US attack on Iraq cause unstability, terrore reenforcement in Iraq, now what you think if US have attack on Iran this situation won't happen in Iran, and what is easy? to endure Iran with atomic weapons or unstabilize Iran with full of terrorism.
2007-10-31 03:19:20 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Definetly a nuclear Iran is more dangrous
Simply because the Iranians claim to know nothing about their weapons being "stolen" and later "smuggled" into Iraq or Afghanistan. By the thousand. "Small" items like 8 inch rockets, 50 cal sniper rifles and sholder fired anti air missles.
Meaning they (most likely) would develop their bomb, and later claim "it was stolen" - just before it anihilates Manhattan.
Not to mention that Iran already sponsors just about every terrorist movement on our planet. Stomping the mullahs will not make matters worse. It just might stop them from playing with nukes.
2007-10-31 03:57:11 · answer #1 · answered by cp_scipiom 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
WASHINGTON - The United States is not about to attack Iran, the White House said yesterday, amid spiralling tensions over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. “There is no reason for people to think that the president is about to attack Iran, we need to make that clear,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. Asked by reporters if she was sure, she replied: “I’m positive of that, and we’re pursuing a diplomatic track.” Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was headed to Iran yesterday for a surprise visit to meet President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The trip comes just two weeks after a landmark visit Iran by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
2007-10-31 11:01:37 · answer #2 · answered by conranger1 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I find it amazing that anyone would think that IF they were to build Nuclear weapons, they would allow them to end up in terrorist hands.
In case anyone hasn't noticed: Arab governments tend to go to the strongest smartest warlord. The Iranian government knows darn well that if they had nukes and allowed the Taliban to get them, the Taliban would form the next government of Iran.
It would be a situation that is not much different than Pakistan having nukes. The Taliban is obviously looking to take over Pakistan ASAP.
Iran would then be irrelevant.
2007-10-31 14:45:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iran with atomic weapons
2007-10-31 11:33:43 · answer #4 · answered by Peiper 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You don't understand. Iran can not have atomic toys to give to terrorists. There won't be any troops sent to Iran. There won't be any terrorists in Iran. There just won't be any Iran.
2007-10-31 11:27:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
A nuclear iran will rank up there with the Bolshevic Revolution and Hitler coming to power.....
2007-10-31 14:47:35 · answer #6 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Iran with nuclear weapons holding the world hostage is far more dangerous. The US offensive, although aggressive, is the only hope for world stability.
2007-10-31 10:24:26 · answer #7 · answered by mustagme 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
IRAN with Atomic Weapons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-10-31 12:41:02 · answer #8 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thats a 3rd grade question
2007-10-31 10:22:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think both are dangerous but I don't think the US should continue invading other countries without specific provocation. It should be dealt with diplomatically with the support of other nations.
2007-10-31 10:27:59 · answer #10 · answered by the_dragyness 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋