Iran to be bombed in 2007?

Question

The United States government has conducted advanced planning and preparation for a bombing campaign against Iran that includes the possible use of nuclear weapons. (GlobalResearch.Ca) This represents the most serious threat posed in an increasingly unstable international situation.

That such an act is even considered by the Bush White House should stun and horrify all those who are concerned with the fate of the world and the future of humanity.

Little more than six decades after US imperialism carried out the first atomic bombings against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Washington is actively considering the use of such terrible weapons once again, this time without provocation or even credible proof of a future threat.

Answer 1

Iran will not be bombed in 2007.

Don't worry yourself. I agree with you that as the only country in the world to have have used Nuclear bombs on another US are pretty dangerous bunch and should be forced to pay for all the damages they've caused much in the same way as the Germans had to for the second world war. ( let's not blame the US citizens as they have almost nothing to do with their county's foreign policy & they are so saturated with their media that they can't see through all the lies either - as some of the answers already in here obviously shows, pretty brain washed )

But things are not as they were in 2001. The worst time has passed as far as dangers of attack goes.

Don't underestimate how much China has invested in Iran. They will be mightily pissed off if US where to mess around the country that is supplying %10-20 of their energy.

If the US was to use Nukes on Iran, it would be hit back via North Korea in a matter of days, and the Chinese would be squarely behind that.

If the US attacks Iran their economy will collapse. Iran is far more powerful force in the world economics world than their 70 million population would warrant.

So just to set your mind at ease. Iran will not be bombed in 2007. Now just take a deep breath and get on with what you need to do in your life to make you happy.

Be kind to others and spread love and happiness.

It will all be alright.

Answer 2

First off, I do not believe this. You cannot believe things simply because they can be read, including what I am writing now. However I do not doubt that Iran is the next target on Georgy Porgies little mind, and I cannot say I have any affection for a government that is ruled as a religious state ( Iran ). But I simply do not care what they do in the middle east, they have been fighting over the same pile of sand for thousands of years, and they can have it. The U.S. ( Bush admin. ) is not interested in democratic development, they simply are protecting the foreign investments of their buddies that they went to Yale with. The old boy system is not dead, but people need to remember that we are not the only country with these types of issues, we simply are big enough to make people really take notice. I do not think even George is dumb enough to believe in a " limited " nuclear strike, it is simply absurd ( 4th graders know this by now ).
P.S. This is the author of the article being referenced: Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, which by the way I just read, and has been horribly misquoted in this question. Double P.S. this website has a serious slant, that is clearly anti-western.

Answer 3

Iran are very dangerous, and they do need to be controlled, for instance some of things their leader says about 'wanting to wipe Israel of the map' is disgusting.

However, the US was a disgrace in Iraq. They may have had good intentions, for instance, getting rid of Saddam Hussein, and preventing them from using WMD, but their after plan is the important thing, it was just a shame that it didn't exist.

Nucleur weapons is even more concerning, and very very hypocritical, why should the US be allowed to use them if Iran are not. What exactly defines terrorism, because if Iran want to use them for such acts, for instance, why should the US be allowed to use them?

Is it just me, or is anyone else tired of the US being an international police force?

Although I can't be sure that your evidence is accurate, it is indeed worrying. There are two sides of course, should we bomb Iran, or should we be bombed, or perhaps pursue other ways of solving the problem, although this isn't the way of the US!

Answer 4

with you 100 % of the way.
Personally I believe that the chances of the US actually doing this are farely slim because of the fact that Bush allready spent a lot of money on Iraq and the budget for a military campaign probably couldn't be raised without some extra taxation (i'd hate to be the sorry sob who has to clean up after Bush!!). However he does indeed have some nukes just going to waste(which they should be doing) We can only hope that he uses the one braincell he does have and realise that using these things is a greater threat to the user than to the victim. As Jesus said it "whoever lives by the sword shall die by the sword."
If he would nuke Iran i'm sure all the terrorists and anti american middle east nations would declare open war on the US.
But all we can do is hope and pray.

Answer 5

It will be catastrophic. If this happens, I foresee a Holy war really starting. When you fight a population in which the concept of martyrdom is somewhat accepted to an extent, then you can expect retaliation anytime, anywhere in any environment. All the physical security measures that western countries are implementing will not stop a determined attack of this nature. If America is prepared to use Nukes to effectively wipe out a nation, especially an Islamic one, then it should be prepared for the retaliatory consequences what would inevitably occur.
Its also interesting to see the West so vigorously advocate nuclear non-proliferation when they themselves have huge arsenals which they are willing to use.

Answer 6

well, to tell you the truth, they are long overdue, they shlould have been bombed back into common sense in 1979, when they overthrew the Shah Mohammed Rehza Pahlavi and allowed a religious fanatic like the Ayatollah Khomeini slave their people under the first fundamentalist islamic regime. nothing good has come of it, and they are going to be stopped at some point.

So you really believe they want nuclear energy for peace purposes? they can't even watch tv, wake up and smell the coffee, Hitler claimed he was building an Army to protect germany from THE REST OF THE WORLD, remember Lord Neville Chamberlain's stupid triumphant smile holding Hitler's peace treaty on his hand?

This people want the rest of the world to live in the stone age, just like them, simply because they think everything is evil, you think it is worth the risk?

The Atomic bombs dropped on Japan and tested elsewhere, kept the world in peace for almost 60 years, now, since the USSR ceased to exist, every madman in the world thinks he can get access to nuclear weapons, and this cannot be allowed.

Answer 7

have faith will do. USA will not nuke Iran.
1) they took more than 12 months to enter each house demolished by Katrina.
2) their military is demoralized - no cannot do - " u smart? well do it yourself moron"
3) Any action in this direction will only make USA loose all their allies (uk france germany canada australia japan italy spain) which will make it more difficult to defend USA against terrorists - USA can do this small calculation.
4) Remember it is not to free the irakees or the promotion democracy that motivates USA to enter middle east and do their thing in Iraq. They simply want oil and it was sold by Saddam's opponents before the beginning of the war.... I guess.. Now even if they nuke Iran, they cannot get their oil legally... so it is not worth it.
Most to most they will use harsh economic sanctions...


May there be peace in ME.

Answer 8

Gee, in line with probability we could continually spill the blood of 5,000 of our infantrymen returned, kill 1000's of 1000's of civilians, and flush yet another $3 trillion down the bathroom and invade Iran only on the possibility they're coming up nuclear weapons? attempt to make sure it from Iran's attitude, and verify out to establish the U.S. interior an identical place... On one border, Iran sees the U.S. invade Afghanistan. on the different border, they see the U.S. invade Iraq. in case you have been Iran does no longer you be slightly hectic and prefer to be sure your individual protection? The Neo-con attitude for the middle East has been disastrous for our usa. If we could continually do something approximately Iran, we proceed sanctions, use military Seal communities, and discretly help the pupil unrest already prepared interior the borders of Iran Get a grip, people! From a Veteran!!! A veteran ill of those pointles, made for company income wars in accordance with lies and distortions and instilling concern interior the yank inhabitants!!!

Answer 9

The US has many problems with it’s foreign policy. It is backward, manipulative and under many international laws and agreements, criminal.

What the US fails to see is that it is impossible to destroy a movement that has so many people subscribing to them, and like in Vietnam, they cannot dictate the government of other countries.

The US is widely hated amongst a vast percentage of the world due to their unfair policy, with the exception of maybe Israel. Their policies will continue to generate people that wish to harm their population.

However, I do not believe even the cowboy US military would contemplate the use of their nuclear arsenal. This would result in instant condemnation and action from all the other countries.

Answer 10

You are a moron. You call the bombing of Japan imperialism? Ok then do we rule Japan? Did we after the war?

Morons like you spewing stupidity is what is dangerous to this Country. If we did not use such weapons on Iraq, why would we in Iran?

Go get yourself an education.