The U.S.A. is like a big bully, it will only fight those she knows don't have the capability to strike back.
2007-07-02 14:45:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
5⤋
Well it's really obvious that we can't, we don't have the manpower. And those that think otherwise are stupid and have never worn the uniform. Continuingly accusing Iran of things(nukes and interfering in Iraq), is the Cons last ditch attempt to peice back the coalition that fell apart after we invaded Iraq. "King George" is crying to other nations to pick up some of the slack, ain't gonna work, he spit on all of them. We once were the mightiest military on the face of the earth(us troops still have the heart to get the job done), but now the world knows we are stretched to thin.
Oh and we thought Iraq would collapse from within too.
And no Iran is not supplying Al-queada, they are supplying the Shiites, because Iran is Shiites, Shiites and Sunnis have been fighting Al-queada if you haven't been watching or reading.
And lastly look who supports Iran, Russia and China, do you really think the EU would jump in to help us against that trio? It would be strategic chaos. So many fronts(sighs).
2007-07-02 14:49:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by David L 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
One reason is that while the Iranian government is highly antagonistic to the U.S. the average Iranian is not. Therefore invading the country could and probably would result in galvinizing support of country's populace for the anti U.S. government out of nationalistic sentiment and therefore strengthening that regimes hold on power. Also, Iran has not overtly invaded another country in recent history so there is no context for invasion based on any Iranian emperial tendencies. The U.S. also doesn't want introduce a military draft which would be necessary for any other large scale military actions to ensure troop rotation.
2016-05-17 04:43:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
it is highly doubtful that the US blames Iran for ALL their problems. even if Iran didnt help certain insurgents of their religion (either shiiites or sunnis, i cant remember), there would still be insurgents in Iraq. the insurgents of the religion Iran is, arent just Iran-backed. besides, the US already has a much lowered international standing, and war with Iran would almost would make a lot of other countries very nervous of US imperialism and might even cause them to team up to try to beat the US. Iran has quite a large population (more than half of the US) and trying to subdue the peoples of that country is not possible unless the US is going to bring up the draft again and then again its still very unlikely (do you actually think even a million US soldiers can maintain a government over 180 million people). this is a very complicated situation and calling US "too chicken" is very immature
2007-07-02 14:54:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by 3nathn 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Because diplomacy works sometimes, it did not work with the other countries mentioned. War is not a hobby, it depends on the circumstances. Afghanistan attacked the US by openly supporting al queda, should we not have attacked Afghanistan because they are smaller? Iraq had a history of attacking its neighbors, violating UN resolutions and developing weapons programs most of the worlds intel agencies confirmed. Besides if Iran sponsors terrorism why not ask some other entity to invade it, like the EU?
2007-07-02 14:52:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
If the Republicans had taken the Congress in the last election, the US might very well be at war with Iran. Thankfully, that didn't happen.
The US does not blame Iran for all the problems in the Middle East. That is not accurate. Get your facts right, or you come across as not knowing what you are talking about.
BTW: I didn't vote for Bush, there are 300 million Americans, and we don't all support the actions of the present US government. Please do not confuse the American people with the American government - we are not the same.
2007-07-02 14:56:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by Paul Hxyz 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Iran harbors terrorists and are trying to obtain nuclear weapons. They are also aiding Al Quaeda with weapons in Iraq. This should have been the country invaded instead of Iraq. Now he can't wage war because of the Iraq mistake.
2007-07-02 14:49:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by b_radgmo 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think the military is scared of Iran. The problem is that the military has been downsized so much, and is currently spread so thin around the world that we couldn't handle a war with Iran right now.
2007-07-02 14:46:23
·
answer #8
·
answered by bigdaddy33 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Umm where would the troops come from? Were kinda low on those right now. And besides 2/3rds of the Iranian public actually disagrees with Amidenajad, in the last elections his party lost 2/3rds of the seats. Bombing them would only unite Iran against us and make it more dangerous
2007-07-02 14:46:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by Myles D 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
The 1 billion muslims around the world, which Iran as been trying to unite. Is some what of a problem. Invading Iran could inflame them. Invading Iran is WWIII.
2007-07-02 14:42:41
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anthony S 2
·
3⤊
1⤋
I might not care for the current admin, but I ain't letting some tea sipping wanker badmouth USA. Sod off "mate."
Seriously, more war for profit is not the answer. I'm sure George and Dick would like to invade iran, but hopefully enough of us are awake enough to avoid it.
2007-07-02 14:46:53
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋