Tacticle strike on Iran?
I don't beleive the UN will do anything about stoping Iran from devel. nukes. Does anyone see a strong corelation between the apeasement of Iran and the apeasement of Hitler decades ago?...I sure do. Would tacticle strikes on Iran be better or worse for our country in the short and long term? I just don't see Iran launching a large scale war if we did so.
2006-08-26 06:06:41 · 16 answers · asked by nittanyisland2000 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think long term we need tacticle strikes. However the first step is trying to get the world to tighten the noose. Its not smart to go into any battle without your side in cement if possible.
I personally think Iran is a place where we could simply take out the leadership , high ranking officials, and nuclear / military facilities and LEAVE. Leaving the cleanup and reformation up to the people.
Good way to test weapons, and hits the virtual reset button. Nukes are a bit messy...
I have a feeling with irans current president out of the way, alot of violence in iraq will stop...
2006-08-26 06:12:29 · answer #1 · answered by kool_rock_ski_stickem 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes ofcourse, UN is impotent! We noticed it very clearly before the full scale war was thrusted on Iraq even after the the US & UK claims (WMD & Chemicals etc) were found fake.
Now we notice US & UK 's suffering is like a small bone piece stuck in the throat. Also they are unable to swallow and spit it out. Again it should not happen. With a wrong intention US + UK do smart activities, we can see a large scale damages as Iran is rady to face any kind of casuality but suffering US + UK can't I believe.
Both the super powers should not under estimate and enter in Iran to divert the attention of their own population due the damages that is being done to them in Iraq.
One can run with two leg legs any amount of distance. There is one three legged race....If any two tries to win the race it will be a geat imagination.
The terrain and mind set of the people of Iran are different from Iraq.
Could be a retaliation to help Israel for the recent drama that was held in Lebanon!!
2006-08-26 13:29:14 · answer #2 · answered by SESHADRI K 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well said, Muddy. This is a ridiculous proposition that just demonstrates the increasing ignorance and heavy-handedness that has become so prevalent in America over the last 5-6 years. Has any thought been given to _why_ Iran is such a threat? Any attempts to resolve the _source_ of the problems instead of just trying to blindly lash out at the symptoms? No, of course not; that would actually require logical reasoning, rational thought, and a certain degree of intelligence that seems to be beyond many so-called "conservative" Americans these days. Internationally, we are already the "big bully". Using nuclear force, especially preemptively, would finally and firmly blacklist us in the eyes of the rest of the world. We need to stop being part of the problem, and be part of the solution.
2006-08-26 13:30:52 · answer #3 · answered by Ed H 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Some sort of preemptive (a word that liberals hate) strike should done by either the United States or Israel (two of the remainiing sane nations left on Earth). It will do more harm by waiting and waiting will only endanger the free world. No, there is no difference between the Hitler of Iran and the Hitler of Germany, only a time difference.
2006-08-26 13:11:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, because nuking a country wouldn't do jack bit of good. Politically, the U.S. would be f u c k e d as it would have it's actions condemned by the rest of the world. No just that, but sanctioned as well. Then there's the little matter of cells popping up all over the place and really escalating terrorist threats that not even the FBI, NSA, CIA and all the other agencies in Homeland Security would be able to contend with. Forces would be stretched out thinner than what they already are, countries that we have problems with would be threatening the very core of an outstretched hand. China takes Taiwan, U.A.E. stops sales or increases prices on oil exports, etc.
2006-08-26 13:15:14 · answer #5 · answered by C93 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
In a word, yes - I agree. Opinions on where we are aside, we all have them; I have another point to make. Why should we be sacrificing men (our military) for a more pleasant & balanced fight with enemies. I'd like for us to rain fire down on them, via our technological edge, and lose not a single wo/man on our side -- from now on!
2006-08-26 14:16:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
a tacticle strike on israel
would brign world peace
americans would be muslims best friends
2006-08-26 13:10:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I like the tacticle strike Idea. that would be less controversial.
2006-08-26 13:10:11 · answer #8 · answered by battle-ax 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Heavens, no! We've already got our military forces spread so thin that they're having to recall men who are already supposed to be finished with their military service. We don't need to become further embroiled in what may well turn into World War III if we keep adding fuel to the fire. We've turned enough perfectly nice guys into America-haters already. Stop the madness!
2006-08-26 13:14:25 · answer #9 · answered by Muddy 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Nukes are a bad idea. It's good to have them just to keep everybody in check, but using them would be a disaster.
2006-08-26 13:09:34 · answer #10 · answered by I Know Nuttin 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋