Try the political quiz

981 Replies

@Adam-MitchellVeteran from Texas answered…1yr

Yes, But these strikes should only be carried out after undeniable evidence has been provided

@9PNMX6MRepublican from Florida answered…1yr

I think we have to be careful about killing foreign dignitaries and these operations should be done jointly between allies of other countries for enemies deemed a threat to society like Hitler was to the surrounding countries and abroad. But the short answer is "Yes."

@Alexis-GerrickWomen’s Equality from Virginia answered…1yr

No, he should have been tried on a Global level and imprisoned for his crimes.

@9P4JJ5CGreen from Nebraska answered…1yr

No, the US needs to stay out of the Middle East and let them figure out their own things.

@9P2LP7KIndependent from Ohio answered…1yr

I think if Obama had done this it wouldn’t even be a question. And Yes

@9P26B3KIndependent from Illinois answered…1yr

only if he has been prooven to attack or provide means for such against the u.s.

@9NP5LFSWomen’s Equality from South Dakota answered…1yr

No, this could start another war in the Middle East and It wasn't approved by the U.S. Congress

@9NLHQWTIndependent from South Carolina answered…1yr

He deserved to be brought to justice, but killing him, especially in the way they did, isn't a smart choice. We should try to stay as far away from playing in the middle east as we can

@9NMVL3BPeace and Freedom from Arkansas answered…1yr

Yes because they were planing to attack and no because they didn't attack yet

@Riccardo-RienteWomen’s Equalityfrom Maine  answered…1yr

No, the attack could cause a new war in Middle East and the attack was not approves bu the U.S. Congress

@9ND59TLWorking Family from New Jersey answered…1yr

If anyone on the planet is looking to hurt the American people then yes

@9MZ4DCRDemocrat from New Jersey answered…1yr

I do not have enough information to form an opinion on this topic.

@9MZYW6FTranshumanist from Michigan answered…1yr

I trust the judgements of our military officials. All of these decisions should be made by them.

@9MXN5M3Women’s Equality from Utah answered…1yr

No, any attack on a suspected terrorist should be focused on capturing not killing.

@9MTNJHWDemocrat from Connecticut answered…1yr

No, I think it should have been approved by Congress and done as a LAST resort

@Raegan-WauthierWomen’s Equality from Connecticut answered…1yr

yes only because the military had proof and a huge reason to believe it would be the best thing to keep America safe and more people alive that didn't need to be killed.

@9MHNPZXWomen’s Equality from California answered…1yr

He did bad things but no one deserves to be killed. He should have been put in jail.

@9LTP47XRepublican from Minnesota answered…1yr

@9LR56YVGreen from Indiana answered…1yr

No, assassinations are illegal and Trump should be impeached again.

@9LPPX4FVeteran from North Carolina answered…1yr

@9LNDK7XGreen from Texas answered…1yr

This greatly oversimplifies the complexities of conflict in the Middle East. This attack greatly inflamed existing tensions, while the effectiveness of the action beyond a show of force is in question.

@9LMK9FQWrite-In from Virginia answered…1yr

Yes, though not the methodology. The drone strike was reckless and could have started an unnecessary war.

@9LM2DZRPeace and Freedom from New Mexico answered…1yr

The US should use its power to capture and subdue the perpetrator unless there was irrefutable evidence AND there are no other ways to stop the upcoming attack

@9LD4N5XRepublican from Oklahoma answered…1yr

No, they should have been captured and tried through legal channels

@9LCMSP9Veteran from Ohio answered…1yr

@9LC23PPRepublican from Wisconsin answered…1yr

I do not support killing but the world is better off without him.

@9L3568TLibertarian from Colorado answered…1yr

No, it should be the policy of the US and all other developed nations to refrain from targeting other countries' leadership when not at war.

@9KY6HJKWomen’s Equality from New Jersey answered…1yr

Yes, but only if it was legal, evidence-supported, and won't start a war.

@9KMX5RBGreen from California answered…1yr

@9KJ2BLNWorking Family from New York answered…1yr

@9KF2VNMIndependent from Connecticut answered…1yr

@9KBGBN5Democrat from Tennessee answered…1yr

No. It could have impulsively started an unnecessary war with Iran and was arguably illegal under international law.

@9KB673RTranshumanist from Minnesota answered…1yr

Yes, although it is regrettable that other methods of recourse were not considered

@9K6YP6FVeteran from Indiana answered…1yr

I would prefer capture and trial in military court if there were crimes being committed against our country.

@9K25ZDCPeace and Freedom from Virginia answered…1yr

Both, I've never heard of this man but violence is never an answer

@9JVX4LYConstitution from North Carolina answered…1yr

yes we seem to have successfully worked with Middle East countries to remove a violent terrorist without creating another Iraq/Libya situation

@9JRKJJJProgressive from Montana answered…1yr

@9JQNJ4ZGreen from Pennsylvania answered…1yr

If Soleimani absolutely, positively had to die, should have used more covert, deniable means. But otherwise, killing him carried unnecessary risk of escalating things to war

@9JLRS8HAmerican Solidarity from New York answered…1yr

Neither side was in the right. The president shouldn't have acted without Congress, but going to war is not the answer either.


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart...