2006-12-17 00:23:10 · 15 answers · asked by ? 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
yep
2006-12-17 00:26:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
I do not believe nukes should ever be used. In the end it does not come down to a matter of whether they should or not. The final determination will be made by fear. Iran's president has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and is now holding a conference to deny one of the greatest atrocities ever committed by man. The sole reason for this action is to eliminate support for Israel. The simple fact is that if Israel feels threatened enough by Iran they will use whatever means are at their disposal for eliminating the threat. This would be a catastrophic action and would forever seal Israel's fate in the Arab world, but who can blame them for feeling the pressure of their own demise given the history of persecution of Jews in our world.
Tonia: A desire of peace is an admirable aspiration. However, when one side is calling for the complete annihilation of the other there is no basis for dialog or diplomatic solutions. The biggest problem with the let's talk set is that they view things from their own mindset which is usually rational, but fail to notice that the other is not even remotely rational. You cannot have peace when one side is locked into a destructive ideology, no matter how well meaning people like yourself might be. History is full of peaceful people being slaughtered because they were incapable of recognizing the folly of their position when challenged by a determined enemy.
Hayley: The problem with your post is this. That is the world we live in and it has been since the beginning of time. Military action should not be the first choice to resolve a conflict, but history has proved time and again that it is much more often the result. The problem with western ideologies is that we try to impose of ideas of freedom and fairplay on mindsets which do not accept these concepts openly. The end of the Iran situation is in the hands of Iran. If they want dialog they can have it. All they have to do is stop enriching uranium and stop calling for the destruction of Israel. Why do people like yourself always try to paint the most rational as the demon, while completely dismissing the danger of the irrational?
2006-12-17 08:36:19 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
"The NPT is the most widely accepted arms control agreement. As of early 2000 Cuba, Israel, India, and Pakistan were the only states that were not members of the NPT". What the heck are "peaceful nuclear capabilities? It sounds like something George Carlin made up. We'd invade and bomb the sh*t out of any country in the Middle East that pulls the crap that Israel does, with our tax dollars no less. If Israel is all about peace why didn't they sign on to the NPT in 2000? Israel knows it can do whatever it wants with the blessing of the U.S. and look where it's gotten us.
2006-12-17 08:47:27 · answer #3 · answered by Debra D 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Oh My goodness, I have to respond to the other commentators here. On two grounds - first what might be the consequences, Iran is a client state of China and to a lesser extent Russia too. If this happens and at some point it may happen - can you imagine the consequences? Second is the underlying presumption that 'might is right' certainly the US is operating on that principle. But it is a very dangerous one, its is very possible that in the near future (lets say 10 years) Iran and its proxies and client states and provided with a global nuclear umbrella by Russia and China could virtually cripple the US economy by using the oil weapon. You will of course understand and accept the consequences because 'might is right'. Our only credible choice at that point would be a nuclear first strike against the two mini superpowers taking whatever retribution of course that they are able to muster. This is of course exactly what the US is preparing for by developing the anti missile defence system which is a first strike weapon not a defense against terrorists (get real) and useless against a first strike against us.
Is this the world that you want to in habit? Where actions are justified by might? Where you hope you survive and are on the winning side? At the very least the US must attempt to defer this confrontation until they are ready both psychologically and militarily for the biggest gamble of its history.
2006-12-17 08:51:35 · answer #4 · answered by Hayley 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Wait for it, Itll happen. That will be the beginning of WWIII. The US will step in to help Israel, and then China and the Middle East will come in for Iran. And then you have Japan and European Nations coming and helping America and yeah, WWIII. But Israel, the US, Japan, Europe, and whoever else will be victorious
I predict this happening in the next 5 years.
2006-12-17 08:58:17 · answer #5 · answered by I Hate Liberals 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
For all those who've said yes then I ask them why? Iran has a nuclear research program, but so do many other countries, including Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is not ruled by a stable democratic government, but by a fanatical royal family, yet it's fine for them to have the bomb?
2006-12-17 08:51:05 · answer #6 · answered by Mordent 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes definately!
A nation that is not a part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, owning about 200 nuclear warheads should definately bomb a nation that has peaceful nuclear capabilities, is a part of the NPT and might be able to construct a bomb in 5-7 years under optimal conditions.
Go Zion!
2006-12-17 08:30:24 · answer #7 · answered by Froztwolf 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
i am from russia and i think that judos cant do it.....becouse with Iran is half of Europe and whole Asia
2006-12-17 09:04:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iran has declared war on Israel. You can be damn sure they will do something about it.
2006-12-17 08:38:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yes because then it saves us and the Americans don`t need to do it and the Yanks can go in and help
2006-12-17 08:31:40 · answer #10 · answered by bwfc 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No. They should sought out there difference through communication. Leave the rest up to GOD as he did in the Great Flood.
2006-12-17 08:34:22 · answer #11 · answered by Tonia 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋