Has Iran crossed the line?

Question

What should the U. S. dohttp://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2212071,00.html now?

Answer 1

As Americans we should demand alternative fuel sources to release ourselves from the grip of middle eastern oil and all the evil that comes from trying to control it.

Also as Americans we owe it to ourselves to become informed as to why things end up the way they do in that region. Look at what we did there a few decades ago, which lead to the hostage crisis and consequently the turban heads infesting Iran to the detriment of the Iranian people and the world. (see link below)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

Iran would have had a Swiss educated pro-western leader and would have been an invaluable ally and a stable force in the region now, if it wasn't for our support of the corrupt Shah, as we staged a coup, and killed innocent Iranians to keep our puppet in power there and our hand in the oil cookie jar. Many people didn't knwo why our hostages were taken. Incredible some people still think it was because "They hate our freedoms"!!!

Keeping another country from nuclear technology and from arming themselves as we arm their neighbors is nothing short of hypocritical. If WMD's are bad, then we shouldn't hand them out to their neighbors either. We armed Iraq and regretted it. We armed OBL and regretted it. We supported an Islamic Republic to infiltrate Afghanistan and Iran in the late 70's/early 80's to thwart the Soviet threat of expansion and we've regretted it. And someday, when Israel destabilizes the region with all the WMD's and nuclear capabilities we've provided for them, we're going to regret arming them to the teeth too.
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/07/30/10142783.html

Our interventionism and short sighted alliances have cost us our safety and will cost us our prominance in terms of our global standing. We create a domino effect when we set what we think are controlled fires, but the inferno of our actions always comes back to haunt us, sometimes decades later. It's called "blowback" and it's the reprecussion of our own atrocious actions. We continue to shower Israel with nuclear and state of the art arms far beyond what it would take to annihilate the region several times over and yet we want the others to sit back, grin and bear it?

########
Edit:
Yikes. Who's voting on answers today?
Better star it and get some educated people to come out and play... lol

.

Answer 2

yet another assumption... Netanyahu isn't afraid of Iran, he's careful by using fact he would be unable to have confidence Iran, no you will they are the main important supporter and financier of terrorism interior the worldwide. Iran's LEADERS are the difficulty, not the people. Israel has the desirable military interior the entire center East, back in 1967 in the process the 6th Day's conflict the avert Egyptian army, Syrian and Jordanian forces that attacked the rustic interior six days. could you like a TERRORIST like Ahmadinejad to have get right of entry to to a nuclear weapon? No, that's entire stupidity...

Answer 3

They crossed the line a long time ago and they are playing the dare game with the U.S. and Israel.

Personally I believe the U.S. shouldn't take military action against them until Iran strikes with it's nuclear weapon. Then the country should be decimated. But economic sanctions should be placed on the country. More importantly America should take the 100s of billions it spends on the war, and use some of it to promote alternate energy use. Priority number ons should be to cut dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Let the Chinese buy that stuff.

I'd rather pay $5 or $6 a gallon and know that the oil is not from Arab, Farsi, or Muslim countries.

Answer 4

When ever I see questions such as this It verifies my belief that Americans have completely lost their ability to discern fact from fiction.. It would seem that by now someone should realise that our Governments preoccupation with Iran's pursuit of nuclear power has nothing to do with their desire or lack thereof , to develop nuclear weapons, any more than the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with weapons of mass destruction.

The real concerns about Iran have more to do with Their strategic location, modern army and the oil reserves it sits on.
While Iran has enormous oil reserves , it has no refining capabilities, and must import fuel. Their options are to develop and build nuclear power plants or build refineries.
Contrary to popular belief, the Iranians are not morons. With out power they cannot compete in today's world market or can they raise the standard of living for it's own citizens. Unlike the leaders of certain other countries who will go unnamed, it seems the Iranians have adopted a sensible approach to the coming global crisis involving the use of fossil fuels.
Iran derives most of it's income from the sale of oil , a diminishing resource which, by most accounts , has been depleted by more than 50% most during the past 50 years or so. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what the world has to look forward to in fifteen or twenty years. Iran already exerts tremendous influence in the Middle East, but their economy, which is based almost entirely on oil is in peril, and any society that is dependant on a single commodity is tenuous at best. and venerable and as long as they remain so dependant can look forward to nothing but decline or domination by anyone who has the capability to disrupt the supply or sale of said commodity. The primary market for Iranian oil is Europe, our allies {sort of} , so interfering with the production or supply is for the present not an option , so the United States must find an alternative means to curtail the influence and power of Iran, and the best way to do it is to prevent them from freeing themselves from dependence on oil. If Iran is freed from this dependence while the US and other western nations persist in using oil as their life blood it puts the Iranians in the drivers seat.
The nuclear weapons argument is ludicrous. Pakistan is a military dictatorship that has threatened It's neighbor India ,a democracy with Nukes. They were responsible for the establishment of the Taliban in Afghanistan, harbor Al Qaeda within their borders , and at present have suspended civil liberties, and we have given them ten billion dollars in aid.


When ever the United States Government, and most other governments as well , outline their reasons for doing anything. one would be well advised to look beyond the rhetoric and examine the issues carefully from all sides before making the assumption that the stated reasons for any of their actions are related in anyway to the true purpose. The stated reasons for doing anything are probably subterfuge with a catch word label. After seventeen years of working for the Federal Government, I can tell you unequivocally that the modus operandi is to make a lot of noise over there , so no one sees what you are doing over here.

The question is superfluous. It's a straw man argument. By the way, the only country in the middle east that is a rogue nation visa vie nuclear weapons is Israel and for those who still think that the stated secondary reasons for the invasion of Iraq were the violation of UN resolutions, Israel has been in violation of said resolutions for over half a century, and I don't see any plans to invade. The real reasons have yet to be discovered. I suspect that dollars and the lack of good sense are the over riding factors , more than bombs. After all considering the previous assessment, We can see that the United states is just a Label which would more accurately be described The United Corporations of America.

Answer 5

maybe we could use the same technology we used to make the tsunami in indo and hurricane katrina. i think we should pass the nuclear buck to russia and china. and make the liable for any problems the come out of iran. and worse case scenario, a bomb goes off in the USA. our response, all out destruction. we try but we can not be responsible for the world and let history show in twenty years that the USA tried and also let it note those that stood in the way.

Answer 6

Ask Israel and the over 35 supporters of Israel who work as "senior advisers" in the White House. They organised the attack on Iraq and these same people will attack Iran as soon as they are ready

Answer 7

Fighting wars on three fronts would devastate the US military as it is now. Unlike past conflicts entered by this administration, I think we have to exhaust all options before taking the military road. The stakes in this are far higher than in Iraq or Afghanistan. I think it's also critical that the US work with the other countries mentioned in the article, as well as other countries in the region, to develop some semblance of stability or operational intelligence before committing to military action. I really don't think we can afford to go into this without the 90% solution.

Answer 8

not only the lies that iran has perpetrated over the past few years on the nuke issue, how about the lies being perpetrated about their involvement in Iraq? time to do something.....i'm not sure what. maybe Israel will get this done, they should feel the most threatened. plausible deniability is firmly in place.

disgusting thing is, when senators vote to call the quds force a terror org, 22 senators vote no. 2 reps and 20 dems.

when confronted to learn why, it seems they are more worried about how Mr. Bush WILL RESPOND to iran killing our men and women in uniform, versus the FACT that iran is killing our men and women!

Answer 9

Given that we are making progress in Iraq I feel like diverting the attention of US troops from Iraq and bombing and possibly toppling the Government of a bordering country is the worst mistake we could make.

Answer 10

They are still not making a nuke if you read the entire article and by international law they are allowed to have nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Iran would have signed an treaty not to enrich uranium for a nuke, but it had a condition that Israel had to admit it's stockpile of nukes to the international community. Israel refused so now Iran refused to sign the treaty.