Do you want the next President to try to communicate with Iran or just wage another war?

Question

That is if we don't go to war with them before then.

Answer 1

I think Bush will wage war with Iran before he leaves office. I think he probably has the power through "The War Powers Act" to do so. He can bypass Congress by not declaring it as a war, which DOES require an act of Congress.

He has already stated that he will do what he believes "is the right thing to do" in regards to Iran because he does not believe the next President will have the stomach for it, regardless of party affiliation. His God has spoken.

Diplomacy, Sanctions (incl UN sanctions) then war and then only if it is a threat to our national security. The problem with Bush, he invaded Iraq without waiting for the UN weapons inspectors to finish their job of looking for WMD. He knew if he didn't go in before the weapons inspectors had completed their job (and found no WMD) he would have no other excuse to go in.

I have no reason to believe he won't pre-empt another war before he leaves office, do you?

Answer 2

Last I heard, there is still an ambassador for Iran here in the US, and they still have representation in the UN. There is plenty of communication going on.

But seriously, what is left to communicate? The rhetoric and actions coming from Iran says it all. The only reason they have not been bombed to the stone age yet is because the people of Iran are still our biggest hope for overthrowing the crazy government. If they are going to do something, they better do it soon, or they are going to be in a world of hurt.

Answer 3

What is it you want to talk about with Iran? You don't need to wage a full scale war against Iran to get them to straighten up. I'll you this though, talking to Iran will get you nowhere. The world has been "talking" to Iran for quite some time now and nothing is getting accomplished.

Answer 4

Diplomacy seems to be working just fine with that used to be crazy Kim Jong Il. I remember quite a bit of talk about that deal. We finally sat down and negotiated a solution the same is true for all foreign countries. If you look at foreign governments I think N. Korea is clearly the craziest place on the planet bar none. If you can find a diplomatic solution with them the same can be had anywhere.

Answer 5

Iran is the enormous purpose. that's the 2nd united states, next to Saudi Arabia, with the main oil. additionally, the nuke application is a difficulty, yet that would not could inevitably be stopped with conflict. in actuality, conflict on Iran could be a huge mistake.

Answer 6

Communicate, war would cost wayy to much money and taking care of three countries at once(Iran, afghanistan, Iraq) would be much harder to keep under control from terrorists, not to mention US approval ratings from the rest of the world.

Answer 7

Communication would be best. But if they prove to be untrustworthy and uncooperative, then waging war might have to be an option. But I'm not 100% convinced that Iran is a threat to the United States. Although it is a threat to our efforts in Iraq...

Answer 8

War!! But start assisting those within Iran that want to remove that insane dictator! It's not wise to talk to fool! It's a waste of breath!!

Answer 9

Neither.
Let's let Europe handle Iran.

Answer 10

I don't want to kick down the door on another countrys business but I think if we drop one bomb and a war doesn't start we might save our selves and if we gotta go to war no more wars after that, we just need to proove were dominant to these other countries so they know to knock it off when we say to