Nuke stand off? Do you support more diplomacy? More resolutions in the UN Security Council? Maybe sanctions? Or maybe you have an idea of your own....?
2006-09-20 17:11:54 · 17 answers · asked by Cinner 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
nocrooks- yeah that is their tradition to try to wrk things out, that's why he made inflamatory remarks and then sked Bush to debate him. So in his mind, he has tried...now the way is clear for him to start his attacking.
David F: my question was about Iran NOT Israel. If you have hateful statements to make about Israel, write your own questions.
2006-09-20 17:45:29 · update #1
Da Dodger: you have got to be kidding me. Democratically elected? I have a family member from Iran who will tell you that is the furthest from the truth that you can get. He still has family over there, most of the people HATE the GOVERNMENT and pray for the west to do something!
2006-09-20 17:51:07 · update #2
I think whatever we have to do we have to do it fast. Those guys are basically stalling while still producing uraniuam as we speak. If we do decided to take out their nuclear facility, we have to hit it to the deep core so they will not be able to come back alive. There's a old chinese saying, "if you let go of a wounded tiger, it will come back to haunt you someday!" Diplomacy will not work with terrorist, after all, how can we trust those guys? They're practically gangsters...sanction will only drag problems longer and will eventually hurt our economy much more. I gotta tell ya, this is going to be a long battle between the U.S and Iran. Can we just send in a few secret operatives and take him out and be done with it?
2006-09-20 18:27:44 · answer #1 · answered by REEMPIRE888 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's interview with Anderson Cooper (CNN) he defended his stance that they are not developing nuclear weapons. Anderson asked him about this like any good reporter would, and it came down to the fact that Ahmadinjedad will allow the nuclear investigation committee to see any and all information that they request.
By the way to the clown who called Ahmadinejad a fascist... his proper title is President Ahmadinejad. In case you do not get it, he was Democratically elected (most Islamic Middle Eastern people hate the United States and its foreign policy because of the blind hatred that is show above in previous responses, and the imperialistic nature of said foreign policy)... I suspect I will be called a "libtard" or someone will ask me if I like "koolaid" but plain and simple... Iran is a democracy.
If the nuclear investigation commission can find no proof of nuclear weapons I do not think there is a problem.
And this time (the 2nd time) I would hope the American people are not prodded into a war where there is no proof of weapons of mass destruction.
I would not put it past W to try to get us into a war with Iran before he left office. He has called himself a "wartime president" on many occasions, hopefully he has gotten his fill of war... I certainly have.
2006-09-21 00:24:09 · answer #2 · answered by da_d0dgers 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Down deep, I believe the leaders of Iran will listen to the President of the United States, here's why.
Iran hated the Taliban more than Iran hates the United States. Our war against the Taliban satisfies Iran as much as it does everyone else in the Iranian government. As far as Iran is concerned, it's like killing two birds with one stone.
Iran hated Saddam Hussein. By taking out Hussein, we lessened the pressure in that very complicated part of the world. In the future, the youngsters in school will be asked 'in the war against Iraq, who won?...The answer will be, Iran!
By driving down the price of oil in which profits from oil are still realized, Iran has found a new buyer...China. With cheaper oil, the oil hungry nation of China can now afford to build its armies and military weaponry, cheaply. The cost of oil and transporting the troops/planes/tanks/etc., from one point to another is always a huge cost factor for any military.
Without lifting a finger, it could be argued, Iran emerged as a force within the Middle East.
The threat that Iran posses to the world with it's nuclear ambitions can only be realized in a free press. Feed the news media and let the word and satellite surveillance be known, world wide.
One of the answers to the problem of unarium enrichment by Iran for supposedly peaceful purposes is for the nations of the world to make available to the press any and all information with substantive proof to show how a nuclear ambitious Iran threatens world security.
2006-09-22 01:09:30 · answer #3 · answered by marnefirstinfantry 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
International Herald Tribune - Sep 19 6:42 PM
President Bush cautioned Iran against seeking nuclear weapons but said the U.S. wanted a diplomatic solution. Afterward, Iran's president defended his nation's nuclear activities.
2006-09-21 00:56:32 · answer #4 · answered by Jamil Ahmad G 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ahmadinejad sent Bush a huge 18 page letter which I’m not sure if he ever bothered to read it. Then he wanted to talk to him directly which again he said no. Iran’s former president came to US to talk to Jimmy Carter but again Americans didn’t let him and they keep saying Iran doesn’t wanna talk. There is not a single shred of evidence that Iran is makin a bomb. American’s report to the UN about Iran's nuclear activities turned out to be a load of crap! Even the French are now against sanctions. Iran has never even threatened the US but again, that never stopped America from invading Iraq!
2006-09-21 05:45:39 · answer #5 · answered by M.R.K 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Hopefully we can find a way to cause civil unrest within Iran that will result in a coup or civil war.
But I think the only solution is a military option. Could we see a nuclear missile aimed at us from Venezuela?
2006-09-21 00:30:06 · answer #6 · answered by Kelly T 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The solution for Iran is simple. Wait for the bastards to build their nuclear plant then send a 500 lb bomb down on it. Then tell the U.N to go to hell because they are as usless as a flash light in the dark without battaries.
2006-09-21 00:25:08 · answer #7 · answered by Moses M 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Here's an idea: leave the law-abiding country alone and focus on states that kill innocent people and threaten world peace. Ahem.. u.s... israel..
2006-09-21 00:23:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nukem
2006-09-21 00:20:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Iran has indicated it's willingness to talk many times. Contrary to popular belief Islam requires muslims to try and settle things peacefully, and to not attack first.
2006-09-21 00:19:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋