does any one think bush will nuke iran if they end up with the bomb? wy hav we fogot bout n korea?
98248
Oh heck, Nuke them too.
987617
Will Israel Strike Iran? I f they feel threatened enough, Yes. They have never  been one to wait and see. Will they use the Nuclears? Not unless they are hit with Nuclears first. Israel has had Nuclear Capability since the 70s.\nWill Iran strike with Nuclears?  No,because they then would be a target for retaliation from the U.S.\n\nWho is the threat ? North Korea, their economy is in the tank,  Their leader  is delusional and wants to rule the world. Their leader doesn't seem to care whether  the populace lives or dies.     What have they got to lose?
537394
of Course ! that will be one of US hiding reason after WMD for invade Iran. Bush will take that option coz Iran is a threat for economic and politic of US.especially for rhe democracy program in middle east.
523838
If we invade Iran it will be a grave mistake for one they can fight back ,its not as easy as invading Iraq (and we've turned that into an impossible situation). Also my personal opinion is that whilst were pointing the finger at Iran and getting all above ourselves there are bigger nuclear issues  that are being avoided like North Korea and China that have nuclear capability and would without a shadow of a doubt, whilst every ones focus is off them attempt to take over the world. (and could quite possibly succeed)
822811
No \n\nLook who is still the president.  No telling what he will do to top of his last two years!!! N. Korea, Iran come on; besides you can never trust what "they" say.  By the way, who is "they"???
374326
Under Bush anything is a possibility.\nProbably even nuking them.\nFrom Bush's track record, we can see that he cares less for humn lives that are non-American.\nHe would certainly try to nuke them if the need arises.\nPakistan has no reason to nuke Iran. Wrong guess.\nthis might brighten up some of your participants....read on:-\n\nDecember 28, 2005  \nNuking Iran With\nthe UN's Blessing \nOnly the American people can stop it  \nby Jorge Hirsch \nIn the "global war on terror," Iran is the next target, having been designated by the U.S. State Department [.pdf] as "the most active state sponsor of terrorism" in the world. The United Nations has given its blessing, and the U.S. will fill in the blanks. \n\nBefore we analyze this, however, let us ask ourselves: why not Florida instead? In fact, Florida should be way ahead on the list. Family considerations should not play a role in U.S. policy decisions. \n\nLet's compare the cases. For Florida: \n\n\nAt least 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers had Florida connections. \nThirteen of the 19 were in Florida before Sept.11. \nEight of the hijackers took flying lessons in Venice, Fla. \nFive of the hijackers trained in Florida gyms. \nTwo of the hijackers got drunk in a Hollywood, Fla. bar a few days before the attack. \nInstead, the connections between 9/11 and Iran are much more tenuous, according to the 9/11 Commission: \n\n\n"Senior al-Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives" in 1993. \n"Iran facilitated the transit of al-Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and some of these were future 9/11 hijackers." \n"We have found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack." \nThe 9/11 hijackers used planes, not explosives. So I very much hope that the Pentagon is revising its Nuclear Strike Plan. A precision-guided missile with a nuclear warhead – or a low-yield nuclear gravity bomb – should be effective in vaporizing both aboveground and underground facilities of Huffman Aviation School in Venice, Fla., with minimal collateral damage. \n\nThe fact is, terrorists do not need "state sponsors" to do their job. The 9/11 hijackers lived in the U.S., rented apartments, opened bank accounts, got drivers licenses, rented cars, took English lessons, had jobs, joined gyms, learned the needed flying skills, bought their box-cutter knives, and blew themselves up in the good old United States. And so will the next terrorists who strike us. \n\nFurthermore, some of the 9/11 hijackers lived and studied in Hamburg, Germany. And they met in Madrid. So are Hamburg and Madrid next on the strike list? \n\nDoes anybody really believe that the "training camps" in Afghanistan played any significant role in 9/11? Can somebody please explain what exactly the 9/11 hijackers learned at those training camps that they couldn't learn elsewhere? \n\nDoes anybody really believe that the purported meeting, which in fact never took place, of Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague would have played a significant role even if it had taken place? \n\nYet we are embarked in a "global war of terror" in response to the 9/11 attacks that has led to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and is about to lead to a U.S. nuclear attack against Iran. \n\nBecause make no mistake, an aerial attack on Iran that will include low-yield nuclear bombs is the next step in the "global war on terror," unless something extraordinary happens to derail it. \n\nThe "Legal" Framework \n\nThe United States invaded Iraq under the pretext of enforcing UN Security Council resolution (UNSCR) 1441. Bush stated in his address to the nation on March 17, 2003, \n\n"On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligati
392943
hope full it want come to that, however the only way to insure that Iran's nuclear capability it completely erased is to use a small tactual nuke. it would be kinda a bunker buster and while it would re lase radiation it wouldnt be a huge amount.
82143
It depends who does what.  If Iran announces it's got nukes, or blocks the Strait of Hormouz, then them.  If North Korea suddenly gets in into their heads to invade the South (or else decides to lob a couple at Japan -Koreans on both sides of the DMZ, along with most of Asia, have bitter memories of Japanese occupation.  Syria, perhaps, though not as likely, given the problems Bashir Assad already has.  However, Iran is the most likely of the three to go nuts -especially with those madmen Khameini & Ahmadinejad at the helm.  And Iran's the primary backer of the insurgency in Iraq -an invasion would force them to cut off ops in Iraq.  It's a strategic question more than anything else.  Iran makes the most sense, since they have a lot of influence in Central Asia & the Caspian -two areas we're trying to gain influence in, along with Russia & China.  It also makes life harder on the Saudis & Syrians, and means it's one less threat we have to face in the Middle East.  Or, it could be something totally out of the blue, caused by someone attacking an ally of the U.S. (though one could argue that's what Iran's doing in Iraq now).
41523
Your country's "President" needs to be wiped off the face of this earth and all it's Mullahs stripped of their power and moolah. ;-)\n\nOtherwise, I think we should nuke Iran.
675970
I hope not.. it would be a big mistake if they attacked Iran
176014
no. their country's too unstable. i'm not sure but i don't think we're on good terms with korea right now. i think they've been threatening us with nukes.
611866
It is doubtful with the lunatic they have as a president. I think before the diplomatic procedures can be played out, he is going to either strike Israel, or give cause to have the Israeli's take a preemptive strike due to his continued threats towards Israel. If Iran manages to get nukes, the entire world, but primarily the US and Israel will be in real danger. Any move toward diplomacy is a smoke screen, and is just meant to buy more time. They learned from the UN/Iraq debacle, and he probably has no intention of keeping these nukes in Iran. He will ship them abroad in an attempt to get them over here to America and Israel.
471153
I think Iran is far harder nut to crack than Iraq and it would be biggest Bush's stupidity if he try to attack the country at least now. Besides, Iran can't for now threaten anybody with its uranium-enriching level.
288874
World War III will happen and the world will suffer!\n\nI am more uncomfortable with Israel having nukes than Iran. Iran wants a deterent from America and its Allies invading them for their oil like we did in Iraq. Yes, Saddam is an asshole and deserves to die but he was never a real threat to us. I don't believe in Bush's answer of we attack to protect freedom and save innocent people...blah blah blah. If that were true then we would have invades China, North Korea or many of the countries in Africa and South America because these goverments are also killing innocents and crushing freedom but there NO OIL THERE for us to take or the country in question can fight back.
877466
i just wanna say if the USA started a war with Iran.Iran well win.......and Iran well be the new strongest country in the world instead of the USA\nhope so
483169
I think Bush has already decided to bomb Iran to prevent them from making a nuclear bomb.  Bombing Iran would cause World War III because China and Russia will go against the U.S. and we could all get nuked...)(
1062670
Minimal. Iran think about possibly looking to get a nuclear power station and threats are made. N korea displays that it has intercontinental capabilities and US says they want to negotiate.\n\nN korea would never use a nuclear weapon. Their weapon just gives them a chip to bargain at the big boys table