Should we attack IRAN?

Question

i think attacking Iraq is a mistake, and now not attacking Iran is a bigger mistake comment.

Answer 1

The outcome of armed conflict can only be assumed before hostilities begin. Iran's nuclear program is a perfect time for the United Nations to do something, which they most likely won't, without the United States. Let the UN and european leaders take this nuclear challenge on.
Whenever a country like Iran or North Korea has, or will have, a nuclear capability, the world is far less safe. Both are dictatorships where the people have no say or control of the government and the leaders answer to no one.
With a nuclear device, Iran would be free to threaten all the nations in the region and is probably stupid enough to attempt or use it against Isreal. Isreal will not sit by and allow an attack or the threat of an attack on their homeland. Afterall, they bombed Saddam's nuclear program in the early 80s - and most world leaders and the UN complained about it.
One of the problems with the Iranian nuclear program seems to be that it is not in a central location and the actual dispersed locations are kept very secret. Which means that ground troops would be required to locate and contain the entire program. This would also allow Iran to use nuclear devices against the invading ground troops. Terminating their nuclear program without accepting mass casualties by the troops and Iranian citizens seems unlikely at best.
However, the longer the world waits, the more likely the development will bear fruit, and the job will then be incredible difficult and much more costly in lives. I still say let the UN demonstrate their leadership and take the point of this one.

Answer 2

Months ago, I would have said no. However, since they are actively and openly pursuing nuclear weapons, and the president promises to destroy another nation, I'd say that it is the best way to prevent nuclear war.

My Iranian friends say that the younger half of the nation wants democratic reforms, and that the future of Iran is not a religious oligarchy... but thanks to their current leaders, we can't afford to wait for the electorate to make those changes 20 years from now. We probably have less than 5 years before a few million souls are eliminated in a single day.

War sucks, but in this case, the inevitable casualties will be worth it. Sadly, most of Europe has already forgotten the 1930's, when they had another mandman who promised to eliminate the Jews. If we wait for the UN or for European allies to get on board, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem will be smoking craters, Tehran, Mecca, Medina, and Damascus will be glowing, and the world will be looking at the worst warfare ever known, since the Islamic fanatics have clearly shown that they do not care about following the Geneva convetions for warfare (military uniforms, not targeting civilians, etc).

Answer 3

It's a mistake to attack anyone at anytime. Since Vietnam didn't teach us that, maybe Iraq will. The job of the military is to DEFEND our nation, not to force our will on someone else. Kicking butt in Afghanistan was the right thing to do, going into Iraq was not. The difference is that one was done in our defense and the other was aggression.

Answer 4

the only shown protection against a nuclear first strike is the flexibility for a nuclear 2d strike. Mutual certain destruction has traditionally been an efficient ability for deterrence. Israel in all probability has nukes. there is considerable data of this simply by fact the 1980's. Iran will in all probability improve nukes of their very own inspite of all the sanctions, and diplomatic hand-wringing by the U.S. and Western international locations. If Israel bombs Iran, earlier they improve nukes, it may be perplexing to foretell the result on center-East stability. extremely, such assaults could further radicalize Iran at a time whilst Islamic radicalism is perceived as unpopular in Iran, and at an considerable degree whilst the U.S. could prefer to handle a reasonable Iran as Iraq further implodes. On stability, it does no longer look advantageous to the U.S. for Israel to launch a pre-emptive strike. Granting them flyover rights could bypass away U.S. fingerprints on an operation that it may be to the individuals' benefit to distance themselves from. Bombing without sturdy human intelligence is likewise fraught with peril. until you be attentive to all the aims with absolute fact, and might assure that they're going to all be destroyed, any airstrike that may not completely finished will carry approximately disastrous outcomes.

Answer 5

I think eventually we will have to attack Iran. We all know that Iran and Syria are sponsors of terrorists (Hezbollah). Once Iran gets their Nuke, we will be at the mercy of the Ayatollah, and Ahmadenijad. Therefore, if we attack Iran we will be defending our country. I'll say it again, they are sponsors of terrorism, and terrorists attack our country. Therefore we are defending our country.

Answer 6

Even though i am pro whooping Iran's ***...I don't beleive that we should attack until the U.N. Boosts troop numbers...and then they should send the army...But i dont beleive america should send more troops since we already maintain close to 75 percent of the U.N.'s army anyway.

Answer 7

We're already overextended in Iraq, we haven't got the troop strength to bother with Iran also.

Answer 8

With what? The troops in Iraq or the handrul we left in Afghanistan?

Answer 9

Been to Iran. there isn't anything there worth having. Unless you like to collect rocks. That place and Afghanistan have plenty. Rocks are their greatest untapped natural resource.

Answer 10

yes, it would be a grave mistake. too many countries are unified against the USA and WITH Iran and its allies. We are already stretched thin.