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

Short of a Pearl Harbor or 911, what action would it take for you, personally, to demand we deal with Iran militarily.

Just curious, really, I am.

2007-05-10 02:53:58 · 17 answers · asked by Wolfgang92 4 in Politics & Government Politics

17 answers

Nuking one of our major cities might even convince the Democrats that something beyond a strongly worded letter from the UN was necessary.

2007-05-10 03:51:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Now, for a serious answer. I think if we could prove Iran is actually sponsoring people to go into Iraq with the sole purpose of attacking U.S. and allied troops and creating general chaos, we have provocation enough. This is generally considered an act of war. However, we should try diplomacy first. Sadly, this administration isn't the most diplomatic. The previous administration was perhaps way to diplomatic. Finding that fine line is incredibly difficult when dealing with diplomacy. However, in the face of a breakdown in diplomacy, we have no recourse left but to attack Iran. Their kidnapping of British sailors was a prelude to war that was handled not to well. I think the British should have been more stringent. Sorry, but when you sign your name on the dotted line saying you'll be a soldier for your country, you pretty much said if you are put in harms way and something bad happens, you understand and fully accept the risks. The British sailors and marines did not set a good example in this and their government looked timid to Iran. Like a wild animal, the Iranians can smell the fear and know what it means. I think that right now Iran is pushing to see what they can get away with. If the U.S. withdraws from Iraq now, Iran, Syria, and Turkey will all be moving for influence over the area. Iran is a dangerous enemy and one not to be taken lightly. While we have the advantage in technology, their people are far more supportive of the government and would view any attack as a personal call to war. They have thousands of years of experience in fighting and it would probably result in guerilla style warfare. This is why we should try diplomacy first. If it came down to a justified war with Iran, I think we could win, but at an extremely high cost in lives, resources, and money.

2007-05-10 03:15:05 · answer #2 · answered by Robert L 4 · 3 1

1 : Assault On The US Itself
2 : Iran Announcing A Full Scale Nuclear War
3 : Iran Goes On A War Campaign
4 : Iran Threatening The US Of A Nuclear Bombardment
5 : Iran Uses Terrorists To Attack The US

Hopefully none of those becomes a reality.

2007-05-10 16:31:05 · answer #3 · answered by Unazaki 4 · 1 0

How to really answer this question, theirs is a government which is controlled by religious mullahs, who wish to see our destruction and our Allie Israel, because we are the great Satan who protects the cursed people.
How do you deal with people like these?

Their President has expressed his wishes and lacks the power, to carry them out.

He has control of large oil reserves and wishes only nuclear power, He only has to voice a threat of violence or of cutting oil supplies, and he can see an instant rise in world oil prices , just because of his words.

I do not think we will attack, we will be on the side lines. for the kick off of the football

2007-05-10 15:20:27 · answer #4 · answered by tom 4 · 1 0

Robert has the best answer but one thing is that most people wanted to go to war with them till one year then we all of a suden change our minds. I don't like bush but I am not going to stario type ether. now to answer your question.

I would only want to attake them under a attack on us or if they HAD a nuck

2007-05-10 14:49:40 · answer #5 · answered by DRAGON 5 · 1 0

the fact that they hate us and would love to kill us all, not to mention that they are working on nuclear facilaties is plenty reason enough for me to want to go in, but with the low level of support from americans for the war in Irak, it would take an all out attack from iran before the general public would want to go in

2007-05-10 12:23:12 · answer #6 · answered by Han Solo 6 · 3 0

Whatever happens, we would need to be preemptive since their attack on us or Israel will most likely be WMD or nuclear.

For anyone who wants to wait for them to make the first move consider this, you have a madman with the gun pointed at your head and his finger on the trigger, or you have a madman you know is going for his gun. Which would you prefer.

2007-05-10 03:46:42 · answer #7 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 1 1

We would need to have knowledge of them seriously considering building a nuke to be launched at the US or an ally. Or mobilizing troops to their enemies (Mostly the US and Israel). And then again, we would probably be the only ones to respond.

2007-05-10 03:08:29 · answer #8 · answered by box778899 2 · 5 1

for me all it would take would be a "Bring it on!"
I'm still pissed about the Sally Fields movie "Not Without my daughter" lol jk (kinda)

2007-05-10 12:38:52 · answer #9 · answered by Chrissy 7 · 1 0

Apparently, Iran needs to bomb Iran first. That may not even work.

This is what happens when we have big government run by 'professional' politicians instead of small government run by part time politicians without law degrees.

2007-05-10 03:41:06 · answer #10 · answered by Curt 4 · 0 4

fedest.com, questions and answers