Iran has only ONE oil refinery in their country. One airstrike would cripple their economy and make the threat of sanctions much more persuasive.
They only respect strength. The west cannot play softball and expect a good outcome. Negotiations and diplomacy are ONLY effective if there is the credible threat of unacceptable consequences behind it.
The Dems are robbing us of our "credible threat" with their ridiculous posturing in the congress over Iraq policy.
2007-03-29 07:47:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by sdmike 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
This is exactly why Iran will not actually hurt the sailors. They will scare them and intimidate them in order to compel them to "confess" and make statements against themselves and the U.K. but Iran dares not do anything truly harmful to the sailors.
It's a bluff. Or it had better be! Because the world won't blame Britain and her allies for attacking Iran, if they hurt these hostages.
2007-03-29 08:37:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by around_the_world_jenny 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
2 weeks? Maybe. I don't like the idea of attacking Iran at all. For one, if we cannot even figure out why we are still in Iraq, what are we going to do when Iran turns out to be the same thing? Plus Iran is over double the population of Iraq.
The whole British sailor thing happened a few years ago, and they were eventually let go. I think Brittain needs to confess they were in the waters so Iran does not harm those troops. I'm pretty sure they were.
2007-03-29 07:41:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋
I am not sure, I am only glad it was British troops that were taken and not American. If it had been American troops the Democrates would have said it was all just a ploy so Bush could get us into a war with Iran.
My prayers are with the British service members in Iran.
2007-03-29 07:40:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by e.sillery 5
·
4⤊
0⤋
That or, we could get the UN to let Iran know that they are considering talking about the possibilty of coming up with a plan to formally let Iran know that they might seriously start to talk about having a vote on having talks about designing a potential draft of a resolutuion to take steps toward possibly considering sanctions.
2007-03-29 07:41:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by heavysarcasm 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
Perhaps it is best to try to have a solution worked out that did not necessitate the deaths of so many. However the British government should not compromise the safety of their people. They should press the Iranians to release these service-members however and whenever they can. If it is war then it is War. Lets hope that it does not come to that of course.
2007-03-29 07:41:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by DietrichVonQuint 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
I look for Iranian blood if they shed British blood. I agree that we could shut down Iran in maybe 3 weeks (gotta kill em good). Iraq took what, 3 weeks at most? It's the cleanup that we have problems with.
2007-03-29 07:49:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by Brian I 3
·
5⤊
0⤋
I hope it stays in the negotiating stage. Remember the last time Iran did this. It's in no one's best interest to flatten Iran, much as it might seem like a good idea in the short term.
2007-03-29 07:38:22
·
answer #8
·
answered by wizjp 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Hey everyone!
The peoples who say that iran will be attack by uk watching hollywood's movies too much? Do u think iran is defenceless country like iraq or afghanistan? Try if u want to know! LAMO!!
I rather to not talking about iranian military ability because our governments feed us with anti-iranian propaganda and blah blah blah!!
2007-03-30 03:45:00
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
with our troops tied up now in iraq and afghanistan i dont think we would head the attack.i certainly do believe that israel would though and they'd do a damned good job,they do afterall have the best air force in the world...we could use thier help in iran
2007-03-30 03:38:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by stonethedevil2004 3
·
0⤊
0⤋