English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The White House has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran under the pretext of halting the development of nuclear weapons. The development of nuclear weapons by Iran is something the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and inspectors have refuted as being untrue.

So is this latest news simply an escalation of the administration’s saber-rattling? An attempt to provoke Iran and create a Tonkin Gulf-like rationale to justify military strikes? Or is this actually the first step of planned military action against Iran, with the administration’s declarations of attempted diplomacy just as phony as they were before the Iraq war?

Military action against Iran would inevitably kill large numbers of innocent people, foster even greater hatred towards the United States, and bring international condemnation.

2006-10-19 03:07:20 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

5 answers

remember this,,its really about oil,,not nuculear tech,,they[bush,,and company] are oil men first,,politicians second,,,it was going to go down soon but n.korea got in the way and slowed the march towards war,,,im a bit concerned as the iranians have a very sopisticated arsnel of anti ship and advanced lazer weapons that work good,,also the russians and chineese are not going to sit by and let it happen,,their southern borders will be threatened,,along with the multi-billion contracts for gas and oil

2006-10-19 03:17:24 · answer #1 · answered by slingblade 1 · 1 1

First, I agree that diplomacy is preferrable to war.
That said, I want to question your false attack on the attempted diplomacy prior to Iraq. How can 15 years of attempted diplomacy with a regime that only exists because of a cease-fire (not peace, a cease-fire pending on that regime's adherence to multiple U.N. sanctioned resolutions-none of which were upheld at any time) be called false. If anything, the regime's refusal to abide by these sanctions justified military intervention at a much earlier time.

2006-10-19 03:33:18 · answer #2 · answered by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6 · 0 1

i think there is a coaltion between iran and USA.
because all the american soldiers in both iraq and afghanistan in the reach of the irannian fire. if the american troops pulled out of iraq it might be very soon to attack iran. but i dont think that US can handle their casualities from opening the irani front. All the Gulf and Middle East will break in fire hell.
i would like the political solution.

2006-10-19 03:14:45 · answer #3 · answered by rami_khalel 1 · 1 0

If it has to happen .I will say 10 days.But it looks very unlikely .they could break the nuclear reactor but that's about it.Remember after world war Russians sent in the troops to throw out British troops in Iran the history can repeat itself this time the Chinese can get involved too.Every body is looking for Black Gold.

2006-10-19 03:12:55 · answer #4 · answered by Dr.O 5 · 0 1

Are you trying to promote something here...or just trying to stir up trouble? One of the reasons that people think so bad about America is people like you instagating. Trying to cause trouble and distrust. What have you got against America, what have we done to you?

2006-10-19 03:25:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers