should we declare war on iran?

Question

they have taken the piff,on our navy/army?

Answer 1

Yes we should

Maybe we need trident after all.

Answer 2

Your having a laugh what about north Korea people are dying there by the day by the evil leaders polices and we are talking to them lets do the same with Iran let the world stop trading with these evil loons only send food and medicine win there hearts and minds of the civilians

Answer 3

The question is - why does humanity keep waging war on each other? America wants to be the good guys, the heroes and save the world. But by announcing war they are destroying the world, not saving it. They should look for a compromise and not just rush in with threats. A real hero would try to avoid war.

Answer 4

Absolutely not - for what. They have taken some prisoners whom they claim were in their waters without permission. If that is true then they are within their rights to detain the personnel in question. They haven't hurt anyone nor are they likely to. This same situation happened not so long ago. They will be handing the military people back - they are only standing their ground against what they perceive to be threats.

Answer 5

Depends what you mean by declaring war . . . .

Sould we go on . . .

Does mini the minx need a pet sphinx . . . . . . .

Is a howitza a type of gun or a cricket bat swing. . . . .

Would the jungle floor be better off left unswept by soldier ants

Are bathing gazelle better left to undress themselves rather than being given a hand by a school of parana . . . . . .

does the thought of Homer Simpson climbing into a loaded cannon with a crash hat and body warmer on make the idea of taxing air fuel appear evasive . . . . . . . . . . . .

Are we correct in thinking that these vast expases of lifeless hell have yet to even have a magna carter equivalent installed and to cataloge the amount of arms that are moved through thier sacred borders would be an insult on the extra sheep they keep on the side . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . .

I think we have wasted too much humanity on something that inherently wants to sneer indicatively at any sign of compassion.. .. . ... .. . . . . . . . .

Answer 6

Nail 'em.

Let's get 'er done - There would be a LOT more peace in the Middle East without Iran's current government.

No occupation - Just go in, get rid of the current crop of yahoos and let the Iranians have their nation back from the 11th-century fanatics currently running the joint.

Be a good job for a lot of A-Teams and some fast moving Infantry and Armor divisions backed up by the USAF and USN.

Orion

Answer 7

If you believe that war on Iran will result in several other great things then probably yes. Think about Iran, they are crazy. There are several scenarios in which thousands of people would die. Maybe it's best to leave that one alone for the time being.

Answer 8

We can't win the bloody war against drugs so how do you expect us to actually "go to war" against people as fanatical as they are

Answer 9

Iran is in a heap of trouble.....

Iran is dealing with two issues. First, Iran has captured 15 British sailors. Second, Iran has refused to cooperate with the U.N. regarding cessation of uranium enrichment.

Military confrontation may be on the horizon.
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3961
In addition to the British naval vessels at the Diego Garcia atoll in the Indian ocean, there is a multi-national force in the Persian Gulf. The British HMS Cornwall aircraft carrier strike group, the American aircraft carrier strike group Bremerton-based aircraft carrier CVN-74 John C. Stennis, the American aircraft carrier strike group USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and the French nuclear carrier Charles de Gaulle and its task force are all in close appoximation in the Persian Gulf. The USS Nimitz may also be in the Persian Gulf as it was scheduled for its WESTPAC07 deployment to replace the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-68.htm

More details about military options can be found here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm

Iran has elicited "confessions" from the 15 British sailors they captured and may put them on trial for espionage. The penalty for espionage in Iran is death.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1563877.ece
“If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.” Espionage carries a death sentence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6493391.stm
Iran's detention of 15 Royal Navy personnel is "unjustified and wrong", Prime Minister Tony Blair has said. UK officials are waiting to be granted access to the HMS Cornwall staff, who were seized on Friday, and have not been told where the group are held.

"It simply is not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters and I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us," Mr Blair said.

"We have certainly sent the message back to them very clearly indeed. They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong."

On March 23, 2007, U.S. and British officials said a boarding party from the frigate HMS Cornwall was seized about during a routine inspection of a merchant ship inside Iraqi territorial waters near the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway.

The seizure of two Royal Navy inflatable boats took place just outside the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, a 125-mile channel dividing Iraq from Iran. Its name means Arab Coastline in Arabic, and Iranians call it Arvandrud - Persian for Arvand River. A 1975 treaty recognized the middle of the waterway as the border.

Iranians send arms to Iraqi extremists, including sophisticated roadside bombs. This week, two commanders of an Iraqi Shiite militia told The Associated Press in Baghdad that hundreds of Iraqi Shiites had crossed into Iran for training by the elite Quds force, a branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard thought to have trained Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

Regarding enrichment of uranium, Iranian President Mahmaoud Ahmadinejad abruptly cancelled his appearance before the U.N. security council and in his stead, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki Iran spoke. He indicated that Iran was willing to continue negotiations but without the precondition that uranium enrichment must be halted.

Mottaki said, "the world has two options to proceed on the nuclear issue: continued negotiations or confrontation. Choosing the path of confrontation ... will have its own consequences. "
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070325/D8O3E7J00.html

The U.N. security council unanimously voted to expand sanctions on March 24, 2007.

The new resolution 1747 calls on Iran to comply fully with all previous UN resolutions and join negotiations to reach agreement so as to restore international confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. Full transparency and cooperation with the IAEA are required. Suspension of Iran’s banned nuclear activities will elicit the parallel suspension of sanctions. The package of incentives offered Tehran last year for its cooperation remains on the table.

The full text of the draft of resolution 1747 appears at this website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6455853.stm
.
.

Answer 10

no yaar, war is not a solution of any problems / disputes. One must understand attitude of the country by seriously understanding their history and current political situations. Because the reason you find to start war may not be acceptable to local public also.

Answer 11

easy solution on the paper, but how do you end a war ? how do you end wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ? and if you want the britains soldiers to be killed, start the war...