what would the result of this war be?
2006-08-26 06:15:30 · 17 answers · asked by nicky 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
OK ,suppose there was no war with Iraq and the US didnt have troop problmes
2006-08-26 06:26:05 · update #1
I dont agree, its time we respect human lives
2006-08-26 06:30:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Statistically Iran should win.
Based on the simple fact that it is the oldest Nation on earth and has survived attacks from dozens of different Empires it should survive an assault from America.
To off set those odds America would need to use measures that have not been previously reveled in public or any other open warfare.
Neutron bombs come to mind as a first choice. Then annex all of Iran to Saudi Arabia. This eliminates Shea rule and Inserts Wahhabism into Iran Also with all of Iran dead the Saudi can be the new gene pool. of Eastern Mesopotamia.
Go big Red Go
2006-08-26 06:28:32 · answer #2 · answered by 43 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Read the book "7 DAYS IN MAY" and then come back and ask this same question.
If that born again, God's messenger here on earth moron in the Whitehouse starts a war with Iran, IT WILL BE THE END OF THE WORLD... seriously... it will all be over.
For one thing, there are 160,000 troops in Iraq that could easily be wiped out with 2 or 3 well places nuclear devices... this would totally destroy the U.S. Armed forces. For another, if Iran were to react to the U.S. starting a war with them, the entire oil grid in the Middle East would shut down.
War with Iran is a mutually assured destruction sceanario.
2006-08-26 06:20:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I believe the two wars we are currently in are effectively over. I believe our troops are in strategic location in the middle east. What we need to do next is increase troops in both theaters, over the next years or so, then start a movement into Iran from the east and the west. Enlist our allies to the north to quell any agression from Iran alon the northern border areas, and institute a naval blockade to the south.
so, yes, I agree that action should be taken on Iran, but not immediately. First, the American people have to put down the subversive actions of the democrats and the liberal media. The only way to do that is to vote republican in november and in 2008.
Then we need to bring back the draft and prosecute draft dodgers, firing squads would be fine, but torture, then death would be better.
2006-08-26 06:36:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What has Iran done to warrant us attacking it?? If you say they're developing "nuclear capabilities", maybe they are. Maybe they're doing it out of fear of attack and who knows, maybe even to use for a power source. If that's the reason than why aren't we bombing North Korea?? It's proven they have them and yet ultimately we realize that would not be in the best interest of the world. The results of taking war to Iran would be devastating to an already volatile Middle East. I for one am disappointed that we have an administration who refuses to even try and sit down and talk with Ahmadinejad. Look at it this way, there are people in this world who think of us the same way we do N. Korea, Iran, etc. We have MANY nuclear weapons and don't you think that makes them nervous???
2006-08-26 06:44:17 · answer #5 · answered by carpediem 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The result of it would be the U.S.A. subduing a fundamentalist country that is currently pursuing world conquest.
The problem is Europe. They will not help with the war on terror. They think that diplomacy is the answer. Come on. We've been talking to Iran and North Korea for almost a year now.....DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING DURING THIS TIME OF PEACEFUL DIPLOMACY??!! BUILDING MORE NUKES! SO EUROPE NEEDS TO GROW SOME B*LLS, AND UNDERSTAND THAT WAR IS A NECESSARY EVIL AGAINST EVIL ITSELF.
2006-08-26 06:36:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is very likely that we wouldn't be currently having this problem with Iran if we hadn't attacked their neighboring country.
The result of a war against Iran would be that the majority religious group (one which spans several countries and boasts billions of members) on the planet would see that the biggest superpower country on the planet is systematically attacking Muslims, and that they could be next. They will unite to stop it.
Oh, yeah. Almost forgot to mention the inevitable nuclear exchange.
2006-08-26 06:51:37 · answer #7 · answered by functionary01 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Now thew result would depend simply upon the cooperation of the media to let the armed forces do their jobs and stop trying to undermine their efforts! If they continue as they have, it will cause those who only hear sound bites to go off half ****** and slow up any progress that will be made. The reporting form Iraq is the perfect example. And we do not need any politicians "voting for the war before they vote against it"!!
2006-08-26 06:18:03 · answer #8 · answered by Bawney 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am totally against it, our troops should have been home long ago with their families. Why are they still there, no one can give us that answer. The President is just trying to be a big bully and show the rest of the world that he is not afraid to go to war.
2006-08-26 06:20:24 · answer #9 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's not a matter of if people agree or not -- it might become an necessary evil. Fortuntely, the US won't be alone in this one. There are many other countries who recognize the threat Iran has become.
2006-08-26 06:21:44 · answer #10 · answered by tsopolly 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, it doesnt much matter, the liberal media will rip apart Bush and the efforts to make our country, the world, decent sane individuals safe from these maniacs.
But, YEP I say get in Iran, tear them up.
2006-08-26 07:03:07 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋