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

31 answers

Yes, but that would be totally in character for the current administration.

2007-07-13 07:29:42 · answer #1 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 5 5

We are already at war with Iran whether people want to accept that or not. Iran has been funding and supplying terrorists in Iraq since we went in. Iran considers Iraq its "western lung" historically speaking dating back to the various Persian Empires of the past. Iran is working hard to ensure we lose heart in Iraq, leave, and then it can take a big step towards dominating both the political and economical (i.e. oil which is the life's blood of the world's economy whether people want to accept that or not) future in the Middle East. Before the libs start screaming, I have been against the way we have run this war for a long time. The idea was right, the execution was too weak. Saddam showed one thing, you need to be a ruthless scumbag to rule that place and with the libs in the media and others here screaming about human rights and the rights of these killers, we were not capable of doing what needs to be done. So bury your spoiled little American heads in the sand, vote for anyone that will pull out of Iraq in 2008, vote for peace and whatever, but just like Europe in the 1930's, you can want something, but there is no guarantee it will happen. This is a war the world has not seen before, especially if Iran gets nukes and God forbid Pakistan becomes a fanatical Muslim state which is a strong possibility. Tell me what you think then.

2007-07-13 15:04:24 · answer #2 · answered by william k 5 · 3 2

We, who the fu*ck is we.

America has no right there, as is the case with Iraq, and I shall repeat what I have said before, in that if just one child is killed by American or British bombs or guns, then what arguement does any reasonable man have against people from Iran, who would be seen as freedom fighters in their own Country, coming to the UK or the US with bombs for our own children.

The butchery we have seen in Iraq must not happen in Iran, and if it does, then it will come to side taking, in the whole of the Middle East will be lit up in flames.

These politicians and oil men, all greedy little murdering bastards, are happy to start a war, murdering millions from all sides, what do they care, and all to add more millions to their already ample millions.

To those who might say, American idiots and the ar*se licking Brits, who ought to know better, that Iran is starting a Nuclear arms race in the Middle Easat, get this, America did that they day they armed Israel with nuclear bombs, and that was a long time ago.

Lies and damned lies, all of it.

2007-07-17 07:01:07 · answer #3 · answered by manforallseasons 4 · 1 0

Yes it will be a huge mistake. Not only is Iran developing a Nuclear Arsenal, if we go to war with Iran, we will get into further war with North Korea. We will get into war with Syria since Iran and Syria have a mutual defense pact for in times of war. Russia will get involved out of feeling a threat. Soon enough China will get involved and with the largest conventional army in the world, they'll be tough to beat.

2007-07-13 14:42:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

The United States of America has more reasons to go to war with Iran today than they did to go to war with Iraq. It is a nation that can have nuclear capabilities very soon (and that's a fact, unlike Saddam's nuclear weapons), and is led by a maniac who publicly admits to wanting to "wipe Israel off the map". Considering that Israel is the United State's biggest ally in the region, the United States might as well take that as a direct threat to itself. We can't be so naive as to buy the Iranian propaganda of "only nuclear energy, no weapons". The world ignored Hitler's first steps into war, we shouldn't ignore Ahmadinejad's "peaceful" intentions for nuclear energy.

2007-07-13 16:27:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Yes, Iran is very well armed in comparison with either Iraq, or Afghanistan. It has always been seen as part of Russia's field of influence by the Russians, they might not get directly involved but they might throw a lot of weapons Iran's way.

The US would certainly loose less soldiers than the Iranians, but would that really count as a win?

There is an 11 million man militia in Iran, if they all had man portible anti-tank, and anti-aircraft missiles, it would be total slaughter for US/Allied troops.

And unfortunantly, the missiles the Iranian's have are mostly American TOW missiles because of exports in the late seventies...d'oh!

Oh, and the price of oil might go up just a tad!

2007-07-13 17:09:46 · answer #6 · answered by Andrew W 4 · 1 3

Depends on the type of warfare. I don't think a land invasion or occupation would be a good idea. At some point not going to war with the lunitics who run that country might be a disaster for us and the rest of the world. Do we really want religious fanatics to have nuclear weapon capabilities?

2007-07-16 23:42:14 · answer #7 · answered by jason b 2 · 0 1

War with Iran would initiate a Third World War, only this time it would be more religion based.No one,not even Bush,dare go to war with Iran because of this.You will see some kind of diplomatic stand-off to avert a new war.

2007-07-13 14:37:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

no. Iran at this moment is a pain in the **** but that is all. if we leave them they will get nukes. they have been procuring the materials through Europe for years this is fact.

if we deal with them now we can hopefully stop a potential NUCLEAR conflict in the not so distant future.

the truth is that the liberal appeasers are going to do the same as they did in the 30's with Hitler; then we are all up sh*t creak without a paddle

2007-07-13 16:58:44 · answer #9 · answered by mowhokman 4 · 1 1

Yes! We have enough on our plate already!And the last thing we need is World War Three!
AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO IS SICK OF WAR?
If Bush is so eager to start a war with Iran, let him go fight it, and leave our soldiers out of it! They don't get to say where they are deployed, and for what reasons they are fighting!
It is so easy to sit on our backsides and play wartime quarterback, and say we should go here and do this! Or go there and do that!
We were attacked on 911! Did we go after the ones who attacked? NO, we went after Sadaam, and his fictional WMD!Everyone is so worried that we will be attacked again! And if we are, will we go after the ones who did it, or will we go after Bush's next made up villain?
For a change, why don't we mind our own business and take care of our country! It's not like we don't have any problems that need to be addressed! Is It?
If and when Iran decides to attack Israel, then we can decide what WE will do to help them!

2007-07-13 16:43:16 · answer #10 · answered by jaded 4 · 2 3

Who's going to war with Iran? Do you think going to war with England is a big mistake? I mean, the War of 1812, what was that about? We owe 'em one!

2007-07-13 14:32:45 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers