2006-09-27 16:29:47 · 20 answers · asked by spyderman131 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Heh well, I don't know about that. That's a tough question because there's a bad side to each of them. For example, If US goes to war with Iran, Iran would want to fight more and more to destroy US and that will only make the war worse and also, for destroying gas stations, they will increase gas prices more and more and more. Also, when US goes to war, that means people living in the US needs to pay more taxes to supply the US weapons and tools for use. On the other hand, if US doesn't go to war, Iran would still want to go to war with US because they think US citizens are bad and we think Irans are bad. They would do anything to make chaos and MAYBE what President Bush thinks is that he is trying to stop it to prevent chaos. However, just by doing that, alot of people will be killed from Irans even civilians. WW III? I don't think so. It's not so serious as WW I and WW II but there is a twist. The US can't make Iran surender. Even if Iran has one force left, the last force will still be marching proudly and trying to destroy the US. There might be no stop to this trajety. Maybe... just maybe... all the chaos would stop and US doesn't have to go to war with Iran.
2006-09-27 16:39:38 · answer #1 · answered by Cereal 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think there is any reason the U.S. should go to war with Iran. There is no way we are in WWIII because most of the world isn't fighting, and there is no 2 different forces waging war against each other.
Iran poses no threat to the United States, and should not be invaded on any pretense of democracy in the middle east or dangerous looking nuclear programs.
Many people think Iran's attitude towards Iran is a sign that they are dangerous, but when you look at it, its Israel who has got illegal nukes.
While Iran may shake things up in the middle east, it is their region to worry about, the U.S. should stop meddling in their affairs and then perhaps it wouldn't be so easy for those few crazy Islamic people to pervert their religion and brainwash young minds to do their bidding.
2006-09-27 23:40:06 · answer #2 · answered by Game Theorist 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Afghanistan has never been conquered by anybody, and George Bush thought he was going to get all the opposing parties in Iraq settle their differences by sitting down and negotiating. That has never worked even once in all human history. We're stretched too thin to consider attacking Iran. Are we in World War III? You gotta be kidding. A single hydrogen bomb could flatten the entire New York metropolitan area and an exchange of hydrogen bombs would throw so much earth up into the upper atmosphere that it would block the sun, causing nuclear winter before it came down as fallout. All the green plants would die and everyone on earth would either starve or freeze to death.
2006-09-27 23:45:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No war against Iran, we have not finished any of the other military actions we have started. Let's try working this problem out without guns!
And no, I don't think we are in WW III.
2006-09-27 23:32:23 · answer #4 · answered by BuffyFromGP 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. We don't have enough troops or economic resources for that. It's not possible to stop them from having nuclear weapons, it might have been if Gore had become president. Nope, from their perspective it's the only way to get respect.
I don't really think world war II stopped. It was just less war after, war itself kept on going. America increased the rate of weapon manufacture after V-J day.
The whole question boils down to whether or not we can prevent someone using another nuclear weapon(or releasing a major virus or something). Every step of escalation is one more step towards everything being, and having been, about war.
If it were for only this reason Bush would be a miserable president, but there are lots and lots of reasons.
2006-09-28 03:00:01 · answer #5 · answered by Jeremy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What would be the point of going to war against Iran. We are definitely not in world war 3. These are wars to create more and more unrest and disrespect of an already powerful and supposedly rich country (USA). They are wars against the poor and dispossessed. What can they accomplish except more and more fanatical terrorism.
2006-09-27 23:53:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. WW III would involve nukes. God help us if it comes to that.
Actually, I do believe we should strike Iran. Not go to war with Iran per se, but to launch some cruise missles at their nuclear facilities. Then sit back and see what they do. My guess is not much, except for another call to "Jihad" against the Great Satan. So what else is new?
2006-09-27 23:32:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No I do not! Why should we? They have done nothing wrong!
They are well within their rights under the NFT to develop nuclear power for energy and the only way you can run a nuke plant is to enrich Uranium from 0.7% to 5%! They have neen checked, and contrary to the guy who loves to cry wolf, their highest enrichment is 3%!!! It takes 98% pure uranium to make a bomb!! Bush is mentally unstable!!!
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.
Bush would love to start WWIII! Hopefully we can kick him out of office!!
2006-09-27 23:37:15 · answer #8 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be incredibly stupid to "go to war" (whatever that means these days) with Iran. Even if we were to win, we would lose in the long run, both financially at home and we'd have to rebuild another country. Are we in WWIII? No, but we are moving toward another cold war, with mutual assured destruction, again.
2006-09-27 23:33:20 · answer #9 · answered by Daniel M 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I hope not. We should go in and bomb the fool out of their nuke facilities.., but then I guess the Iranians would consider that an act of war.
However, Iran has made it quite clear that if we attack them, they will attack Israel with everything they got.
We are at the Starting Gate of World War 3, just waiting for the flag to drop. Its that close.
2006-09-27 23:35:18 · answer #10 · answered by Victor ious 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋