Would people hate Iran that much?!?

Question

I was playing th new political machine game (a presidential election game)

and i was on an interview and i was asked how long would it take for me to invade iran. I replied that i wouldn't turn to violence so soon but i wouldn't take military action of the table.

The reaction i got was terrible.

Would people respond so negatively to my peaceful strategies with Iran, had this been real life?

Answer 1

Iran will be attacked before Bush leaves office by Israel.

Their loudmouth rain coat wearing president will be the reason

Answer 2

what janny said is correct (Iran is honest to say the least), they also say they want nuclear energy for peaceful reasons, both the US and the Europeans said they would build them a nuclear reactor that could only be used for energy for Iran for free (so they can't be converted to nuclear weapons) but Iran decline that (meaning they want nukes). Considering their leaders desire to wipe of Israel and his cruelty to his own people, he would be a dangerous person to have control over nukes.

Also if you have been keeping up with the news N. Korea just got off the list of terrorist countries by cooperation with the world and showing us their nuclear programs (they have just received several thousand pounds of food today). Overall Iran is nowhere near responsible enough to play worldly politics.

Answer 3

I've been waiting for those jerks to "get theirs" ever since

my fellow countrymen elected Reagan.  Then there followed

some sort of diversionary nonsense with Libya and I began

to smell a rat. Later I found out that Reagan "looked the other

way" when sharon was caught selling  repair parts to the ayatollahs

against our stated policy regarding such sales and I  started being

able to visualize the rat better...

But yes, in real life it would be much the same. You may not be

old enough to remember  the shame at having your President

hiding in the whitehouse day after day while a bunch of  rag-heads

puked all over our flag publicly without consequence. I remember

it.  Revenge is usually a dish best served cold, but I'd be glad

to have that particular dish of it served up hotter than the

surface of the sun.  

I don't even care if it serves the zionist cause of driving a wedge

deeper between us and  the middle-easterners.  They'd thank us

eventually.  Let's face it--there's no love lost between the shiites and

sunnis...

Those bass-akwards 14th centuriods proved they're real good

at pasting things back together when they pasted together all

our shredded documents  they found in our embassy when they

desecrated it--and proved they're uncivilized  animals.  Let's see

if they can paste  their  country back together after we shred that.

It's a science experiment!

Answer 4

It's probably not what you said, but how you said it.  People don't hate Iran so much that they expect us to invade them.  But, people fear Iran enough that we don't want to take military force off the table.  The majority, however (I believe around 80%) believe we do need to engage in diplomatic negotiations with Iran, rather than military intervention.  The majority also believe that war should always - or almost always - be reserved as a last resort.

So, what went wrong with your response?  To say you would don't want to "turn to violence" sounds like you view war as the equivalent of a gang shootout - illegal and unwarranted, even if you're not willing to take it off the table.  The turn of the words is probably what got you into trouble.

Simply saying that you wouldn't take military action off the table but that you believe a war with Iran should be a matter of last resort would probably not have been received as badly.  In the future, you might want to try something like, "I'm not willing to put a timetable on things like this and I'm not willing to assume that military action is necessary.  We need to negotiate and save military action as a last resort.  Negotiation takes time and I believe a real engagement with Iran would eliminate the need for military action.  If it didn't, then we would take military action when it's necessary."

Obviously, don't use that exact quote, but that's the general idea - they want to know you're willing and likely to use force when necessary but that you're intelligent about how to use it.  Hope this helps!

Answer 5

I wouldn't worry so much, there's bound to be military action taken against Iran by mid 2009.

Answer 6

a lot of people just buy whatever propaganda they're sold. the current narrative says that iran is a real threat to peace in the region. of course it's a load of c**p. the real threat is iraq and the mess our government made there. the real threat is the resurgence of the taliban and increased heroin production in afghanistan. the folks who buy the republican talking points are sheep, plain and simple.

Answer 7

Because their leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has vowed to wipe Jews off the map and denies the Holocaust.

Answer 8

Short answer is yes