Talk Elections

Please only participate in this survey if you are a registered voter.  Includes Party ID.

This poll will run for three days.

Of course not.

I am sure such talk has the Iranian leaders shaking in their boots... at least President Obama publicly leaves all options on the table. Especially in the fantasy world here where Iran has admitted to developing nuclear weapons- the attitude must not be a knee jerk reaction against conflict with a regime so dangerous as Iran's

What? I never eliminated any of our options.

I do not completely make up my mind on legislation until it has been debated on the floor. At this time my default position on this resolution is, "No (Labor)" though, for whomever wants to know.

Very much opposed >:(

Yes (Whig).

I am extremely torn, as I think should be natural. I've not yet made up my mind.

Still, I do find it troubling that our President can so nonchalantly say "of course not," signalling to the world that aggressive countries will go unchecked by Atlasia. Are we not supposed to be a beacon of hope? We should not shrink from our enemies.

It is irresponsible to label countries as our enemy. We are not in a state of war.

No we aren't--it would seem we are content to wait for war to come to us.

Unless there's clear evidence that Iran has developed a nuclear weapon and poses a real threat to the United States, I do not support taking any military action at this time.

And again, I apologize for not including an 'undecided' option.

If you read my resolution- it is clear Iran has labeled us as its enemy and we ought to return the favor...


Also Scott- SJoyce informed me that in this fantasy world- Iran HAS developed a nuclear weapon....

Its your party that is trying to start a nuclear war,  not my administration. Iran has done absolutely nothing that would require our military intervention and I am hopeful we can keep it that way. My job is to keep Atlasia safe and I intend to do whatever is necessary. Starting a war with Iran out of paranoia and fear does not contribute to that goal.

Lol.  I'm still not sure if it's best to rely on the events/fake updates of a game over those in real life when it comes to things like this.  But since no one would actually be going to war... who knows.

By the way, where did he tell you this?  I don't remember seeing that anywhere.

Iran having a nuclear weapon would go hand-in-hand with a mushroom cloud over Israel.

Actually, I have a feeling they'd attack us first.

In my "office"

Then we've got a real predicament on our hands.

Then I will be happy to receive your support on this legislation, Scott ;-)

Senator Scott: They have "the bomb" but our intel hasn't discerned wether or not they have ICBM capibility which I'm honestly not sure of yet. Or has the Russians given them an IRBM which could hit Israel. That's why it was vital to have passed the recently defeated treaty with Israel. I may be reluctant to use military force but if Israel gets attacked by a WMD, The offending country's captial will get turned to glass. If they turn one of our cities to glass..... They will cease to exist. God may have mercy but Atlasia likely won't.

Wait- when were we attacked?

We haven't been and dont' want to wait to be attacked but rather take action to prevent Iran from attacking us

But are we sure if they're capable of using such a weapon?  JCL says we're uncertain if they have the ICBM capability or not.

And wouldn't going to war with Iran just encourage them to use it against us?

The object military action against them is to prevent them from EVER being capable to use the weapon against us... I don't understand a mentality that wants to wait until the threat is most dangerous before eliminating it

I believe that war must only be taken as a last resort option, and only if we are certain that an attack is imminent.  The international community- including Israel, appears to be cautious of Iran and is prepared in the event of an attack, but do not seem to have taken any military action.

I will wait and see what happens during the time before the resolution hits the floor, but this must be an that issue we approach with great caution.

I understand what you mean and do not mean it personally- but I sure hope no one believes I don't approach an issue such as this without great caution

SJoyceFla mentioned it in several posts in his journal (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=153554.0).   
 I would hope the people's representatives are looking at the update threads.   

I never meant to suggest that you don't.  However, I think we'd better see what develops over time before we make the final decision on this.  I look forward to the Senate and committee debates on this.


Many of these entries are two months old.  Forgive me for forgetting once in a while...

No (Labor); while Clarence's proposal is obviously in good faith, I flat-out don't believe in attacking unless we've been attacked or are near certainty that we are imminently going to be, considerably more substantively than we have been by Iran.

No (MCPR)

As Nathan said, the proposal is in good faith, but I'd prefer a more diplomatic approach to Iran. If diplomacy doesn't work, then I'd support sanctions, but never military force. We don't have the cash to engage in another war right now.

Many of these entries are two months old.  Forgive me for forgetting once in a while...
[/quote]

Ok. I just get the sense sometimes the Senate isn't paying attention.

I fully support the Senator's resolution.

Yes. (Whig)

No (Labor).

     I am opposed to these forays into foreign lands.

I've decided to very hesitantly offer my support to Senator clarence on this proposal. The region is too unstable for these kinds of weapons to be in play, and when something terrible innevitably happens, I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I'd known we might have been able to do something to stop it.

You are uncomfortable with a nation having nuclear weapons available because you don't believe they will act rationally and your solution is to attack them?

Yes. Why should I trust the protection of nuclear deterrence when one party exhibits a type of extremism that welcomes martyrdom?

Neutralize the threat.

     Iran welcomes martyrdom? They've never exhibited anything less than a strong interest in self-preservation that I could see.

Support: 31%
Oppose: 69%

A hilarious result, if I do say so myself.

I'd say being a state sponsor for terrorism qualifies. Even if, by some stretch, nuclear deterrence would stop the Iranian government from launching nukes, the corruption is such that the weapons could easily fall into less-cautious hands.

Also, the annihilation of Jews should not be seen as mere "self preservation."

The annihilation of Jews isn't something that rules Iran, just in case you're not aware.  The President doesn't have real power.  Self preservation is precisely what Iran seeks.  We were on two sides, surrounding them militarily.  I'd say that any individual or nation, would look toward self preservation. 

Iran now see's them self's (in large part because of the Iraq War), and rightfully so, as the supreme power in the ME region.  Yet, we continue to ignore this, and pretend like they're crazy nutjobs, when they are indeed, rationale, calculating strategists. 

Why for so long did we put trust in a country like Pakistan to cooperate with is?  Drop the Sunni's, who are anything but organized and reliable, and accept that the only way to move forward, is to work with Iran.  Not capitulate, but to actually meet with Iran, and come to a real agreement (Yes, they are capable of such, despite your misconceptions).

The most important thing to remember is, we may be able to "conquer" Iran, but we will never be able to continuously occupy it.  And than what are we left with?   

More death, Cincinnatus. We are left with more death.

and taxes..

Absolutely right. More death and more taxes.