English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Generally, most people consider Iran a threat to many in that it seems to be pursuing nuclear ambitions, and also more proved its true color by capturing the British military folks.
Its president is a wingnut, its people are brainwashed, and lastly, the grand daddy Khemenni is authorizing money and hardware to be provided to insurgence in Iraq.
Why should we not engage them? The EU is already to a boil point, Israel has been at a boil point...is this the war we should have been fighting instead of Iraq?

2007-03-24 04:12:03 · 14 answers · asked by Diadem 4 in Politics & Government Military

14 answers

If we had invaded Iran first, the minority party would still have been complaining that Saddam was a threat and we should've gone after him. Its all politics. I don't like it, because they're playing politics with our safety.

FYI speckofdust,
Iran has threatened us and have taken Americans hostage in the past, least you forgot about them taking out the embassy in '79.

2007-03-24 04:15:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

We are being baited. We have nothing to gain in a conflict with Iran. We need to ignore Armiddufusman. His popularity is just like Chavez's and he whips up support by antagonizing the US and getting us to take the bait. Ignoring Chavez and Armiddawacko are the best ways to stop these folks.

And as long as we allow ourselves to be dependent on foreign oil, we have to humor these nut jobs because they have the ability to do real harm to our economy.

If Iran continues along a path that causes them to threaten the world with nuclear arms, then they must be informed of the Mutual Assured Destruction policy that awaits them. The Soviets understood this and the Iranians will too... and if they don't...well then Persia will be a nice beacon to the rest of the Middle East as it burns for the next 10,000 years.

2007-03-24 04:21:08 · answer #2 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 0 0

Iraq is and remains a pushover compared to what Iran can do. They are a lot bigger, a lot more powerful and have more friends then you may imagine.

First rule of war: NEVER underestimate the enemy. Loony bin material they might be but no shortage in the IQ ratings.

These people were fighting and winning wars before the 'good ole US of A' appeared on the maps....or Britain....or Europe.

2007-03-24 04:20:46 · answer #3 · answered by philip_jones2003 5 · 1 0

No. If there is a threat to Europe and the US its the Bush Administration. We have a wingnut president and brainwashed people right here too.

2007-03-24 04:17:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

When US & UK are the two countries havin the largest & the 4th largest nuclear arm holders then how can they blame others.
Talking of US who attacked Iraq mainly for oil, as now very well known, then how can you support statements of such a hypocrite.
Let's come on the topic of Iran. It is known to all that Iran has always been culturaly very wealthy and after exploiting its oil resources it is getting financialy strong too. So, what is wrong if it is thinking of its security at a time when US is targetting it as a foe??
If it is helping Iraq I commit he is wrong, but US is only there to exploit Iraq as Britishers used to do with their colonies.
In essence, every country has the right to defend it.

2007-03-24 04:34:20 · answer #5 · answered by samir 1 · 0 2

Not instead of Iraq.USA shouldn't leave Iraq without solving the problems.I am Turkish and i don't want Iran to have nukes near me.A war with Iran won't be like Iraq,most probably there won't be any invasion at all,there will only destruction ,it will be like..........star wars

2007-03-24 04:49:06 · answer #6 · answered by mertev 4 · 0 0

Yes, because of them developing nuclear weapons and them being hostile to the US, and the fact that they took a bunch of hostages a while back.

2007-03-24 05:09:43 · answer #7 · answered by ÍπVÍπCÍßLε 2 · 0 0

No, the war we should be fighting is the one against Osama ... in Afghanistan. Our war in Iraq is only provoking more anti-American feelings in the Arab world.

2007-03-24 04:16:31 · answer #8 · answered by CxeLady 3 · 1 2

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
.
.

2007-03-25 21:04:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Yes, but they didn't start making real waves until now

2007-03-24 04:15:21 · answer #10 · answered by J S 4 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers