Yea yea yea, I already heard about "nuclear fallout" and stuff. But I mean REALLY, WHAT IS THE DOWNSIDE?!?!
2007-02-18 00:34:04 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
What do we have to lose? Theres not one civilian death I would personally mourn.
2007-02-18 00:34:39 · update #1
The downside is that Iran might stop giving the terrorists money and then the terrorists would have to give up and then most of our troops would have to come home from Iraq and then the wives and husbands that have been waiting and supporting them all this time would be happy and our government would spend less of our tax dollars and then we would have an even better economy and then the Media would have to rack their brains trying to find something wrong with George W so they could continue to hate him. Wait a minute, None of this is a downside. Oh no, I don't know how to answer your question now. Well, there you are.
I Cr 13;8a
EDIT: And no, I am not Jackie Mason in disguise.
2007-02-18 00:41:01 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
1. International isolation, economic sanctions against the U.S.
2. Dramatically increased terrorism and other military action against U.S. interests abroad
3. Regional war in the middle east
4. Existing chemical weapons and enriched uranium in Iran would certainly fall into terrorist hands - leading to the risk of WMD terrorism
5. Sets a terrible precedent for WMD escalation
6. Totally unnecessary when we would simply economically engage with Iran and resolve the issue diplomatically
7. Hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, millions more due to fallout
8. Radioactive contamination and/or destruction of Iran's oil facilities
9. There would be so many attacks against the U.S., foreign and domestic, and with a ferocity never seen before - you'd look back at 9/11 as a time of relative safety
2007-02-18 00:49:18 · answer #2 · answered by Mark P 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe someone already said this, but the downside would be that the area would be so iradiated that we wouldn't be able to get to the natural resources (oil and gems) that are there for a long time. Add to that the fact that fallout from a nuclear blast doesn't stay in the area....it moves. If winds blew it into other areas where we get our oil (Russia or Saudi Arabia), then that would compound the problem.
We might as well shoot ourselves in the foot.
However, if you listen to the average Iranian, they actually like us. They don't like the American government, and they are tired of their own ultra-conservative government. (One of our national reporters was over there just recently, and even asked people shouting, "Death to America", "Do you really hate Americans like me?" They all got a stupid look on their faces, and then admitted..."Not America, your government.")
They like the common American citizen, American television, American music, candy bars, peanut butter, coca-cola, electronics...The moment that these people are cut off from American products that they like, they'll have a sh##-fit, and might even start blaming their own government. And we may not even have to do it ourselves...their own president has already asked them to stop buying American products. His next course of action would be to cut them off by force. All we'll have to do is sit back and let nature take its course.
2007-02-18 00:54:40 · answer #3 · answered by mamasquirrel 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Radioactive fallout....worldwide.
And that would be just the beginning and probably the least of a long list of downsides.
Some of which had probably never been considered.
Or imagined.
And why would we even consider nuking Iran?
Why shouldn't they be pissed at us?
We forcibly imposed a dictator on them....the Shah.
And we supported Iraq in their war against Iran.
When Saddam was our guy.
quote from wikipedia
In 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
Why wouldn't the Iranians regard US as dangerous?
We pretty good at backing the bad guys.
Dubya talking about championing democracy:):).
If America has championed anything since the end of WW2 it would be brutal dictatorships.
If an Iranian asked why HIS country did not nuke US he would have firmer ground to stand on.
2007-02-18 00:45:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
All that oil we can't get to for at least a century. Problem is we nuke anybody and it is open season, everyone will start nuking someone and that will bomb the world back to the stone age....hmmmmmm not a bad thought, we could start all over again, but don't blame me when you have 3 eyed, 2 1/2 armed kids, with a mental capability of a rock!
2007-02-18 00:43:50 · answer #5 · answered by rswdew 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well sonny - if you have "heard about "nuclear fallout" I suggest that you spend time doing some serious research on the subject because when you see that Mushroom cloud on the Horizon - you had better grab your a$$ and hold on to it as tight as you can because in three seconds it will be vaporized!
2007-02-18 00:41:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You really have to ask this question???????? You have a nut who's talking about bringing on the end of the world, has promised to use them against another country, and you want to know what the downside is??????? Where do you live, Buster?
2007-02-18 00:48:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
other than the fall out, international rebuke, which really means nothing, unless we want to continue trade with other countries (which right now is what we need!!)...don't forget the europeans have always not liked Americans, even when we fought to save their asses from the nazi's. It's not like that's changed!!! Don't forget the fact that we might just come home sooner, because the only thing arabs know is power and might, if we continue the way we are, they'll continue to fight against us..
2007-02-18 00:54:43 · answer #8 · answered by j_allan0918 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
downside..
1.russia is aiding iran in upgrading its armoury n reactors..so it will undermine relations..Also NATO presence increases to 3 more countries which are non-members(iraq,afghanistann n iran in future)..thus resulting in a cold war situtation.
2.india is energy deficient..plans r for a iran-pakistan/afghanistan-india oil pipe line..also india is in process o sign the treaty with the US....thus a wrong move...
2007-02-18 00:44:50 · answer #9 · answered by rudrashiv_747 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Destabilizing the Middle East more than we already have.
Plus, our forces are getting spread out too much. Fighting a war on three fronts is unwise.
2007-02-18 00:42:02 · answer #10 · answered by redman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋