explain.
2007-11-17 09:57:25 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
No, because they are neither an imminent threat nor a long-term threat.
2007-11-17 10:04:48 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. Empire is not a good thing. We can't afford the pointless imperial slaughter in Iraq, and there is no reason (again) that we should attack Iran. Would you like to know why Iranians tend not to like the US government? Could it be because we assassinated their president during the period when they had a democracy, overthrew that government, and installed a dictator? Or perhaps it was when we funded Iraq's invasion of Iran after they overthrew the dictator we installed? Nope, couldn't be. The current government in Iran is hardly a good thing, but an invasion and inevitable slaughtering of hundreds of thousands is hardly the way to change things. When they've had enough, the people of Iran will hopefully be able to foment a revolution. Until they have gotten fed up with the state of things, however, there will be little chance for the construction of popular social order.
2007-11-17 18:06:07 · answer #2 · answered by Diagoras of melos 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Attacking Iran is the absolute worse thing we could do. Ahmadinejad and Chavez have challenged OPEC to stop pricing the cost of a barrel of oil in USD. Our economy is collapsing before our very eyes & the dollar is barely worth the paper it is written on.
(compared to the value of the the USD during the Clinton administration ((92 - 93)) - it has fallen from being worth $1.44 to approximately $0.70.)
Additionally... "Chavez ominously warned that oil -- currently camped out just below $100 usd a barrel -- could hit $200 usd if the US continues with its aggressive stance against either Iran or Venezuela." ~~> http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/172007167188.htm
Messing with Iran would be a BAD move!!!
2007-11-20 00:13:41 · answer #3 · answered by LADY beautiful mind (is sexy) 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not without instituting a draft. Iran would not be the pushover that Iraq was, especially with our troops spread as thin as they are now.
I can think of other good reasons not to. They are not a threat to us. Even if they develop the bomb, and I believe they are working on it. As the old joke goes, ''they may be crazy, but they're not stupid''. Iran could have about a dozen nukes right now, but if they tried to use them against Israel, which has hundreds, it would be suicide.
It would drive away the few friends and allies we have left.
2007-11-17 18:02:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
on what basis. what authority do (by we i'm assuming you mean the US) you have to attack Iran? the most ridicuous suggestion ever. if iran are as dangerous as the oh so reliable american intel suggests than sanctions etc would make more sense than anything else. who one earth wants another cuban missile crisis? this time we might not all be so lucky
i dont understand why america, britain, russia etc etc can be trusted with nuclear technology but Iran cant. all of the above are just as untrustworthy as iran
2007-11-17 18:02:19 · answer #5 · answered by high insomniac 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We don't need to attack Iran and therefore shouldn't. If Israel thinks air strikes will slow Iran's bomb developments enough to make it worth while they will handle it. Personally I don't see much difference with Iran then I saw with North Korea a few years back when it comes to nuclear bomb development. Iran has every reason to want the bomb because they've seen how we give more leeway to countries with such weapons. Short of actually invading Iran I also fail to see how we can prevent Iran from ultimately attaining the goal of producing a nuclear device, and if we bomb them to delay the process they are much more likely to attack us with one when they finally do get them.
2007-11-17 18:07:01 · answer #6 · answered by Nicholas A 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Not today, We should have attacked them in 1979, and maybe we may have no choice to attack Iran in the next 5 years.
But honestly It will be totally up to Iran, and our voters.
And I hope we don't have the need to. But if we do I hope we have the leadership who will get in there and get it done.
2007-11-17 18:06:18 · answer #7 · answered by SFC_Ollie 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No way! America is already fighting a war in Iraq. If America attacked Iran there would be another war. Which means more U.S soldiers would die .
2007-11-17 18:03:39 · answer #8 · answered by JJ 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
no.....much of the reasons we have problems in the middle east is our oil dependancies......
what we should do is become energy self-reliant, and upon becoming independant of foreign fuel, we know longer need to worry about the stability of the region and do not have to invest our beliefs and concerns in the region....and willnot have to kiss butt so we can pay theives 100+ dollars per barrell for oil, along with stinkin foreign aid to the Saudi Royal family in bribes.....
we need a President that isn't afraid to tell the middle east to pound sand....and mandate renewable energies, like solar, hydrogen power and other viable energies right now and not someday when it becomes a desperate situation.... our entire economy is being swolloed up by the likes of Iran, Venezuela, and the Saudis... who live in multi million dollar mansions with fleets of million dollar sports cars and luxury, while their people live in squalor and blame the U.S. and western countries for exploiting their wealth???????
2007-11-17 18:10:08 · answer #9 · answered by Twinkie Thief 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Our war in Iraq has been a disaster. What makes you think a war with Ahmanijedad's Iran will work? Balony. So my answer is no.
2007-11-17 18:26:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No we should stay out of iran
2007-11-17 21:02:40 · answer #11 · answered by bob P 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋