Or would the US/Israel just hit the nuclear plants and leave? Would they try to do the same thing they did in Iraq; overthrow the government? If so, would there be a civil war in Iran similar to Iraq, even though most of Iran is Shia?
Will there be any civilian casualty?
2007-02-11 12:29:13 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Let's vote.
2007-02-14 09:13:03 · update #1
A war with Iran would be immeasurably worse. Iran is a much larger country, with a much more capable military. It is also a functioning democracy, though we may not like who they voted for. So the public reaction will be much worse. We ourselves are much worse prepared, weakened as we are by the other two wars in which we are currently engaged. And of course, as ALWAYS, there will be many civilian casualties . . . probably more than military casualties for the Iranians.
2007-02-11 12:45:11 · answer #1 · answered by ktd_73 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A war with Iran would be a disaster for both sides. We wouldn't want to take the casualtys that we would have to endure with a land war with the Iranians. Look back at the war between Iran and Iraq.It lasted seven years and neither could say they won. Each side lost over 200,000 soldiers and thousands of civilians. I don't think Israel would attempt to take out Iran's nuculear arsenal. We might if we can find it..We might have to use air along with every type of "bomb" we have to bring them to their knees. I think we would rather get a new government politicly .As you know , Iran is mostly Shia.I don't think they have a big enough problem with the sunnis and internal terrorist to have a civil war.
2007-02-11 13:36:02 · answer #2 · answered by shawn 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
because of the fact there are particularly some parallels between the Vietnam conflict and Iraq. It has no longer something to do with Congress no longer affirming conflict in the two case. have not you been paying interest to the fact that Iraq is ALREADY IN A STATE OF CHAOS AND CIVIL conflict??? i think no longer. and how long do you advise we are residing? 10 greater years? 20 greater years? 30? we gained't end what we in no way had a plan for in the 1st place. All we are doing is making issues worse, not greater effective--by using staying placed and reminding the Iraqis on a on an huge-unfold basis foundation on whom extremely controls their usa and government.
2016-10-01 23:53:24 · answer #3 · answered by scheele 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not going to happen.
If the U.S. attacks Iran, Iran will strike back, and it won't just be the leader and a few elite. It will more likely be the majority of the population and then some. Iran has allies. Who are the U.S. to say that Iran doesn't have the right to pursue nucleur arms and energy. The U.S. does, so why shouldn't they? The U.S. is the only country in the world to have used atom bombs on cities. It's a fact that nobody else has. Anyway, that's a whole argument in itself.
Basically, say good-bye to the U.S.A. if there's an attack on Iran.
2007-02-11 12:44:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Here's how they will be similar:
(1) Our government will justify the war by lying about weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorist organizations.
(2) The media will not question the obvious double-standard which allows the US and Israel to get away with state-endorsed terrorism, yet still the neo-cons will complain about the liberal bias in the news.
(3) Oil. Iran's got it, we want it. Freedom be damned.
(4) OF COURSE THERE WILL BE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES! And on a massive scale. But count on sadists like Condoleeza Rice to step up and say, "It was worth it."
(5) Our leaders, masters in the art of doublespeak, will equate "supporting the troops" with sending them to die for profit while intimidating them into silence when they dissent.
2007-02-13 09:46:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
The war with Iran will be very different, because Iran is much stronger than Iraq, it might lead to world war lll...
2007-02-11 12:34:05 · answer #6 · answered by ILSE 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This whole war is a waste of precious lives. Why send our men and women to be killed in a country that doesn't want to be helped? Bush started this crap, and now he needs to put a stop to it. Sadam is dead. Bush achieved what he REALLY wanted so, now he just needs to let our troops come on home to their families.
2007-02-11 12:36:41 · answer #7 · answered by fairyprincessjz 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
OK...well let's look at some history here...Iraq and Iran involved in an 8 year war with heavy casualties on both sides, but basically no winner, well it took the USA and coalition forces a couple weeks to obliverate the Iraqi Army..4th largest in the world...so I would say that Iran is maybe...5th or 6th largest...so I would say that it would take about a week or so to take them out and if we had to we would invade... instigate a draft if needed....WAKE UP!! ...jihad is real....so buckle up for the long haul...and I hope there are 110 million jihad MFn' casualities.
2007-02-12 21:48:54 · answer #8 · answered by red d 2 · 0⤊ 6⤋
a war in iran would be much harder because we woudl spend our resources diferently. we would use them to fight a war rather than to take down a single individual. as a result, unlike iraq, iran would fight back on our terf.
2007-02-11 12:31:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
this time if there were to be an invasion our Mr.Bush would plan properly.if he doesn't want his image to be ruin like atlantis-never appear again.
civilian casualty?a it's unavoidable in a war.
2007-02-11 12:52:48 · answer #10 · answered by Von 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋