what would you suggest over the intending conflict with iran?
554473
NUKE their sorry a$$es get rid of those backstabin countries\nfor turnin against america
162989
It would be very difficult for the U.S. and Israel to accept Iran having nuclear weapons. I give it less than a year because I believe common wisdom is that Iran could have nuclear capability that soon. \n\nWho will be involved?\nUs and Israel mainly, with Bush trying to put together a coalition like he did with limited success for Iraq.\n\nWill this lead the Western world into an endless war with Islam? \nI don't think so, but this is why it's so important to foster democracy in Islamic countries.\n\nHow far off is a war with Iran and Israel, and when will the global community step in and stop the Iranian "president" from dictating us and threatining us with oil?\nThe "global community" won't do anything to stop Iran, in my opinion. They're all afraid of terrorist retaliation. Look at news organizations' reaction to the rioting over the cartoons. They're all afraid to run the cartoons.\n\nIs oil worth the threat of an arms race in the middle east?\nI don't quite understand this question. Are you saying we are somehow responsible for encouraging an arms race because we want middle east oil? An arms race between who and whom?
427986
Why should we tell Iran what to do.\nWe should just leave them alone.\nIt's there choice to decide what to use nuclear power for.
210852
of course peace should be the target for everybody in this world,but FAIR PEACE.\nif usa or israel or anybody else attacked IRAN or any other nation,its logic that they should defend themselve by attacking back.
145192
Prepare yourself for the unthinkable: war against Iran may be a necessity. Will it be doomsday. i think not, unless Iran becomes a nuclear power.\n\nTHE UNIMAGINABLE but ultimately inescapable truth is that we are going to have to get ready for war with Iran.  Confronted with nightmarish perils we instinctively choose to seize the opportunity to blame Bush and the right, cursing our domestic opponents for the situation they’ve put us in. \n\nThe rapidly intensifying crisis with regard to Iran exemplifies the phenomenon. \n\n While we were chasing phantom nuclear weapons in Mesopotamia, next door Iran was busy building real ones. Now we are enfeebled, militarily and politically, our diplomatic tools blunted beyond repair by the errors in Iraq. \n\n All that matters now is what we do. \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. In the nuclear age, no one wins.  Military strikes, even limited, targeted and accurate ones, will have devastating consequences for the region and for the world.\n\nA war, even a limited one, will almost certainly raise oil prices to recession-inducing levels, as Iran cuts itself off from global markets. The loss of Iranian supply and the already stretched nature of production in the Arab world and elsewhere means prices of $150 per barrel are easily imaginable. Military strikes will foster more violence in the Middle East, strengthen the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, fuel anti-Western sentiment among Muslims everywhere and encourage more terrorism against us at home. \n\nAll true. All fearfully powerful arguments against the use of the military option. But multiplied together, squared, and then cubed, the weight of these arguments does not come close to matching the case for us to stop, by whatever means may be necessary, Iran from becoming a nuclear power. \n\nThe refusal of the current Iranian leadership to accept the Holocaust as historical fact is simply a recognition of their own plans to redefine the notion as soon as they get a chance (“Now this is what we call a holocaust”). But this threat is only, incredibly, a relatively small part of the problem. \n\nIf Iran goes nuclear, it will demonstrate conclusively that even the world’s greatest superpower, unrivalled militarily, under a leadership of proven willingness to take bold military steps, could not stop a country as destabilising as Iran from achieving its nuclear ambitions. \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, perhaps people will let by gones be by gones and live happily ever after. But we can’t count on this optimistic scenario now. And so we must ready ourselves for what may be the unthinkable necessity.
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.
776485
First is he is afraid that he would not be safe. I think any such discussion would have to take place on Neutral ground. Second, I don't think Bush would know how to respond. He, like the Iranian, is very much controlled by those around him. Bush has no idea what he is doing when it comes to the middle east. He is clueless about how to handle governments he disagrees with that have power (believe me Iran has power). You can say what you want about Ahmadinejad.....he is a politician and a military man and will treat others as such. I think Iran and N. Korea are and have been the bigger threats in the world for the past decade. Now they are proving it since the US is having so much trouble subjugating the Iraqi people. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next four or five years as these two "Axis of evil" members grow in political clout and military strength.
841424
Its worth a shot, would be even better, or easier to do if Iran wasnt trying to get Nukes.  Look its not in Iran or Syria's intrest to see Iraq completly out of control, they just want to it to be on the brink to embarass us, if it spirals out of their control they will have a serious problem on their hands.  I agree that we should not usually negotiate with rogue states, that is how the whole North Korea mess got out of hand, but this is a special problem,  realisticly not matter how long I support this war, a weary American public( unjustifiably so, but so nonetheless) will not support the war indefenintly, therefore we should take the correct steps for a gradual exit, if we can control the radical elements in Iraq in the short term by cutting off their support from Iran then we can crush them later.
69348
I doubt the United States would declare a state of war with Iran- Iran has not attacked us (at least directly). If we fought a military action, I think it would be brief and simple, involving mostly naval and air forces to bomb and destroy Iranian nuclear reactors.\n\nI think the war would also be coalition-based, with UN and EU forces participating. After destroying the reactors, we would probably end the fighting.\n\nThis is similar to the 1981 bombings of that Iraqi nuclear plant by the IDF-AF (Israeli Defense Forces/Air Force). Except this time, we'll be fighting with a coalition.\n\nI am not sure if Israel should participate in this war. Like the 1991 Gulf War, it could ignite anti-Israel and anti-Semitic feelings in the middle East and spark a huge war.
1047168
This is an awesome question. I see what you mean by the tactics. Iran is surrounded. I think it may have been just dumb luck though.
128918
I would argue that we are already at war with Iran. Iran is the major reason for the fighting in Iraq today. Iran has a great interest in seeing that Iraq is not stabilized and we continue to concentrate our efforts there. With Afghanistan being relatively stable, a stable Iraq means that attention will be focused elsewhere. Like Iran and their nuclear program (which the United Nations has condemned and passed resolutions that Iran must stop it). If Iran has stable democracies with American soldiers in them to their east and to their west, they'd be mighty nervous.
378616
The Iranian government should be restructured; I'm not sure that an invasion is the best way to do it. But, with their stated goals of wiping out Israel, etc., and their pursuit of nuclear weapons (not nuclear power; they have plenty of oil) they are scary, scary.
477768
IRANIANS WILL BE CANNON FODDER. \nIRAN WAR IF IT EVER HAPPENS WILL BE A WAR NOT THE NAMBY PAMBY BATTLE THAT'S GOING ON IN IRAQ. \nALL OUT OPEN WARFARE IRAN HAS NO CHANCE. \nNOT ONE OF THE IRANIAN MILITARY PLANES COMES CLOSE TO THE US MILITARY PLANES. \nAS YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IN IRAQ THEIR TANKS AND YOURS WERE NO MATCH FOR THE COALITION FORCES TANKS. \nDONT LET YOUR LEADERS TAKE YOU DOWN A ROAD YOU CERTAINLY HAVE NO CHANCE OF RETURNING FROM. \nALL OUT WAR IS TOTAL.
489001
I will assume that you are aware we have been in the country of Iraq for more than a couple of years and are addressing the current situation regarding Iran.  We will more than likely attack Iran after months (or years) of wrangling around the nuclear power issue.  Iran has always been regarded as more threatening to the U.S.  They took military personnel hostage in the 80's and have been fist raising for years.  I think we need to get the hell out of an already bad situation but strategically it would not be the right move.  The Iranian government is not going to abide by UN sanctions and will continue to be a problem.  They are a terrorist threat and allow Al Qaida and other fanatics sanctuary in their country and hate the US because of their (Iranian) fundamentalist government.  It will be inevitable that we answer their threats with force.  Particularly, with the President that is in office who apparently never understood the phrase, "Sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me".  If he could have been upfront with the nation regarding the real reason behind the war with Iraq, which, in my opinion is we needed a military force based there to go to war with Iran.\nIt is unfortunate that the 9/11 attack has taken such a back seat because of all this maneuvering by our government. We never got Bin Laden's head on a stick and that was what the American public really wanted.  Now, there is a lot of derisive chatter that negates our loss to those terrorists that killed almost 3000 people. We don't run away and lick our wounds, although it might not be such a bad idea right now.  If the government doesn't give a crap about the wants of its citizenry, we need a new government.  Any way you look at it, we pay the price for the wars our government wages and the price gets higher everyday.  The initial move into Afghanistan was something I supported, but it seemed that it was a sideline to George W.'s real agenda.  He wanted Hussein and he had a good excuse to get him playing on the pain of his citizens.  I think he thinks of himself as some great general of the world, unfortunately, he hasn't really won any war.  A war is not won if insurgents and guerillas are still fighting.
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
1087745
Allow Muslims to resolve their own internal conflicts, remove the US and coalition troops from the Middle East. \n\nTheir people must have the desire to create change. \n\nThe US is responsible for the current unrest in the Middle East and should acknowledge that publicly. Admit our mistakes and be willing to help resolve the problem IF (and only IF) we are asked to. Otherwise stay out and let them resolve it.\n\nA joint effort to restore tranquility must come from all neighboring countries. Non-military efforts should be tried first, focus on restoring the desire for peace among the people in that area. At the same time, raise the quality of life above survival mode and try to police the areas in order to reduce crime and violence.\n\nOtherwise, the chaotic cycle will continue.
304758
One sincerely hopes that a war between Iran and the US never breaks out. But judging from the way things are turning out, war is a very real possibility. If war does break out:-\nThere will be heavy casualties on both sides. However, Iran will have to eventually concede defeat, or be wiped off. Though Iran has a large military force, it is largely antiquated and their might is still nowhere compared to what the US and its allies can bring to bear. All Iran's confident rhetoric and talk is only for public consumption and is actually to pep up their own troops and countrymen. Though it may have acquired weapons and delivery systems through its clandestine programme, their true capabilities are still suspect. Remember, both Saddam and the Taliban also behaved with similar over-confidence and arrogance before the conflicts began and in the initial stages.\nAlso, the US will not be alone. They will have allies as most of the developed nations consider Iran a rogue state, and will either back the US or at least tow their line. While many think the entire Moslem/Arab world will unite behind Iran, I feel that may not happen. Remember Iran is not an Arab nation. Deep down, there are significant differences simmering between the Sunni Arab states and largely Shiite Iran. While there will be rumblings of opposition to US action, I doubt any Arab state will cast their lot with Iran when it comes to taking up arms and actually fighting. Some independent militia groups might though.... Also, commercial considerations carry weight and siding with the US or being mute spectators is best for the Arab world in the long run. For the US, the key is to keep Israel out of the conflict. Iran will surely strike at Israel and if Israel retaliates, then Arab nations may offer support to Iran. Therefore, Israel should be kept out of action and protected from an Iranian strike at all costs. \nOne thing is certain, a war like this could escalate into a global one and any war there will alter the geo-strategic and economic balances in the region.