2007-11-22 23:04:03 · 11 answers · asked by alphabetsoup2 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's ok. Come out from under the bed. There will be no war in Iran.
The issue won't be resolved in any case. It will linger and you will ask your question again with a different set of names.
Experienced war-gamers conclude that the U.S. has few options to stop Iran from obtaining atomic weapons and that a military attack would be the worst choice. Of course the planning goes on. It is what the military does. I'm sure they have a plan to invade East Timor but that event is not imminent. They also have a plan to invade and take over Washington DC. I wouldn't read too much into it though.
The possibility of war against Iran presents a geo-strategic and geopolitical problem of far more complexity than the bombing and occupation of Iraq. And Iraq has proven complicated enough for the United States.
The Iranian Natanz facility is part of the ‘front end’ or fuel preparation cycle. Ore is first milled into Uranium Oxide (U³O8), or ‘yellowcake,’ then converted into Uranium Hexaflouride (UF6) gas. The Uranium Hexaflouride then is sent to an enrichment facility, in this case Natanz, to produce a mix containing 3-4% of fissile U235, a non-weapons-grade nuclear fuel. So far, so good more or less in terms of weapons danger.
2007-11-22 23:27:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Brzezinski is physically powerful and incorrect. they don't have the aptitude to wreck a hundred% of the power, yet they are in a position to wreck adequate. they are in a position to basically wreck a hundred% with usa's help, yet usa does not have the tummy for it. curiously this facility grew to become into being outfitted far some time past. earlier the Iraq war, usa pondered approximately invading Iran for this reason. usa did no longer have the tummy for this as properly and concept Iraq could be a coaching undertaking. properly, it did no longer prove that way. faster or later, Iran might have a nuclear bomb. Israel can shave off a pair many years or years yet thats it. there is not any longer something incorrect with them having a nuclear weapon. The greater the merrier. BOB humorous tale he's polish no longer jewish. Why do you think of all and sundry is Jewish? it is an extremely russian subject to think of.
2016-11-12 11:28:11 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Reading the answers above, I see that the easy explanations like ineptitude and intransigence on the part of the administration have been covered. But even if Bush and Cheney had the skill and the will, it isn't clear that the Iranian leader would settle for anything less than membership in the "Nuclear Club." Don't get me wrong - I blame the administration for this mess, and I'm against war as a solution to anything, but it seems that both sides in this dispute have found their lowest common denominator - intimidation, threats, and cheap propaganda ploys. They deserve one another, but their respective populations deserve better. We should impeach our leaders and encourage the Iranians to overthrow theirs.
2007-11-22 23:46:03 · answer #3 · answered by Who Else? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nobody other then Cheney and his alter ego Rice is interested in a war with Iran, the rest of the world is fine with diplomacy - Bush is just a puppet, nothing between those funny ears.
2007-11-22 23:35:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think with the attitude towards the USA presently, they can't be the lead country on this issue. World opinion of the US is not good and I think that other countries could get further in discussions with Iran than the US. This administration has a woe-full record when it comes to foreign policy.
2007-11-23 00:19:39 · answer #5 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You mean like they did in North Korea. Nice job there boys.
Or maybe Pakistan, nice stable place for nukes there too, GW?
Hell, these pinheads can't even find the guy that attacked America and killed more than 3,000 people. It would be my bet they would need a graphic demonstration to show them what shineola is.
2007-11-23 00:14:46 · answer #6 · answered by Michael S 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bushco has initiated full blown war on terror.All islamos are at risk of destruction.Iran will not be aloud to get nuclear technology's & I think Isreal wants them taken out...the motivation is probable from Isreal.after all what real threat to homeland America is IRAN anyway its laughable..chow freepress
2007-11-22 23:12:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. It would be possible for most people to do so, but most people don't have a hard-on for bombing other nations.
If they had any interest in a peaceful resolution, it would be possible. They don't, so it isn't.
2007-11-22 23:30:13 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It all depends on how much support Ahmadinejad gets from the Democrat Party.
2007-11-22 23:17:42 · answer #9 · answered by dinamuk 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I hope not, Iran should be nuked off the planet.
2007-11-23 07:59:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋