Do you think the U.S. should attack Iran if they don't stop their nuclear enrichment?

Answer 1

If we don't stop them now, millions, perhaps billions more will die later. These guys are NOT open to negotiations. They exist solely to kill infidels, like you.
Yes, it is the world's problem. But, just like 1938, it will take the leadership of a free country to put a stop to it. Everyone else will be too busy trying to 'talk' to them.

Answer 2

Absolutely not! Haven't the disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq shown us anything - that violence never solves any problem?

While the Iranian president may be volatile, he was elected. He can be un-elected, and a more reasonable person could be in charge.

If we attack Iran, you can expect to see the American soldiers in Iraq attacked and you could expect to see Israel attacked. So if you think the Middle East is in flames now, this could be a hundred times worse.

Allow diplomacy to work - military solutions can seem like the answer to some problems; however, their results rarely last and they just end up creating more problems. I am not talking about such conflicts as World War II, but World War I, the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam War, and others like those. .

Answer 3

Well, I think that the UN should talk some more about possibly setting up a vote to talk about whether or not sanctions should be made against Iran for ignoring the past sanctions. That should stop them.

Of course, you have to remember that some countries, such as Russia and China, have oil contracts with Iran. Do you not think they will defend Iran in order to protect their own financial interest, rahter than the worlds safety?

Answer 4

No, why should they? They have a perfect right to enrich uranium. It is the only way to start a nuclear power plant! Uranium at 0.7% needs to be enriched to 5% for a reactor to run!

Just because Bush tells you they are going to make Weapons of Mass Destruction? Doesn't that sound awfully familiar and he doesn't have any proof!

This is the part of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty that Iran signed, as well as us, though Bush stopped reporting how many nukes we have. Israel hasn't even signed it!


Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons


Opened for signature at London, Moscow and Washington: 1 July 1968

Entered into force: 5 March 1970

Depositary Governments: Russian Federation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and
United States of America

Article IV


1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Answer 5

If we attack Iran, the price of gasoline will likely sky rocket to 5.00 a gallon or higher, and imagine whats that going to do to our economy. And for what? Iran is anywhere from 3-10 years away from having the capability to launch a nuclear missile. The war wongering, knuckle dragging neo cons couldn't care less about America or her safety. All they want is war, war, war, and hoefully Armageddon. Praise Jesus. The answer is NO.

Answer 6

as quickly as back libs assume u . s . a . is not extra useful then Iran and that there is a ethical equivalent here. whilst became the final time we threatened to wipe a rustic off the face of the earth with our nukes? Lesson # a million , we are the solid adult men and interior the words of our large president( your heads exploding stunning now could be no longer it) "Your the two with us or your against us", what's it gonna be boy? Lesson #2 study some books approximately Truman's determination to bomb Japan it somewhat is totally enlightening.

Answer 7

Let me put it this way, the USA will be the only one attacking Iran, if it should playout that way. Russia, China, and France simply refuse to help us, because they're in bed with Iran also. These so-called allies only want the USA to become weaker, and they know it. Iran only wants to dominate the entire world with harmful ideology, and the rest of the world seems to think it's totally okay. The world will suffer greatly, if we become too weak to fight them should the current situation with Iran get too out of control.

Answer 8

I don't think the US should up and attack Iran. Iran is not just the US's problem, it's the world's problem. If something has to end up being done it should be the UN as a whole who decides what to do and when to do it.

Answer 9

NO NO NO!!! But that's just because my husband is in the Army and has already done two one-year deployments in Iraq. I'm biased....I don't want to see him go to Iran next. If I was thinking logically than yes, we should probably do something about them before they launch a nuclear weapon at Israel or the US or they sell them to terrorists who would do global damage.

Answer 10

No! We don't have to bomb every damned country that doesn't agree with us. Let the damned UN deal with them if they're breaking an international law and if they're not LEAVE THEM ALONE! Nobody put a badge on America, we are more than able to let others run their own country if they're not posing an actual threat to us. We have the CIA to watch their nuclear program there's no reason for us to strike them preemtively for building a military.

Answer 11

Neither the U S or Israel will permit iran to have nuclear weapons, watch for bunker busting bombs on a newscast near you.