don't you think America and west should attack Iran before it acquire nuclear weapons and pose threat to world

Answer 1

bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran, bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran, bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran, bomb Iran and level Tehran, we should be bombing and a bruising and sending missiles cruising to Iran, bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran (everybody sing)


Edit: People are acting like Iran isn't openly supporting terrorist regimes, attacking American interests, and repeatedly holding rallies with more than 2 million people in attendance swearing to the destruction of Israel and the US. Forget the fact that they have sworn to remove Israel from the map and are consistantly refusing to allow inspectors into there nuclear development centers. What do you think President Amadimajad has in mind? To be a player in a cold war with the US and Israel? Yeah, right. The thing about terrorists is that you can trust them when they say they're going to kill somebody. They mean it. Their politics are so much more straight forward than ours. If you think that President Amadimajad is not planning to use his nuclear bomb then you are legally insane because you are not in touch with that which is real. There is a technical term for President Amadimajad: whackjob. He doesn't care if the whole world goes up in smoke as long as the big and little satan is destroyed in the process. He is openly denying the haulocaust and openly planning another one. He believes that the Iranians are the master aryan race Hitler described. The world was silent during the rise of Hitler and the haulocaust and we are watching another extreme facist leader with similar values as Hitler raise to power that doesn't respond to diplomacy or sanctions. Should Hitler have stopped? How would the world be different? The difference between Hitler and Amadimajad is that Hitler went to war without the bomb and tried to obtain it during the war. He lost the war. Amadimajad doesn't want to go to war without it, because they have no intention of losing. Has the world learned nothing?

Answer 2

Interesting question ... did you know that the USA is one of several nations with nuclear weapons, ability to deliver them anywhere in the world. Is that a threat? If so should the nations of the UN form a coalition to wipe America off the map before America uses any more of them, like were used against Japan.

An arguement could be made that Nuclear Weapons have made the world a safer place. People who have them, and know their enemies have them, are afraid to have them used. Until WW II, the world was in constant turmoil, wars all over the place, but now, the places having wars tend to be the places that don't have WMD.

Remember Tianamen Square. Before the massacre there were two armies of China facing each other. One favoring the leadership & one favoring the democracy movement. Both had nuclear weapons. The world held its breath. The outcome was bad, but it could have been far worse.

The leadership of Iran has certainly made remarks threatening to obliterate Israel, so there is no doubt that they are a threat to Israel. But who else? Have they been so foolish as to make similar remarks against the west?

Israel is one of our allies. Are we ready for the long term consequences of military support there to help preserve Israel against Iran? Will we have any other allies in that fight?

Here is a web site listing nations around the world that either have WMD right now, or soon will have them, and what kinds. Do you think we should declare war on ALL of them?
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/wmd_state.htm

According to the United Nations the major threats against our planet are:
* Attrocities
* Disease
* Environmental Degradation
* Genocide
* Organized Crime
* Poverty
* Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
* Terrorism
* War between nations, Civil Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Threats

I would add
* Conspiracy Theorists
* People ignorant of history dooming us to same old problems & variation
* People in Denial

Perhaps we can ask some better questions to help greater understanding of real threats and how to resolve them.

Answer 3

If it comes to that then we will have no choice. Iran's leaders have said they want to wipe millions of people from the Earth. Not only are they building nuclear weapons they are building longe range missiles that target all of the middle east and Europe. Once they get nuclear warheads on their new missiles, Cities, like Rome, Tel Aviv, Venice, Paris, and countless other which are home to millions of people will be at the mercy of rogue radical extremist nation. This is a doomsday scenario and it must be averted, one way or another, preferbly by diplomacy, but by action if need be.

Answer 4

No. Although Iran could be the ultimate suicide bomber and destroy Israel, it would be a near death blow to the Shiites. Already 90% of the world muslims are Sunni and Shiites just hold something like 60% of Iraq and that's about it. Even if Israel was nuked, along with the Palestinians, it wouldn't end the Jewish religion and if Hiroshima and Nagasoki are any indication, Israel could be again Jewish in a couple of decades.

Answer 5

No. Here's how to deal with the threat.

Have the President say: "We welcome you to the world of nuclear nations. This puts the requirement of responsibility on you. If you use your weapons or transfer them to anyone, then we will throw out entire nuclear arsenal on you and completely wipe you off the map. We already have more than enough nuclear weapons pointed at you right now."

The threat of destruction kept the Soviet Union in line, and it's our best option for dealing with Iran.

Answer 6

possibly that's because of the fact no longer too till now human beings allowed themselves to be lied to and puffed up by warfare mongers which led to ILLEGALLY going to warfare against Iraq that has seen the slaughter of a few 4500 US troops and over 3 hundred,000 harmless Iraqis. In comprehend to the U. S. media which I visual exhibit unit exceedingly the BBC , I see no substantial distinction in media insurance there vs right here . Are you naive to think of that "in the back of the scene" the U. S. militia isn't totally geared as much as handle any eventuality ? The North is familiar with that something substantial violation human beings/Japan/S.Korean sovereignty ,would be met with maximum US retaliation.

Answer 7

No. We're still trying to get our troops out of Iraq.

And I don't think attacking Iran will end everything. Going to war with countries in the middle east is a bit like playing "whack-a-mole".

Answer 8

No. We're busy at the moment. I think just Europe should deal with an international mess for a change (minus the UK, of course.)

No my European cousins . . . diplomacy isn't going to work. Being nice isn't going to do you any good. You're going to have to dust off the rifles, tanks, and combat aircraft, and get really violent for a change (I hope you remembered how to use all those things.) Remember, you'll be in range of their soon-to-be nuclear missles, not us.

Good luck, you'll need it.

Answer 9

If we can't handle a discrepit Iraq that had a struggling economy, weak authoritative leadership, and no national unity... what makes you think we can handle a country that has stronger economics, centralized leadership, and national unity; not to mention a stronger military and larger army? If and when we clean up our mess in Iraq, maybe we can start thinking about this. Going in now would essentially destroy out economy, if not lead to destruction of democracy as we know it.

Answer 10

Yes... but not the way you think...

We should attack them with seccular thought....
Muslims (like christians i'd like to add) are following texts that were great laws 2,000 + years ago... but now, they are just outdated laws that promote biggotry and hatred....

The adults will never understand this, but by getting to the young...to the students...the artists....the poets... that is how a world changes... Not by throwing nukes at them...that is how the world ends...