Is it time for Israel and the United States to bomb Iran's nuke facilities?

Question

Its either that or invade them. WWlll is soon.

Iran the most dangerous country in the mid east.

Answer 1

No. Wow this is getting answered fast.

Remember, there are over 60 known facilities, and most of them are subterranean.

We need to change the hearts and minds. The government needs to change, but not by a direct invasion. It looks kind of like an invasion is about to occur from forces other than the USA. I thought those students were going to overthrow the government a few months ago, but they were crushed by the internal Ministry of Intelligence.


You might want to remember that Iran is Shia, and not Sunni.

Sunni is by far and away the dominant franchise of Islam,

One wrong move and Iran is either Sunni or Secular.

Answer 2

Pfft this isn't something - the actually chilly conflict grow to be a lot worse. Russia might want to defo area with the US now for economic causes and commerce regulations they uphold at the same time. even inspite of the undeniable fact that there no longer a "particular courting" they now use eachother properly. Iran doesn't launch a missile yet maximum in all probability use it to barter - and it wouldnt be on the US - merely Israel. by technique of how - you dont imagine the US has idea out how Nuclear alliances might want to pan out when it comes to a nuclear conflict? the US has platforms to take out as a lot as 50 nuclear missles geared in course of them in preserving with minute - and take a seem at CENTO

Answer 3

Not quite yet and knocking out the nuke facilities will not solve the problem.

Iran's leader Imanidiot and his close circle of clerics are the problem, so I propose nuking Tehran, in the following way:

Get Dan Rather invited back for another on-camera interview. Have him ask Imanidiot if the rumors are true that he was leading the 1979 hostage takers. In the middle of the interview, have Western Union deliver a telegram, which will be shown on the TV screen.

"Thanks for returning our Embassy hostages. We still owe you for blowing up 234 of our Marines in the 80s. Look up now."
-R. Reagan-

cut to satelite camera showing mushroom cloud, with the caption
"Jihad is over, because we say so. -USA-"

Answer 4

I beg to differ with you: Our invasion of IRaq to change the guard accomplished for Iran more than they could do themselves after a long protracted war that ended in a draw. Which has totally and indefinitely upset the balance of the region: So I would have to say that we are one of the most dangerous powers in the area.
And the second most dangerous,those masters of state-terrorism the Israelis,who refuse to make peace with their neighbors. Who keep the Palestinians subjugated to their will in an impossible landgrab (just look at any map an see this state of the Palestinian existence).Its not enough to steal their land,but keep them bottled up like the rats in the skinner box.And donot allow them even income to support themselves-----
Chosen people of God or desciples of satan?
And we cannot use radioactive oil brainstorm.(from Nuking them)

Answer 5

I would support military action against Iran. I would hate to see it resort to that but I dont see how diplomacy can win against a tyrany like Iran. No doubt you are right, an attack on Iran would most probably lead to WW111. President Bush has some of the most important desicions to be made for any president since Roosevelt. Im praying that he makes the right ones.

Im not expert on forgien affairs but I have trouble imagining that China would jump on the Iranian bandwagon. We are detrimental to the growth of Chinas economy. I wouldnt be at all surprised if Russia aided Iran. I never really bought the warm fuzzy partnership between the US and Russia that the media tried to sell us a few years back.

Its scary times and our great nation is so divided. I saddens me to see the liberal movement in the US does not embrace the welfare of their own land. The media seems bent on handing our president, our government, our troops and our way of life a black eye every opportunity that they get.

Answer 6

It was time years ago.
Of course, liberals think that they're pussycats. "They only want energy!" LMAO.
Like North Korea. Lil' Kim (Jong-mentally-Il) sat there and laughed at Clinton and Albreit.
Yeah....let's wait till they actually HAVE nukes and THEN decide what we want to do. I mean, surely they'll be LESS of a threat if they have nukes.
I cannot believe even the most liberal nut-cases think this is a reasonable action. Then again, they have surpirsed me before.

Answer 7

for all the dopes that want to invade iran, go ahead be my guest, will not lose my life for some damn war.were are doing such a bang up job in iraq and afganastan,when were done with iran, we can go after saudia arabia,syria,egypt.have i left any out ?will be fighting wars for 100 years,please give me a break.bunch of repuke@ssholes

Answer 8

There are so many prophecies that predict the end of the world as we know it will shortly arrive. However, there was a time when nations went to war that they did not commit terrorism and intentionally attack innocent civilians. Today, the fundamentalists terrorists have not qualms about who the attack. I feel we should be preemptive, but our government will always turn the other cheek. One day all hell will break loose and the US will have no choice but to resort to nuclear weaponry as we will not have the manpower to fight the thousands of terrorists who will try to kill us.

Answer 9

Yeah that's right, let's go there and bomb them all up, while we're at it, lets wipe them all out too....

Boy, now I sound like a terrorist, multiplied by 1000 times. Of course, they wouldn't dare to retaliate... but then again, they might do just that...hmmm... I think you better go back to the drawing board, and come up with something better than that.

Answer 10

No! Many years ago was the time to take 'em out. Now we're in crisis mode for letting them repeatedly move the ball down the field in their war against us.