americans, nuclear weapons, Strait of Hormuz, sanctions against Iran  
•       •       •

3730 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Feb 2012 at 8:15 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



271 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-06 03:52:53 PM
I'll bet that number would shrink considerably if we conscripted them and their family members to fight the inevitable war.
 
2012-02-06 03:54:27 PM
Well... Iraq and Afghanistan don't have any nukes, now do they?

Mission accomplished.
 
2012-02-06 03:58:16 PM
And 10 years from now, after we've been in a seemingly endless war with Iran for awhile, approximately 0% will claim to have ever supported it.
 
2012-02-06 04:00:22 PM
49% of Americans are below average intelligence.
 
2012-02-06 04:33:42 PM
That's pretty pathetic. I keep being embarrassed to be an American.
 
2012-02-06 04:36:35 PM
49% or Americans couldn't spell Iran if you spotted them the I-R-A
 
2012-02-06 04:49:00 PM
*facepalm*

F*cking people never learn...
 
2012-02-06 04:52:39 PM
Nearly half of likely voters think the United States should be willing to use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, according to this week's The Hill Poll

ok, fine. you want to fight the entire world, we're instituting a mandatory draft.

f*ck you people. grab a gun and get your ass on the next transport. you want to fight Iran, you're gonna actually be on the ground doing it your damn selves.
 
2012-02-06 04:54:00 PM
i25.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-06 04:57:04 PM
Weaver95: Nearly half of likely voters think the United States should be willing to use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, according to this week's The Hill Poll

ok, fine. you want to fight the entire world, we're instituting a mandatory draft.

f*ck you people. grab a gun and get your ass on the next transport. you want to fight Iran, you're gonna actually be on the ground doing it your damn selves.


"I think you should be allowed to own a Humvee. I just think that when you go to buy it, you should be hit on the back of the neck with a f*cking roll of quarters in a sock, and then just wake up in Iraq with a gun, and they're like, 'Oh, yeah. You can drive it. You just have to get the gasoline by yourself.'"

-Patton Oswalt
 
2012-02-06 04:58:28 PM
Do you folks think there is no distinction between bombing Iran and launching a full-scale land invasion?

Because the last ten years have taught that the latter is usually a terrible idea. But the former? Worked nicely in Libya.

Iran isn't Libya. And I'm not sure how I'd feel about a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. But "OMG it'd be just like Iraq!!!" or "conscription then!!" isn't really relevant.
 
2012-02-06 05:00:48 PM
incogman.net
 
2012-02-06 05:03:48 PM
When you fight Iran, you have to deal with their best friends China and Russia. Now that is a bridge too far.
 
2012-02-06 05:08:58 PM
hitchking: Do you folks think there is no distinction between bombing Iran and launching a full-scale land invasion?


Only in method do they differ. They're really the same thing.
 
2012-02-06 05:20:35 PM
Rich Cream: hitchking: Do you folks think there is no distinction between bombing Iran and launching a full-scale land invasion?


Only in method do they differ. They're really the same thing.


Go on...
 
2012-02-06 05:23:34 PM
How many of those polled are currently serving or have served? If you support war so much, you should volunteer yourself before sending others in to do it for you
 
2012-02-06 05:35:43 PM
In other news, 49% of Americans are republican.
 
2012-02-06 05:36:14 PM
Meh, this poll was taken from a bunch of mouth breathers too dumb to avoid taking a poll.
 
2012-02-06 05:39:57 PM
EnviroDude: When you fight Iran, you have to deal with their best friends China and Russia. Now that is a bridge too far.

Two countries that came out against the UN Resolution proposed by the Arab League to deal with Syria, no less.

Bombing Iran would very likely start World War 3, and it would not be pretty.
 
2012-02-06 05:46:21 PM
Unless, of course, Obama comes out in favor of nuking Iran into a glass parking lot; in which case, that same 49% will be wringing their hands about what an evil, despotic, bloodthirsty dictator he is.
 
2012-02-06 05:48:06 PM
We need to cut Israel loose if you ask me. I don't know how often this question would be asked if they weren't constantly rattling sabers.
 
2012-02-06 05:48:29 PM
hitchking: Rich Cream: hitchking: Do you folks think there is no distinction between bombing Iran and launching a full-scale land invasion?


Only in method do they differ. They're really the same thing.

Go on...



That's is the point. You just don't get it.
 
2012-02-06 05:52:50 PM
serpent_sky: EnviroDude: When you fight Iran, you have to deal with their best friends China and Russia. Now that is a bridge too far.

Two countries that came out against the UN Resolution proposed by the Arab League to deal with Syria, no less.

Bombing Iran would very likely start World War 3, and it would not be pretty.


I've been trying to make up my mind about this issue for a little while, and so I've been reading about it whenever I come across a relevant article or interview.

I've never heard anyone suggest that WWIII will break out. What do you mean? You think China and Russia would get militarily involved? I think you'd be more likely to see military action from Atlantis and Narnia.
 
wee [TotalFark]
2012-02-06 05:57:10 PM
I thought we agreed to let Israel start this next world war...
 
2012-02-06 05:58:04 PM
Rich Cream: hitchking: Rich Cream: hitchking: Do you folks think there is no distinction between bombing Iran and launching a full-scale land invasion?


Only in method do they differ. They're really the same thing.

Go on...


That's is the point. You just don't get it.


Is it really so tough to explain? I'm a liberal Canadian, not some war-mongering neocon. And I'm not saying that a US or Israel strike on Iranian nuclear facilities is a good idea.

So, rather than dismissing anyone who doesn't instantly and fully agree with you, why not tell me why you think a targeted missile strike on nuke facilities is essentially the same as a full-scale land invasion of Iran?
 
2012-02-06 05:59:51 PM
Overextension, then the fall.

It was nice being a superpower while it lasted.
 
2012-02-06 06:24:50 PM
hitchking: I've been trying to make up my mind about this issue for a little while, and so I've been reading about it whenever I come across a relevant article or interview.

I've never heard anyone suggest that WWIII will break out. What do you mean? You think China and Russia would get militarily involved? I think you'd be more likely to see military action from Atlantis and Narnia.



I do think there is a chance they could get involved, yes. These are just my thoughts, possibly a paranoid worst case scenario sort of thing. I'm basing it on, as I said, their voting down support of the Arab League's suggestions for putting an end to what is going on in Syria. They are strong allies with Iran -- and correct me if I'm wrong, they rely heavily on Iranian oil and may well come to their defense if they were attacked by Israel and/or the United States.

I certainly hope not, but I think something has to give, eventually, and we've invaded and attacked more than enough countries in the past ten and a half years. I don't think it is in our best interests, and if on some chance Russia and/or China did get involved -- which I agree, is something that I am envisioning and not a guarantee -- that would be huge and to me, feels like World War 3.
 
2012-02-06 06:26:43 PM
Elandriel: We need to cut Israel loose if you ask me. I don't know how often this question would be asked if they weren't constantly rattling sabers.

But...! But...! But... that little scrap of desert that our invisible sky fairy told us was important for some reason! We can't let that go!
 
2012-02-06 06:46:09 PM
Gordian Cipher: Elandriel: We need to cut Israel loose if you ask me. I don't know how often this question would be asked if they weren't constantly rattling sabers.

But...! But...! But... that little scrap of desert that our invisible sky fairy told us was important for some reason! We can't let that go!


As long as we're taking thousand year old books as gospel (snerk) let's go ahead and believe everything in The Iliad while we're at it.
 
2012-02-06 06:46:48 PM
Sleeping Monkey: In other news, 49% of Americans are republican.

No even close.
 
2012-02-06 06:56:10 PM
i.imgur.com

Five!

Five threads with Iran in the title in one day
Ah Ah Ah

1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 
2012-02-06 06:57:45 PM
It's unpopular because it's the right thing to do. We'd be in big trouble if we always took the easy way out.

Let's stop these guys from getting nukes, then we can talk peace.
 
2012-02-06 07:05:02 PM
serpent_sky: hitchking: I've been trying to make up my mind about this issue for a little while, and so I've been reading about it whenever I come across a relevant article or interview.

I've never heard anyone suggest that WWIII will break out. What do you mean? You think China and Russia would get militarily involved? I think you'd be more likely to see military action from Atlantis and Narnia.


I do think there is a chance they could get involved, yes. These are just my thoughts, possibly a paranoid worst case scenario sort of thing. I'm basing it on, as I said, their voting down support of the Arab League's suggestions for putting an end to what is going on in Syria. They are strong allies with Iran -- and correct me if I'm wrong, they rely heavily on Iranian oil and may well come to their defense if they were attacked by Israel and/or the United States.

I certainly hope not, but I think something has to give, eventually, and we've invaded and attacked more than enough countries in the past ten and a half years. I don't think it is in our best interests, and if on some chance Russia and/or China did get involved -- which I agree, is something that I am envisioning and not a guarantee -- that would be huge and to me, feels like World War 3.


Russia can't afford it, although Putin is pining for the old days and gunning to fire up the cold war again...

China will not jeopardize it's global economic interests for Iran, oil or not.

And it's different than Libya, because there was already a civil war in progress, we(collective) picked the rebel side, and did some strategic bombing to help them out.
 
2012-02-06 07:11:02 PM
Current;y, Iran is NOT being run by Theotards with nukes. Yeah, they have them, but the tulers aren't Theotards.
Currently, Israel IS being run by Theotards with nukes.

Also, both countries have hot chicks in them.

Best possible option is to tell every other nation, we will turn our nukes off when we have proof you don't have any.
Coupled with kicking every last sonnabiotch with an "invisible friend" out of government office here in the USA.

Of course, we would never turn off our nukes.
But, The best thing to do when Three people have guns pointed at each others heads is to be Fonzies.

As soon as someone can't Fonzie up, Switch hit and blast them off the face of the earth.

Now that I have your attention, this would be a good time to compare some wackjob like your random Ayatollah with any random GOP whackjob.
 
2012-02-06 07:12:53 PM
sno man: Russia can't afford it, although Putin is pining for the old days and gunning to fire up the cold war again...
We can't afford it, either....

China will not jeopardize it's global economic interests for Iran, oil or not.
That is actually a good point that makes a lot of sense.
I still don't think we should be involved in any sort of war with Iran. Or anyone, for that matter. We're finally out of Iraq and have a schedule for getting out of Afghanistan.

And it's different than Libya, because there was already a civil war in progress, we(collective) picked the rebel side, and did some strategic bombing to help them out.

Absolutely. And that was a coalition of nations, not us and Israel invading/attacking/bombing yet another sovereign nation in the Middle East. I don't see a remote parallel between Libya and Iran, as multiple nations agreed it was in their/our best interests to help the rebels (though the jury appears to still be out on that).
 
2012-02-06 07:14:57 PM
hitchking: You think China and Russia would get militarily involved?

Let's see the countries involved:
www.climate-zone.com

Well, the two countries I think that would get involved are not exactly up to snuff, militarily.

You have a point there.
 
2012-02-06 07:16:34 PM
If it came to it I might be OK with a series of surgical airstrikes, but I sure as sh*t don't have any support for another land war.
 
2012-02-06 07:16:53 PM
49% of Americans are Israelis?
 
2012-02-06 07:19:13 PM
AverageAmericanGuy: It's unpopular because it's the right thing to do. We'd be in big trouble if we always took the easy way out.

Let's stop these guys from getting nukes, then we can talk peace.


Your fark handle suits you well.
 
2012-02-06 07:34:58 PM
Elandriel: Gordian Cipher: Elandriel: We need to cut Israel loose if you ask me. I don't know how often this question would be asked if they weren't constantly rattling sabers.

But...! But...! But... that little scrap of desert that our invisible sky fairy told us was important for some reason! We can't let that go!

As long as we're taking thousand year old books as gospel (snerk) let's go ahead and believe everything in The Iliad while we're at it.


Diomedes would like a word with you...
 
2012-02-06 07:35:07 PM
violentsalvation: If it came to it I might be OK with a series of surgical airstrikes, but I sure as sh*t don't have any support for another land war.

Not in Asia, at least. Never get involved, I've heard.
 
2012-02-06 07:56:33 PM
timujin: violentsalvation: If it came to it I might be OK with a series of surgical airstrikes, but I sure as sh*t don't have any support for another land war.

Not in Asia, at least. Never get involved, I've heard.


I think that's pretty inconceivable.
 
2012-02-06 08:06:53 PM
sno man: serpent_sky: hitchking: I've been trying to make up my mind about this issue for a little while, and so I've been reading about it whenever I come across a relevant article or interview.

I've never heard anyone suggest that WWIII will break out. What do you mean? You think China and Russia would get militarily involved? I think you'd be more likely to see military action from Atlantis and Narnia.


I do think there is a chance they could get involved, yes. These are just my thoughts, possibly a paranoid worst case scenario sort of thing. I'm basing it on, as I said, their voting down support of the Arab League's suggestions for putting an end to what is going on in Syria. They are strong allies with Iran -- and correct me if I'm wrong, they rely heavily on Iranian oil and may well come to their defense if they were attacked by Israel and/or the United States.

I certainly hope not, but I think something has to give, eventually, and we've invaded and attacked more than enough countries in the past ten and a half years. I don't think it is in our best interests, and if on some chance Russia and/or China did get involved -- which I agree, is something that I am envisioning and not a guarantee -- that would be huge and to me, feels like World War 3.

Russia can't afford it, although Putin is pining for the old days and gunning to fire up the cold war again...

China will not jeopardize it's global economic interests for Iran, oil or not.

And it's different than Libya, because there was already a civil war in progress, we(collective) picked the rebel side, and did some strategic bombing to help them out.


Of course. If you were replying to my invocation of Libya, I hope I made clear that the two countries are not the same. Iran has virtually nothing in common with the recent Libya situation.

I only referred to Libya in order to make the point that airstrikes do not necessarily equal a full scale land invasion. There might be good reasons to oppose both of those regarding Iran, but the early posters in the thread (and the headline) seemed to be suggesting they were synonymous.
 
2012-02-06 08:15:03 PM
DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Elandriel: Gordian Cipher: Elandriel: We need to cut Israel loose if you ask me. I don't know how often this question would be asked if they weren't constantly rattling sabers.

But...! But...! But... that little scrap of desert that our invisible sky fairy told us was important for some reason! We can't let that go!

As long as we're taking thousand year old books as gospel (snerk) let's go ahead and believe everything in The Iliad while we're at it.

Diomedes would like a word with you...


Sounds like the kind of talk you'd expect from a libtard socialist communifascinazi Argon(ian?). Advised by Zeus my foot. Live by the sword die by the sword, Jesus 2012 represent! Down with polytheism!
 
2012-02-06 08:17:09 PM
Let France do it. They loved taking the lead in Libya... as long as they got to use all our missiles and ships and officers to coordinate everything.
 
2012-02-06 08:19:39 PM
Sliding Carp: 49% of Americans are below average intelligence republican.

Or has it already been said?
 
2012-02-06 08:20:49 PM
Start a nuclear war now! Apocalypse and Armageddon - they're past due. I did not sit through my whole life just to NOT see this puffball planet exterminate itself through it's own delusions.
 
2012-02-06 08:22:49 PM
Can't we just stick to the cyberwarfare stuff? It seems to work pretty well.
 
2012-02-06 08:22:55 PM
vudukungfu: Current;y, Iran is NOT being run by Theotards with nukes. Yeah, they have them, but the tulers aren't Theotards.
Currently, Israel IS being run by Theotards with nukes.

Also, both countries have hot chicks in them.

This

Now that I have your attention, this would be a good time to compare some wackjob like your random Ayatollah with any random GOP whackjob.


How does one tell them apart?
 
2012-02-06 08:22:58 PM
I think this survey was done by the "Pulling Numbers From My Ass" foundation.
War is big business, and big business makes money on it.
Let the politicians send all their kids to the country that has offended them first, see how that works for you.
 
Displayed 50 of 271 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report