What do you hope it will achieve?
2007-06-28 16:30:55 · 31 answers · asked by Jason 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
no, either act of war would unite the people of Iran behind a government the majority of them are not very happy with. current economic conditions are worsening there, there is a possibility of gas rationing there, their foreign policy is about as successful as ours. it's a lose/lose scenario to use military force against Iran.
2007-06-28 16:38:32 · answer #1 · answered by bilez1 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Currently I am undecided on this one. I support the USA invasion of Afghanistan; however, I do not support the invasion of Iraq. If we were to invade Iran at the current time I believe we would really stretch our troop deploymemnt to thin.
In turn it could give the White House a chance to re-instate the Draft (which could be a good thing or a bad thing depending upon your president and other factors). Probably the best stategy for now is to wait and see what happens there.
2007-06-28 16:37:41 · answer #2 · answered by hardcoredlw 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
At this point, I support neither. One only has to look at the internal problems that Iran has to understand that an invasion would be counter productive.
There are riots, civil discontent, gas rationing, and a president that is nearly as unpopular as our own. I would think that, instead of invasion or bombing, we support an insurgency in Iran. Sorta' like those jackasses are doing to us in Iraq.
2007-06-28 16:48:48 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not. Iran's government is going to end badly. They are going after the United States in Iraq and trying to start a war because their country is falling apart and they need a war to keep it together.
If the US/Israel just sits there, eventually Iran will have to start a war on its own or be overthrown. He claims to be buying 3000 centrifuges, at a cost of 1 million each. For his country that would cost half the defence budget, leaving his military with half the troops and equipment they need for a war, and no functional WMD for 3-5 years.
2007-06-28 19:01:32 · answer #4 · answered by Ninja grape juice 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We are still the most powerful military force on the planet.
I do not support any physical invasion. I do not believe any American blood should be shed on an invasion, bombing even nuclear bombing I support, the more the better.
A military fact, not theory, is the way to invade and defeat the enemy is to destroy their will to fight.
If one looks at our current situation in Iraq, one may come to the conclusion we have lost the war on terrorism, because we have lost the will to fight.
2007-06-28 16:51:19 · answer #5 · answered by oldcorps1947 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They don't pay me to make those choices. I will say this I support our troops and if doing so will save their lives on the ground in Iraq then yes. McCain says go! I have served my country , however I haven't been to Iraq , and what ever it takes to secure that hell hole is in order. Funny thing is critics can find a zillion reasons to bash President Bush but not bombing Iraq is not one of them. Makes me want to hollar the way the way they do my money. I know let's play patty cake with some supeonas.
2007-06-28 16:39:59 · answer #6 · answered by cynthia k 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They can not be allowed to have nuclear technology
Taking out instalations that can produce nuclear technology must happen if they won't stop on there own
If they trully want a nuclear power plant then let them contract it out to Russia or America or any one for that matter - but they must not have the knowledge themselves to misuse it at a future date -
Look at the abduction of the British soldiers -
They (Iran) committed a criminal act and then expected the UK to apologise because Iran broke the law and any moral code that could have given them any respect
They should not have anything more sophisticated than a match box - and someone should watch them with that as well
2007-06-28 16:38:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
The way Rumsfeld and Bush have stretched our military resources in Iraq, the whole idea of attacking Iran is a mute point. But if they get close to having a wmd and a delivery system, Israel will have no choice but to eliminate the risk.
2007-06-28 16:36:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, they haven't posed an immediate threat just yet. It would be wrong to bomb them just yet. Bombing them right now would start a whole other war, our soldiers are already being depleted and alot of them are over in Iraq an Afganastan. This would not be good.
2007-06-28 16:45:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think if they pose a threat oh yeah the bomb is a good solution to filth like that cancer in Iran and most of the Middle East whom want to control the whole World! ANd?
2007-06-28 16:34:05 · answer #10 · answered by brenda r 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋