should we go to war in iranif we kknow they could nuke us in 3 and have promised to do so?
445613
If they say they will they've got something coming to them.  If a country openly threatens to attack us I see no reason why we shouldn't go over there are kick their a**es.
323620
I am thinking that we should stop being racist and arrogant.\nI am also thinking that we are not in charge of the universe.\nI am also thinking that if we have the right to have nuclear arms so should they.\n\nAfter all, we are not better than anyone else.\nAfter all, Iran is far less dangerous than the US ehich already has its own nuclear weapons.\n\nIn the last 50 years Iran has attacked exactly zero countries. In fact, through US enccouragement it was attacked by our former clients, the Iraqis.\nThe US has attacked Iraq, Vietnam, Guatemala, Grenada, Korea, El Salvador, Cuba, Panama, Egypt, and the list goes on.\n\nMaybe we should get rid of our own nuclear weapons before we ask others to do. We dont want to be hypocrites, right?\n\nBy the way, Iranians have never claimed or said they are developing nuclear weapons. Only the US has made this claim. And I sure beleive what W and Cheney say, right? ;-)
36120
I think we are already at war with Iran. Who do you think is behind the majority of the insurgency in Iraq? Who has the most to gain if Iraq is not stable? Who is surrounded by Americans and deathly afraid of invasion?\n\nPick up a book called Militant Tricks: Battlefield Ruses of the Islamic Insurgent. It does a pretty good job of explaining the 36 strategms of Asian warfare. Once you understand those 36 strategms you can understand 4th generation warfare (4GW). Once you understand 4GW, you can see what is happening in Iraq and who is behind it.\n\nIt is all about deception - much more than a typical westerners understanding of deception. This deception is total and complete to the point that Sunnis will bomb Sunnis to make the dumb westerners think the Shia are doing it. They will sacrifice hundreds of fighters to give the west the illusion that a particular city is an insurgent stronghold when the real stronghold is hundreds of miles away.\n\nSome will argue 4GW is new. It is not. It is how the Afghans defeated the Soviet Union, and it is how the Iranians will defeat us in Iraq. We Americans are not used to this type of warfare, and we had better get out heads out of our fourth point of contact before it is too late.\n\n4GW is also the reason Muslims do not speak out against terrorist acts very often. It is not necessarily viewed as being wrong in Asian cultures. Yes, I said Asian and not Muslim. It is a facet of warfare mindset in Asia. Human life is not valued as much as it is here. Certain collateral losses are accepted and, indeed, expected.\n\n\nP.S. What proof do you have that the CIA gave Iran flawed nuclear bomb plans? How do you know something went wrong and the Iranians were able to use the plans to their advantage? That is some pretty classified stuff to just be throwing around on Yahoo! Answers. Either give us some sources or stop talking out of your rear end.
313353
no, thats the very reason terrorism against us exists. if a military invaded your country & killed your friends & family would you let it be? i wouldnt. id go all the way off. we tamper with their economies, laws, cultures, news/info & rights. just ain right. so many note the proactive stance,'woudl you rather wait till they attack?'...yes. itll be bad but thats the way it is. what if someone took an interventionist stance on us? we'd be pissed & outraged. by that rational, iran should attack usa since weve already made it clear that we're in their business. about iran, they have no means of making any nuke weapons. they have 2nd generation urenco centrifuges. we have 10th generation. the threat is if india with their new fast burn multipliers will sell iran the uranium for a weapon. although, india makes more selling electricity than weapons. iran has made upgrades to their reactors which allow them to enrich to 8%, 93% is needed for a weapon.\nactually rogerpoirier2, we & uk had blockades on both germany & japan. japan & china were in a big war so russia was the only place they could get recources. remember, theyre an island, not that big. they have limited recources. germany was on their european tour thing & needed to be shut down & thats what we did. only when rngland was attacked did we officially get in it. \nww1\nhttp://weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=88\nww2 http://www.philipdru.com/stinnett_stream.html
81868
Between those two, a preemptive strike would be best. We want to hit them BEFORE they have nukes, not after. But personally if I were running things I would warn them and then launch air strikes and special forces actions all across Iran's military bases. Hopefully we would cripple their nuclear programs and their military, and they would back down.\n\nIf not I'd want the EU to get my back, I'm tired of fighting alone. And I wouldn't topple the government--the last thing we need is another Iraq. THe best thing we can do is teach them a lesson, and make them back down.
576509
I think that your right! Mayb we shud nuke 'em all... before they do it to us!
1088683
mark my words, if we go to war with iran... WE WILL LOSE\n\nThey may not have the technology we have. They may not be a sophisticated militarily as us. \n\nBut they have over 1,000,000 people ready to strap on bombs and take the war to our soldiers and our homeland.\nAnd that is no bull$h!t\nMany of there people have already told there president that they will do "whatever is needed to defeat the bully" known as the U.S.\n\nWe are not talking about soldiers here. We are talking about civilians with families who are prepared to die.\nWe can not defeat that.\n\nJust ask the former Soviet Union.
1139810
Why would they want to?\n\nThis sort of conflict could easily end up being nuclear.  Anyway all that would be left if they went to war was a large region of the world turned into an unstable danger zone.
431849
The usa know of the iran forces and i think polotics will also hold them back as it is not going to well for them in iraq. think they may let another country like isral hit iran first rarther than dent there reputation further by going to another war within the middle east.  the whole world think the iraq war was all about oil. at the end of the day we should not be looking for war to gain oil we should be looking at new resourses as oil will run out within the next 10 - 15 years.\n\nAirstrikes no chance from usa not without backup from the UN\n\n\nbelow is a news statment of isreal and iran\n\nIran has warned Israel it will react "most severely" if Israel uses force to try to destroy its nuclear facilities. \nForeign Minister Kamal Kharrazi was responding to reports that the United States is to sell Israel hundreds of "bunker-busting" bombs. \n\nIsrael urged the United Nations Security Council to take action to stop Iran's nuclear programme. \n\nThe US and Israel have accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies. \n\nIran recently defied calls by the UN's nuclear watchdog to suspend all enrichment-related activities, insisting its nuclear programme was for peaceful purposes only. \n\nNuclear 'nightmare' \n\nAccording to reports, the US is to sell Israel 5,000 hi-tech bombs, including 500 one-ton "bunker-busters", which can penetrate two metre (6.5ft) thick walls. \n\nIn 1981, Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor when it believed Saddam Hussein was close to producing a nuclear bomb. \n\nIsraeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said the UN must deal with the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons before it is too late. \n\n"[The Iranians] are trying to buy time, and the time has come to move the Iranian case to the Security Council in order to put an end to this nightmare," he told reporters after meeting UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. \n\n"We know that the Europeans are trying now to engage with the Iranians, but we know that the Iranians will never abandon their plans to develop nuclear weapons. They're only trying to hide it." \n\nHowever, Kamal Kharrazi said Israel, not Iran, was a threat to world peace. \n\n"Israel has always been a threat, not only against Iran, but all countries." \n\nWhen questioned about Israel's reported purchase of the bombs, Mr Kharrazi said, "be sure that any action by Israel certainly will be reacted by us most severely".\n\nmal UK\n\nI Also agree that iran is not the danger and israel is the big danger one that claims to be a friend is most proberbly the most dangerious of all USA are not to clever and still think of israel to be a friend, i dont think so israel have the power to take the usa this is my thoughts and the USA acctually help them by selling them arms USA Govenment is all about Greed not saying UK is any better but UK seems to follow bush
266377
Prepare yourself for the unthinkable: war against Iran may be a necessity. THE UNIMAGINABLE but ultimately inescapable truth is that we are going to have to get ready for war with Iran. \n\nThe unavoidable reality is that we now need urgently to steel ourselves to the ugly probability that diplomacy will not now suffice: one or way or another, unconscionable acts of war may now be unavoidable. \n\nThose who say war is unthinkable are right. Military strikes, even limited, targeted and accurate ones, will have devastating consequences for the region and for the world. \n \n\nIf Iran gets safely and unmolested to nuclear status, it will be a threshold moment in the history of the world, up there with the Bolshevik Revolution and the coming of Hitler. \n\n\nAnd the kind of society we live in and cherish in the West, a long way from Tehran or Damascus, will change beyond recognition. We balk now at intrusive government measures to tap our phones or stop us saying incendiary things in mosques. Imagine how much more our freedoms will be curtailed if our governments fear we are just one telephone call or e-mail, one plane journey or truckload away from another Hiroshima. \n\nSomething short of military action may yet prevail on Iran. Perhaps sanctions will turn their leadership from its doomsday ambitions. Perhaps Russia can somehow be persuaded to give them an incentive to think again. But we can’t count on this optimistic scenario now. And so we must ready ourselves for what may be the unthinkable necessity.
1176064
It's true, it's DAMN true. You can fight for peace, but only if there is no peace to begin with. If they were fighting in Danfur to get rid of the Janjaweed, then I'd think to consider it fighting for peace. But this war, I don't agree with.\n\nEDIT:\nIt's a shame that so many people (including Turbowedgie) want to compare this to the Great War. Let's use realistic lingo, such as "Don't you think we would have won Nam if it hadn't been for those un-American jackasses that wanted us out? What's another life or two? Just keep on napalmin' and they'd surrender, eventually."
1001061
Yes because until we do we will be trying to win this war by force and we should have learned by now that WE ARE NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO DO SO. No one has beaten the arabs and yrs they are VERY VERY strong and VERY well organised.\nIt's our own arrogance that will keep us fighting and dying. For what????????????An Ideal that can never be reality given that countrys political background\n We always think our way is best.\n\nThe idea that by negotiating with them we are helping them or harming ourselves is utter nonsense and and irrational.\nIts in our INTERESTS to negotiate with them Sum ppl just can't see that. What do they think will happen if we do?? More bombings?? NO!!! It will create LESS danger for us and more calm in Iraq  if we give to them LESS reason to fight.\nAnyone who says we should'nt negotiate can't have thought past the whole knee jerk reaction from this. We arent harming ourselves by negotiating. We aren't and I challenge anyone to try and prove how if they think we are.\nDid pride ever get results and end wars? No pride carries them on and yes one might say without pride we would never win anything BUT  our pride is rooted in crushing them and destroying them which, as I have already pointed out, is not the only way of getting what we want out of this. \nWhat do we want? Most ppl don't know and I suspect that is why they can't see that non-negotiation is the equivalent of refusing to be resonable and puts the US and Iraq in more danger.\nTerrorists dont want bad things, they just go about in mercenary ways to get them and they will continue to do so, are we so unbelievably arrogant and self decieved to think we can beat them in their own territory? If it was on US soil maybe we could but not over there. We have an oppoutunity to improve the situation but we seem to want it ALL your own way so carry on trying to crush them. Well as I have said before the US army and terrorists in Iraq are probably two equal forces and so will be fighting for YEARS unless we face up to the reality of the situation.
760665
yea  you tell how it is ! personally i think we should nuke the french
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.
347515
Now that is one big question lol. I would say this to you, what do you want from iran?\nOk so Iran gets nukes so what?\nSo they give them to some bad guys so what?\nSo bad guys give them to us like say 3 of our biggest cities. May four cities. Now what do we need to do to Iran?\nHow many got to die before we make a decision?\nIt is coming and soon!!!!!!!!!!
227977
We probably will go to war with Iran, but not until 2007.  This is an election year and Congress is not going to approve anything which will infuriate the public right before half of them are up for reelection.
431910
if GW goes after Iran he is an idiot, well needless to say he already is an idiot, but i've been hearing lately that Bush wants to nuke Iran, or rather as he says "all options are on the table" Bush is a retard, if he launches a nuke, we're screwed because then a whole bunch of people will attack the US