View more polls
February 23, 2012 - 3:20pmPermalink
I voted and was shocked to see the results. How can my brothers/sisters think it self defense to attack first? In what court would a first strike be considered self defense? This is a very poorly worded question clearly designed to skew the results of the survey to support a preemptive strike. Rather than a simple yes or no answer, the question leads us with two YES answers, and a NO. Clearly few will think we have not done enough short of war, clearly few will think WWIII will result in such a strike, as those two are the far right and left view points. The only answer left is the one the question writer wants to promote as the Legion's stance. This should be filed my friends as how dumb do they think we are! Once again, my legion is getting farther from my core beliefs when you are supporting the pretext of war.
February 23, 2012 - 3:36pmPermalink
Dead on! Could not have said that better!
February 23, 2012 - 4:35pmPermalink
Permalink has said it well. I have no more to add.
February 25, 2012 - 1:56pmPermalink
A preemptive strike is by definition a self-defense measure applied to remove a clear and present danger to the citizens of an immediately threatened nation. Iran's leadership has made no bones about its intention to "wipe Israel from the face of the earth" and proceeds to move in that direction with each passing day.
A nation, any nation, should not have to wait to be attacked before defending itself from those sworn to that nation's obliteration.
Robert Ireland (PUFL)
Post 174 Willits, CA
February 23, 2012 - 3:43pmPermalink
As anyone should know the US is Israel's biggest ally!!! If Israel were to conduct a preemptive strike against Iran, it would most definitely be construed as a giant green light from the US!!! This is not to say that Israel is incapable of acting on it's own behalf; however the strike would be PERCIEVED to carry the US stamp of approval!! This could prove disastrous to the fledgling quasi-Democracy in Iraq; as it's giant neighbor has nuclear capability and a VASTLY SUPERIOR MILITARY( I was in Iraq so I know)..I believe the world should wait and cut off all trade with Iran!! Simply starve them into submission.. When the military and their families can't eat they will rebel...By the way.....Isn't Iran backed by Russia,China,and on occasion France?? Food for thought,exactly WHO ALL would be INVOLVED!!! WW III??
February 23, 2012 - 4:11pmPermalink
I agree w/ both transoff and Joe McGovern
I am a Korean Vet VFW
Your questions are out of line!F
February 23, 2012 - 4:13pmPermalink
FYI: American Legion voter rules. 1. a legal citizen of the United States 2. no draft dodgers 3. must have a talent other then a keyboard clicker. ps- launch the fleet, hoo ah.
February 23, 2012 - 4:24pmPermalink
In my opinion a strike by Israel is long, long over due. We as a free society have set back on our negotiations pillow long enough. Some cultures unfortunately, know only one thing - authority by determination.
February 23, 2012 - 4:32pmPermalink
I'd like to hear from the 73 that voted no. Oh no we don't want to start WWIII. Well it was your rasoning that started WWII. Let them get away with what ever they want. I don't think any of you guys remember Hitler and how the World left him alone.
February 23, 2012 - 10:06pmPermalink
I voted no. First answer Yes says that we have did all we could, we haven't. There are many more we can to to get our point across. We also need to get Russia and China on board. The second Yes, open approval for one country to attack with ??? bombs or nuclear ??? and if we are wrong as in Iraq? What then. The No answer to me is the best choice even though it is wrong also. Just because they get the nuke bomb doesn't mean they will use it but they could and our missile defense system might mess up but a prestrike might also not work. What about all the civilians we will kill? As far as Hitler, Time Mag before he showed his true colors, was man of the year. So at what point was he the bad guy? Yes, Iran shouts and hollers and at some point we orIsraell will have to do something but as of now it is just a loud mouth bully on the block. I do like Permalink comments. Well put and thought out, not like me.
February 23, 2012 - 5:01pmPermalink
I believe it is the same as an individual being justified, when threatened with great harm or death, to use deadly force to protect themselves.
February 23, 2012 - 5:37pmPermalink
Court? Are you serious? I practiced law, and I believe courts do some things very well, but international politics is NOT one of them.
I think Preston1939 is right. The most likely scenario that leads to the use of nuclear weapons is that there is NO preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear capability!
It goes like this. If Iran has nuclear weapons, then Israel will eventually be hit with one, if not by Iran directly then with one that Iran "lost" to Hezbollah. Now, it is the world's worst kept secret that Israel has a stockpile of their own nukes. If hit, it is almost certain that they would exercise the old strategy we called "massive retaliation". For them, it is a matter of survival.
At that point, I think the U.S., Russia, and China would all nervously look at each other, gulp, and then publicly condemn all actors in the Middle East and do everything possible to NOT get directly involved.
February 23, 2012 - 5:51pmPermalink
If someone aims a grenade launcher at me and screams repeatedly to the world that they intend to kill me with it I guarantee I'm shooting first and negotiating and sanctioning later. As a Jew I know better than most that Israel turns the other cheek until they're bloody and their eyes are swollen shut, then they retaliate. Guess what happens? Israel gets condemned for beating up the bully, every single time. One cannot turn the other cheek when the bully is about to apply massively deadly force. This administration has completely failed the only civilized ally we have in the Middle East and Israel is on her own, at least until next January.
February 25, 2012 - 2:07pmPermalink
Well said; point a gun at me and declare your intentions and I'm not going to wait until you pull the trigger, I'm going to shoot before you pull the trigger. To do otherwise is suicidal folly.
Robert Ireland (PUFL)
Post 174 Willts, CA
February 23, 2012 - 6:56pmPermalink
We should support Israel destroying Iranian facilities and take part in any offensive air attack.. Let Iran block the Straits of Hermuz. We might as well learn to live with less oil now rather than later.I'm sick and tired of Americans living under the oppressive fear brought on by radical Islam. Maybe rationed gasoline will wake up Americans. Especially our game playing text messaging youth. Time for the US to stop being blackmailed by Islam.
February 23, 2012 - 7:18pmPermalink
Look at my name. Never again will this happen. Like Israel, I will not wait before I take action. How long is the world going to take it from the Muslims who want to kill all of us. Wait much longer and our Muslim President will destroy what Military we have. Wake up America.
February 23, 2012 - 8:27pmPermalink
Go back & read a good history book..US left the
league of nations, as we are doing with United Nations. US because of strength were to remain overseas. All united nations were to suipport us in these matters. When this did not happen, NAZI germany, and Japan were allowed. to expand,invade and kill: Manchuria, china, Poland,Austria etc, and ultimately the HOLOCOST occured. Read Hildabrand's "Unbroken."
February 23, 2012 - 8:49pmPermalink
Israel has as much right to attack Iran as I suppose it had to attack, say the Victory some years ago. Israel is obsessed with the theory that its own right to exist allows all, justifies all and excuses all.
February 23, 2012 - 9:50pmPermalink
Israel does have its own right to exist, and, according to the Bible can allow, justify all, and have all excuses. As a patriotic American I'd rather have an obsessed israel than a nuclear Iran.
February 24, 2012 - 6:06pmPermalink
The Bible is not a credible source in our secular republic as our Constitution has the "establish clause" that puts "a wall of separation between church and state" according to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Bible has no place in a political discussion. Using your logic, the Koran may say Isreal is the infidel and has no right to exist. The Koran, according to our Constitution, has the same standing as the Bible.
February 26, 2012 - 9:28amPermalink
"There is no wall of separation" in the First Amendment! Progressives (Liberals) try to promote this idea to circumvent the constitution. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercize thereof." Since Congress has never done this, there is therefor no prohibition against religion being used to inform or influence legislation.
February 23, 2012 - 10:47pmPermalink
I voted no, however in no way do I believe that it will lead to world war three. This will further undermine our standing in the international community if we sanction war above diplomacy. The available answers to the question should have been, “yes or no” without including the thoughts of the writer which does not represent the voter’s opinion. We will be better off when the heads of state stop using envoys to do the talking and meet face to face with each other to discuss our differences and come to a reasonable agreement. International pressure and patience will persevere. To compare Iran with Hitler’s Germany is way off base; we stood by while Germany invaded most of Europe before we entered the war. So far Iran hasn’t invaded any other countries that I know of.
Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory. Sun Tzu
February 23, 2012 - 11:10pmPermalink
If a person were to receive a direct credible threat that made them believe that their life was in IMMEDIATE danger, yes they would be justified in using force to eliminate the threat.
Replace the word "person" with the word "nation".
February 23, 2012 - 11:12pmPermalink
sorry forgot to turn off the bold
February 24, 2012 - 7:54amPermalink
Some other questions:
1 - Is there anyone who thinks we can successfully negotiate with Iran?
2 - Is there anyone who thinks that Iran will be honorable and not lie and cheat to achieve their ends. As I understand it lying to "non-believers" in the furtherance of Islam is accepted.
3 - So at what point do we do something? After their first nuclear attack, or when they admit having a nuclear weapon capability and threaten to use it?
We (our current government) missed a great opportunity when we failed to support the backlash of the recently stolen election in Iran. After that you can bet that those opportunities will be stifled and muffled much sooner - if any are brave enough to protest again.
February 24, 2012 - 9:35amPermalink
The only reason Isreal thinks they can start a war with Iran and win is because they think they have big dumb Uncle Sam standing behind them. Isreal wants to start a war in order to pull the US into fighting Isreal's wasr with Hezbolah. I think Obama should tell fat Ben that if he starts it then he is on his own, and then watch fat Ben shut up and stop his sabre rattling. Pakistan has hundreds of nucleur weapons and after Obama thumbed his nose at Pakistan its amazing how they have shut up. The American Legion and its war hawks need to wake up and realize American is tired of war; been there done that and it will not accomplish anything; right "W"?
February 24, 2012 - 10:19amPermalink
You see something wrong with their "theory?"
February 24, 2012 - 10:58amPermalink
As a sovreign nation, Israel will have to decide what is in it's best interests without any implied or express support from the US. In my opinion, they have proved to be a dubious ally and we have allowed them to use us as their "Big Stick" long enough. Transoff is right, the survey questions attempt to produce the desired results and are biased in that regard. Old people are responsible for the decisions that start wars, young people do the fighting and dying. Poll our active duty military if you want the opinions of the participants and don't ask leading questions.
February 24, 2012 - 8:25pmPermalink
our KC135 & KC10 air refueler A/C will be needed to refuel Isreal F15's after bomb drop for the trip back to their home base. The original take-off weight reduces gas-mileage and wont allow to complete mission on one tank.
February 25, 2012 - 12:01amPermalink
You know there is so much negativity about the the question. In a perfect world we would not have this debate about what Israel should do. However we don't live in a perfect world.If Israel waits for Iran to shoot first,then it really does not matter will it?Now I do not claim to be a christen,but the bible tells us that they are God's chosen people.So should we back them up?? Or should we stand back and Iran turn Israel into glass?? Make your own mind and think about which side you want to be on.
February 25, 2012 - 10:37amPermalink
The last thing any of us want is conflict however Israel has been on the front lines for generations and if Iran is a threat it must be taken care of or we all will suffer.
February 26, 2012 - 9:22amPermalink
February 27, 2012 - 2:40pmPermalink
Separation of church and state" (sometimes called "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson (in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists) and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Jefferson's often quoted words of a "wall of separation" has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." This "Wall of Separation" has been quoted by the Supreme Court 25 times in rulings in regards to the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution has been used by the Court in rulings involving striking down prayer in school and in the removing of display of religious artifacts in government places, most recently when a local judge displayed the ten commandments in the Court House. The US Supreme Court continues to defend the US Constitution from religious extremists who continue to try to make the US a religious government when the Founders guaranteed this country would be a secular society. Isreal, Pakistan and Iran are countries founded by and for a religion; the US is not! Yes, the wall of separation is guaranteed by the Constitution.
March 3, 2012 - 11:35amPermalink
My vote was "NO". And I agree w/many others who have commented that the choices were poorly stated. Therefore, the choice has to be a NO. Israel is not my favorite nation. Neither is Iran. Both these nations need regime change. As a navy vet, I would like to remind folks that during the Israeli/Arab conflict in 1967, it was the Israeli's who attacked the USS Liberty. The ship was stationed near the conflict and was definitely there to monitor the electronic signals of the combatants. The "close ally" (Israel) claimed they made a mistake by attacking the USS Liberty. We let them off the hook even though they deliberately fired upon sailors in the water from close proximity.. So they made a mistake. To my mind this just don't cut it. Furthermore, to call Israel a democracy is ridiculous. The Palestinians have been enslaved by the Israeli's. We fought a Civil War over slavery.. Let's call a spade a spade..