Air strike against Iran. Yes or NO ? WHY?
440338
no cuz we dont have enough troops and money to start a war with Iran. but with Bush we never know what he will do next, like a drunk guy, you never know were he will stumble to.
332863
I guess it depends on what you want to believe. The USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air flight 655 because they mistakenly identified the Iranian airplane as an attacking military fighter. The officers identified the flight profile being flown by the A300B2 as being similar to that of an Iranian Air Force F-14A Tomcat during an attack run. According to the same reports the Vincennes tried more than once to contact Flight 655, but there was no acknowledgement. With the jet some 11 nautical miles away, the Vincennes fired two missiles. The first missile broke the aircraft in two and damaged the tailplane and right wing. After the engagement, the Vincennes' crew realized the plane had been a civilian airliner.\n\nThat of course is the official version. Obviously there are differing opinions and we can be certain that Iranian officals disagree with the US findings
131581
There's lots of saber rattling right now, but I think the people in power would be stupid to try and invade Iran - the Islamic view of the Western nations isn't so great as it is (especially now), and any attack against Iran would really be adding fuel to the fire.
1095327
I think we shouldn't give up diplomatic efforts until a) it is clear  that diplomatic efforts won't work or b) we are convinced that Iran is just using the delay to press full speed ahead towards a weapons program.\n\nHowever, from what I hear from the EU as well as the US, b) isn't far away, unfortunately.
322245
We've beaten the odds so far, but probability has way of catching up to up you. Let's look at current crisis.\n\nTargeting sites in a nuclear war with Iran, or any country in the region, would involve widespread nuclear contamination and large numbers of casualties. It would be impossible to limit this to Iran alone. And even in extreme circumstances, the only clear requirement for high-yield strategic nuclear weapons would be on some selected command and control facilities; their use would have to be restricted to a small number of targets because of fallout considerations.\n\nIf Iran did acquire atomic bombs, it would put pressure on other countries in the region to do the same. Many Arab countries believe it is unfair that Israel has nuclear weapons. If Arab countries, notably Saudi Arabia but also Egypt and possibly Syria, found themselves caught between a nuclear-armed Israel and a nuclear-armed Iran, it would greatly increase pressures to pursue their own nuclear options. \n\nThis could result in a regional arms race in the Middle East which is likely to be quite destabilizing, given the number and intensity of conflicts and instabilities in the region. \n\nBecause of Murphy's Law, the conflict could escalate into a major confrontation between US and Russia/China, especially when long range missiles are fired by the US at Iran (for instance), it could be interpreted by early warning systems in Russia and China as an attack against them. \n\nThe military people call it "accidental or false attribution". How does China know the missile is headed for Iran and not them? By the time the flight path is determined, it could be too late to form a retaliatory response, hence, it's better to "launch on warning". A global nuclear exchange could be initiated in a nuclear war in the Middle \n\nThere's been over 20 close calls during the Cold War and Post Cold eras, from the Cuban Missile Crisis to the accidental training tape incident at NORAD in the late 1970's, to the more recent 1995 incident involving a Norwegian science satellie launch. The hair triggers nearly put the world into a nuclear inferno. Most people in the world did not know how close they've come for the nuclear sword of damacles to come tumbling down on the heads. \n\nEven today, we only stand 28 minutes from a nuclear at any given time. The aging Russian early warning systems and their reduced security after the break-up of the Soviet Union should be real concerns. \n\nIf anything, a nuclear war will be the result of accidental launches from a false alarm from the two 'strategic' superpowers.
675970
I hope not.. it would be a big mistake if they attacked Iran
284983
fact: iran(and other muslim nations) dont like the USA\n\nif they get bombs they can use it against us. i want them to have energy and rights ect.. but sometimes you(us..the USA)  just got to flex your muscles and be the jerk if you dont want to die.
678053
Yes, the countdown has certainly begun.  This is a time of crises for the world.  I would hope that the used of nuclear weapons against Iran would be the last resort.  Because the first time nuclear weapons are to be used by any nation in an offensive measure, they must prepare to be counter attacked accordingly.  This could easily cause a chain reaction between countries and their allies sparking the Armageddon that we have feared sine the nuclear age has come alive.
670545
America’s Options Against Iran. Iran’s nuclear program is a matter of concern. The real question, of course, is “what can the United States do about it?”\n\nThe options are negotiate, launch aerial attacks to take out the nuclear program, or to enact regime change through one means or another. Negotiation is not exactly an option – Iran has pretty much ruled out any deal that would limit its nuclear weapons program. There is also the fact that the Israelis will not patiently sit by while the Iranians use negotiations to buy time to continue their nuclear weapons development. These two factors leave only the option of stopping the program through air attacks or regime change.\n\nAir attacks have huge problems. Iran has a widely-dispersed nuclear program. There are at least 23 cities (plus uranium mines) in this program. However, targeting does not just involve the nuclear program. Iran also has a huge missile program. There are 40 cities or islands involved with Iran’s missile program, which also would need to be hit – so as to limit or preferably eliminate delivery options for the Iranians. This means at least 63 sites have to be hit in order to guarantee a major disruption to the Iranian nuclear program and its delivery system.\n\nThe type of air attack involved would probably be on the order of the first day of the 1991 Gulf War, in which a devastating air attack was launched over a month’s time. Even that devastating attack was not enough to prevent Saddam Hussein from launching missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia in the 1991 Gulf War. In 2003, special operations forces were able to prevent a large number of launches, but their use is a huge step forward. Iran has some modern planes (particularly the MiG-29 Fulcrum), but the majority of their aircraft are old F-14As, F-4 Phantoms, J-7 Fishbeds, and F-5E Tigers. An air campaign would be able to hit the sites, and degrade the program. Iranian response would unpredictable, though.\n\nThe best option to guarantee a halt to Iran’s nuclear weapons program is to overthrow the imams. There are two ways this can be done; sponsoring the domestic opposition (which has significant popular support), or through an invasion. The former option has worked in the past. In the 1980s, the CIA was able to keep the Polish Solidarity movement functioning as an opposition movement despite martial law and opposition by the Polish and Russian secret police. That said, the effort took eight years, and the CIA back then was run by William Casey. Today’s CIA has become more of a bureaucracy, and much more risk-averse. The other problem with such an effort is that the situation in Iran is markedly different in two respects: Poland did not have a lengthy history of sponsoring terrorist attacks, nor was that country trying to develop nuclear weapons.\n\nThe other option is an invasion. This is probably the touchiest option. Currently, Iraq involves 17 American  brigades and three division headquarters. Afghanistan involves another division headquarters and three brigades. The 2nd Infantry Division is pretty much committed to defending the Republic of Korea. Two more divisions are carrying out peacekeeping in various parts of the world (the Sinai, Kosovo, and Bosnia being major deployments on that front). This is seven out of 24 divisions available (12 active, 8 National Guard, 3 active Marine, one reserve Marine). The Army is arguably stretched thin, since some divisions will have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. Until the situation in Iraq stabilizes or additional divisions are formed up, that will remain the case. Iraq has become an insurgency, and those take time (usually five to ten years). Iran would, in all likelihood, develop a similar insurgency. That will further tie down American forces in the region.\n\nThe options against Iran are limited, in large part due to the “peace dividend” of the 1990s, in which eight active-duty and four National Guard divisions were dis
38378
You're just playing with us Jim; you don't want to nuke anybody anymore than you want them to nuke you. The real question is should we use cruise missiles to destroy Iran's nuclear reactor/s like Israel did with jets back in '81 to Iraq's reactor/s because they were making the bomb too?\n\nAnswer: No to the nukes, Yes to surgical strikes with cruise missiles, which I believe will eventually happen, unless Israel beats us to it!
513922
It won't be a war ... Iran is like twice almost three times as big as Iraq. But that is not the reason we will or won't go to war with Iran. The people of Iran are far more sophisticated about the modern world than Iraq was .. the people of Iran know far to well that a nuclear option with the west is an option that is one that they can not win. The nuclear option can not work for them .. the Israelis have the bomb ... India has the bomb .. Pakistan has the bomb ... nobody wants another bomb in the 'hood ! Israel will not let them have a bomb ... no question ... they just won't sit still for it ... they have taken them out before ... and the US will just let them do it ... It's a tough roll of the dice .. it's a hot piece of real estate in the world ... but I bet that's the way it plays out. Russia and China want the oil ... but I don't think they want to play the nuclear gambit ... yet ! Iran's gov't doesn't want to back down... that shows weakness ... but the people of Iran don't back the gov't. ... more people in Iran oppose the gov't. in place ... so we sit and wait and see if they can vote them out .. or if the military takes over the state !
355628
it would be a total disaster if so.  it would require an occupation, since only bombing iran would allow them to retaliate against the iraq, israel, and afghanistan as well as automatically providing al-qaida with its strongest ally ever.  iran would be able to launch terrorist attacks around the world if it was bombed. an occupation would also be a disaster.  iraq is tough enough, and there most of the population supports the US.  Any occupation of a country where the people like their gov. (as in iran) is much more difficult than an occupation where the people were oppressed by their gov. (like iraq)
307286
I think there is a strong chance that the War on Terror is going to continue into Iran.\n\n"A recent poll shows six in ten Americans think a new world war is coming: the same poll says about 50 percent approve of the dropping of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. Somewhat inexplicably, about two-thirds say nuking those two cities was "unavoidable." One can only wonder, then, what their reaction will be to this ominous news, revealed in a recent issue of The American Conservative by intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi:\n\n"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."
472676
Everyone, Settle down. Lets say if the us does attack Iran with in the next few months... there will be a few issues to arrise. \n\nHow can we maintain a constant shipment of oil and goods through the persian gulf?\n\nWhat will be the toll of a full scale in vasion on Iran?\n\nWill Isreal play a part?\n\nNow, considering our current locations you have to realize we are surronding Iran. East- Afghan. West- Iraq SW- Persian Gulf (Which contains US Navy Bases) We have an extremely good capability on the assault on Iran because there Ballistic Missile program doesnot hurt the US (It can really successfully target Isreal and european countries. And due to lack of accuracy there missiles can not really successfully target iraqi or afghan US bases though possible) \n\nThe actual use of US Soldiers will most likely be minimal in comparison to the Iraq effort. Most of Iran's time money and effort has gone into three things, Ballistic Missiles, Navy equip and Nuclear engineering. They are still very Third world in other aspects of military life. \n\nNow, as far as China is concerned they have recently tried to deal with russia in regards to oil (very lil US oil comes from Iran) so they can circumvent Iran. Also, China is trying to increase Sino-US relations as far as terrorism is concerned so they will most likely not take any sort of side in this conflict.\n\nRussia, they might be overall neutral but slightly more Bias towards Iran due to the fact they still have deep issues with the US. They might help Iran but the aid would be minimal incase of conflict because they do not want any open-press coverage of something like that.\n\nIsreal- The questions with Isreal's involvement are more less simple but the answers are TBD. Will Iran try to strike Isreal in last effort? Will Syria get involved(with their own goal ie: taking back the homeland) if Isreal does?\nHow will Jordan come into play, or will they not?\n\nSaudi Arbia, UAE, Quatar, Bahrain and Oman- All of these countries success lie with in US/european markets. I whole heartedly beleive they will try to stir some propaganda about this NOT being a religous war so they can gain more money and profits. Thank god for greed.\n\nPakistan- Due to the border relation with Iran will Pakistan be Neutral? They cant go against the US, They are to close of an alie. But If they did non can gurantee India would not attack them and end them for good.\n\nThats all I am gonna cover if you have any other ?'s, as always, Just Ask! : )
729743
Because I think that they are perfectly aware that by the time the first bomb will reach the Iranian land,Israel will cease to exist...Iran has the capability to do this and both US and Israel are perfectly aware of this,otherwise they would have attacked Iran by now...And Israel never cared about world's opinion,so I doubt that they will start now caring about what others say...
656776
I say that you are crazy.  Iran cannot have nukes, no if's, and's, or but's about it.  They have vowed to wipe Israel off the map, and a nuke would give them the means to do it, and permanently.  A weapon that deadly in the hands of insanity is just that- insanity.
108374
With all due respect , sgt_k is a total idiot  , learn how to respect others' opinion then start talking ... \n\nback to the topic , well, yes, i agree with yunussh ... for the following reasons : \n\n1- we have known what is the meaning of being told by america that somebody or a country is having a mass destruction weapons , it's a big lie like what happened in iraq , but iran would never let america do the same thing , simply iran can make what the american would never expect. \n\n2- we know that israel has a nuclear power , it threats all the muslims around it , who knows if they haven't already invent a bomb with a short range of action that , for example , can destroy egypt without affecting israel itself? , that's why , countries near israel has the right to defend themselves in the way they can , you can't stop iran unless you assure the whole world is having nothing called nuclear power. \n\n3- america is doing all that because of israel , techniquely speaking , iran can't threat amecrica in a way or another ! they are thousands of kilos far away ,but when it is about israel , yes america can do any idiot step for the sake of israel , why ? because isreal , 10 million people , is controlling every single step america is doing , shame on you american !\n\nfinally , don't ever dream that what happened to iraq will repeat itself ,,, american soldiers themselves won't accept a new war and now they know that a muslim can really be happy to die when it's about making strangers out of his country ,, leave us alone , or u never be in peace ...\n\n\ngourge bush or any other president , american will never elect a president who hates israel , that's why we never expcet a good thing from you , america .. \n\n\nnow , was it convincing?