Taking in consideration of all the Bush supporters willing to join the military to show their support, and Iran Building Nukes. Should we strike Iran Now, or wait until after Christmas?
2006-12-21 06:47:48 · 12 answers · asked by AD 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I agree that Iran is a problem. But there appears to be a lot of discontent among the Iranian people. I would give them a chance to have regime change from within before launching a military strike.
2006-12-21 06:53:30 · answer #1 · answered by Tony M 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
what you are trying to conclude is so far fetched and you dont even understand. there are some "bush supporters" that agree with everything but not all. Iraq was a step to curb Iran. Just as the carriers in the Gulf. A fight against Iran is not a feasible option at this time. But they have to be controlled. If we attack Iran they will blow the bombs they have lined along the Oil corridor that will automatically raise the price of Oil over 200 a barrel. Ahmadenijad is crazy but the Head mulahs have control over him for now and the people are starting to waiver. we keep pressure on them it will push the radicals out. Iraq and Iran are two different situations and have different means and for that matter ends.
2006-12-21 15:39:06 · answer #2 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
After Christmas.
Merry Christmas
2006-12-21 14:54:31 · answer #3 · answered by Ransom 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How about a preemptive strike on anyone calling for a preemptive strike? Iran will, sooner or later, have nuclear (excuse me, nucular) weapons. We can't decide who gets them and who doesn't. The only sane solution is to disarm all nukes on the planet and make no more. Fat chance, right?
2006-12-21 14:55:27 · answer #4 · answered by socrates 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We can't do a pre-emptive strike on Iran, Sandy Berger stole all the maps from the Pentagon and hid them in his underwear, there's no way we can find Iran anymore.
2006-12-21 16:59:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We may not have to act in that manner if we are able to finish the job we started. We increase economic sanctions, naval blockades and the citizens in Iran just may handle this for us. No reason to jump the gun. And by the way...Democrat here and I did my hitch but would be proud to go now and do another.
2006-12-21 14:54:16 · answer #6 · answered by Rich B 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Based on recent election results there, a strike on Iraq might be counter productive. WHy? Because there is much unhappiness there with the mullahs and AhMADinejad. Perhaps a better idea is to support the people in a government overthrow.
2006-12-21 14:50:59 · answer #7 · answered by C = JD 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
After christmas
2006-12-21 14:51:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Iran isn't building nuclear weapons. They're well within their limits as a signatory to the NPT in creating civilian nuclear power plants. The uranium they're using is only refined enough to use as fuel for reactors, not in weapons. 3-5% is necessary as fuel, but 90%+ is necessary for an effective critical-mass detonation.
Pre-emptive strikes are illegal and immoral, period.
2006-12-21 14:52:55 · answer #9 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Since Iran is close to Europe I think we should let the EU decide when they've had enough and what to do about it.
2006-12-21 15:25:00 · answer #10 · answered by Sean 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋