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

I know the US has very powerful resources at it's disposal, however if China came out against the US would the US back down? My first impression is that the Americans would back down due to their fist act of agression.

2007-03-26 04:35:11 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

8 answers

If there was adequate justification for the war, I believe (or hope, at least) that America would unite and fight.

China and Iran together could not stand against a united America, much less the allies that America would have at her side. It would be a no contest.

2007-03-26 04:42:37 · answer #1 · answered by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6 · 1 0

u could get the ROW (rest of thew world) against america and its allies since the world is moving towards multi polarity america is losing power and influence and might face the chinese and russians in the war and possibly india siding iran becuase of the oil deals. america doesnt have a lot of resources because of the overspending on iraq and afghanistan america is strong but not god which means its resources are limited and this time it is close to the maximum level of available spending
europe would back down britain possibly america will be forced to
Americas position and view as aggressors in many wars gives iran a huge advantage and sympathy of the remaining world community

2007-03-28 21:17:54 · answer #2 · answered by YR1947 4 · 0 0

Hands down, our military might can crush any opposition. However, a combined effort would prove to be too much for us. There is another war going on not a lot realize. That is an Economic War. One in which China will eventually win. As far as military goes. We are the most forceful.

2007-03-26 04:44:45 · answer #3 · answered by Satyr Prince 3 · 1 0

No one. It probably be an on going battle. With middle east countries fighting other middle east countries. A gigantic civil war. With oil prices skyrocketing.

2007-03-26 04:49:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

America would win... we own the sky.... china would not want to go to war with usa..... because we can destroy pretty much whatever we want to.

it doesn´t matter how many troops or tanks these guys got. our planes cannot be stopped.

2007-03-26 04:49:37 · answer #5 · answered by James R 3 · 0 0

America will hands down. china isn't going to do anything. things are going good for them now. they don't want war
America doesn't back down

2007-03-26 04:44:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

If USA attack Iran, WWlll will start.

and China for sure will attack USA, and defeat it.

2007-03-26 05:05:34 · answer #7 · answered by Pretty Girl 4 · 0 0

China is interested in economics. China is perfectly content to let Iran and the rest of the Middle East fight amongst themselves or with European and Western countries. China is interested in lunar Helium 3 and manufacturing.

Iran - US war? Well, I think that 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
.
.

2007-03-28 10:20:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers