Why does the USA want to go to war with Iran even though there is no REAL proof they are producing nukes?

Question

Also, what do you think of Iran's army?

Then why in the 1960's and 70's did america and other western countries help Iran start a nuclear programme?

Answer 1

I think the real reason lies behind the fact that US wants to create more havoc in the Mideast so the oil companies can boost profits again...they seem to be the only one who is getting anything from all the conflict...besides halburton. Of course I am sure Bush thinks that all Iran's oil would be nice too.

Iran's army, IMO, is nothing to be messing around with. They aren't wimpy like Iraq's army and they know how to fight. The US will end up with thousands of MORE of our troops dead...if not tens of thousands. Iran is nothing to mess around with.

Answer 2

America does not want to go to war with Iran. There's no need to do so. Have you not noticed the UN Sanctions and the effect that they are having, in conjunction with the drop in crude oil prices?

Let me explain: You may have heard that VP Cheney made a trip to Saudi Arabia in November of 2006, and shortly after that, crude oil prices began dropping drastically. Then, despite protests from Hugo, the Saudi's stated that they would keep the prices low.

Iran is a very large producer of crude oil, but they have no refining capabilities to speak of so thay are also the 3rd largest importer of gasoline. Since the drop in crude oil prices, Iran's inflation rate has been steadily climbing and is now hovering at around 50%. People in Iran are getting very tired of the antics being pulled by the Idiot President and the idiot Mullahs because they know what it was like to live in a Westernized nation before the fall of the Shah.

We also have a new UN Secretary General who isn't for sale to the highest bidder, and a german Chancellor who isn't a loony lefty, and they are both applying pressure in the form of sanctions and embargos so I don't think it'll be much longer before the Iranians have had enough and Ahmadijinadhad(sp.) get's the .45 Cal. retirement benefit in the back of the head. Bada-bing, problem solved.

Answer 3

Because after 911 some of us think it might not be a good idea when a guy points a gun at you to wait till he pulls the trigger to do something about it.

You are right the only proof we have is that the Iranians themselves claim to be enriching uranium. They've even specified how many gas centrifuges they have working to do that. All they've done is to threaten to use nukes and go through all the motions of preparing to make them. I guess we should wait until a mushroom cloud rises over one of our cities, maybe your city. Then we can discuss terms of surrender with them.

As for their army, they fought a war with Iraq for 8 years and it ended in a draw. What else do you need to know. I believe that while the Iraqis killed large numbers of the Iranians they didn't really defeat them. Also Iranian missles were launched well into Iraq.

I am inclined to let the Iranians have the nukes. They already have missles that would reach well into Europe. So if we pull the 100,000 plus troops we have stationed there I don't see a problem for us. Russia and Europe are more likely targets than us.

Answer 4

I don't think the USA wants to go to war w/ Iran. They have one of the largest standing armies in the world, they have technologically advanced weapons that rival some of our own, they probably have nuclear and biological weapons and, worst of all, THE WILLINGNESS TO USE THEM!

That is the real issue: Can the world (US = world's enforcement arm) risk Nukes in Iran's arsenal? If they had nuclear weapons we would be in a cold-war all over again, with one major difference: Iran would not hesitate to nuke Israel (who would nuke back no doubt). That is different than the cold war w/ Russia b/c the threat of mutually-assured destruction was outweighed by the desire to continue living. Radical Islam has no reservations about dying for Jihad or killing anyone it considers an enemy (non-combatants, children, etc). How do you deter someone who doesn't mind dying, as long as he sees you die first?

btw - no one really believes these guys, who haven't kept their promise regarding anything yet, will really stop their nuke program? Just look at N. Korea - Iran is more dangerous b/c, unlike Kim Jong Ill, they don't care if they die.

--Z--

Answer 5

Some people in our government feel that this would be a preventative measure against Iran becoming too big and nuclear enabled. They feel that given the opportunity, Iran would indeed use nuclear missiles against Israel and the U.S.
Many people feel that any reason we we could create to go in and destroy their nuke plants would ultimately prevent millions of people from dying. A very delicate situation.
Their Army (Iran's), is large and massive, but no where near as well trained or organized as the United States Army. Army against army, we would kick butt, however the fear is that wouldn't hesitate to bomb (with nukes and chemical weapons) neighboring countries out of spite. They do not think as we do, they behead people in public, have no civil rights, and ultimately believe they must destroy all Jews and Americans.
I love animals, but if a rabid dog comes into a neighborhood, it must be destroyed before it kills innocents. Iran's ruling party (not its citizens) =Rabid dogs. Much of Iran's population does not like its own government, but its the government who has the destructive power to start a world war.

Answer 6

Well there's a lot of potential reasons. When military contractors like halliburton and kbr are charging 50 dollars to wash one pile of a soldier's clothes, they don't want that monopoly to stop. These companies control our government so much that they might start a war with Iran just for profits.

Also Iran has a lot of oil, and because of all the chaos has become a sort of super middle east power now that all the other countries are occupied. They have a pretty big population around 70 million, their peninsula lies on the persian gulf which is a very important strategic area for transporting oil.

Their military technology relies on older fighter jets bought from Russia. They have some short range missles where they can protect their borders. It would not be another Iraq war if Iran was brought to fight. The U.S. would not be able to invade with infantry, they would have to rely strictly on air strikes.

Answer 7

I don't think we're going to war over this. A more likeky scenario is precision guided long range munitions targeting their production facilities and air fields. Once the airfiels are neutralized, stealth aircraft can easily mop up the productio facilities. We don't have the manpower to wage a ground war.

As for their military, it's not as strong as Iraq's was circa 1990. In other words, they lack modern equipment, discipline, and air resources. So basically, it's ajoke

I can't understand why the Russians are allowing this to happen, since a Scud with a nuke on it can reach them right now, and iran is probably 20 years away from a delivery system (rocket or suitcase) that could directly attack the US.

Answer 8

Iran has been waging an undeclared war with the US since the Ayatollah Khomeini led a coup of the Shah of Iran's government. Also, why does a country with as much oil as Iran want to build a nuclear reactor if not for the purpose of making nuclear weapons? Our incompetent President Shrub invaded the wrong country! According to super spy Robert Baer. This is an excerpt from Michael A. Ledeen's "The War Against the Terror Masters."

"Robert Baer, whom my colleague Reuel Gerecht calls “one of the most talented Middle East case officers of the past twenty years (and the only CIA operative in the 1980’s to collect consistently first-rate intelligence on the Lebanese Hizbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad),” spent nearly fifteen years trying to establish who had bombed the American embassy in Beirut I 1983. Despite the dimensions of the catastrophe and the seeming urgency to solve the mystery, the CIA seemed to lack the crucial information. But Baer finally got there: “In my last months (at the CIA),” he tells us, “I unraveled the…bombing, at least to my satisfaction: Iran ordered it, and a Fatah network carried it out.” It was the old Khomeini-Arafat partnership in action.

Baer’s exhaustive researches went far beyond the Beirut mystery. In the process, he also learned a chilling fact about the CIA itself.

“It was clear from the documents I dredged up that, by at least 1997, the CIA knew the (Iranian) Pasdaran’s command structure inside and out, just as it knew that Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i and President Rafasnjani approved every terrorist operation to come out of Iran. As I looked at the evidence in from of me, the conclusion was unavoidable: The Islamic Republic of Iran had declared a secret war against the United States, and the United States had chosen to ignore it.”

Answer 9

Um.. we DONT want to go to war with Iran.. ??

As far as armies go.. in a conventional war, the US has no equal.We would dismantle Irans ability to make war in a matter of weeks. The US army could probably engage and defeat multiple armies on several fronts. That said, warfare has changed. Conventional war is just about gone. What we have to contend with now is insurgencies like Iraq. All of our jets and tanks and bombs are no good against an insurgency.

Answer 10

I think Iran poses a danger. We should crush their government and liberate the people of Iran. Use what we have learned in Iraq and go from there. After that, North Korea and/or Syria need to be corrected