Do you think George Bush will attack Iran? if he attacks Iran, do u think bush has learned more better way of winning a war?
212459
he cannot attack iran without the permission of congress . also this being an election year for congress that wont fly ..so if you dont want war vote democrat..your vote is your voice and if you dont vote dont cry about the shape the country is in.
466100
bush won't talk to him because he knows that Ahmadinejad is much, much smarter than him.  I think a Battle Royal would be the way to go.  I would liek to see bush physically get his ass kicked, rather than mentally like we have seen for 6 years.
187444
Iraq was weak while Iran has a powerful army.  The superpower will only attack countries where it will gain an advantage but also a country wich will pose minumum threat.  If you notice after WW11 and all the countries that the US has had confrontations with (Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Guetemala, Domican Rep.) these were all relatively small countries (economically and militarily).\n\nBasically, the US will never attack Iran, and Iran knows this, thats why their president is talking a whole lot of smack and insisting that the country will continue with the Uranium enrichment program.\n\nAlso from the US perspective, they have Iran conrnered now from all angles, the US has bases in Turkey, Iraq and in the Gulf coast, so they are on constant gaurd if anything would escalate.\n\nIf you are interested in these kind of topics, you should pick up books by Noam Chomsky,  he is a professor at MIT and writes about US foreign policy, his newest book is Hegemony or Survival, and it gives alot of good information on the US and the middle east in particular.  Hope you enjoy!
275072
I think Mr. Ahmadinejad is 100% correct in his assessment of Mr. Bush and his Presidency.  I read the entire letter and agreed with most of it.  I probably agree with him more than I agree with my own President.  I still think it is scary for Iran to have nuclear weapons and hope they will work within the international parameters for nuclear energy.
305587
No. All he's saying is that we are not, at this time, preparing for an attack on Iran. However, the option to attack is still there.
162637
MYSTIC_PINK (Above)Knows The Score\n\nBefore The US Enters Into A WAR With N Korea, The US Will See War With IRAN First-AND Then Also With The Palestinians(Backing Israel)\nThe Above WILL Be Seen During The Present Bush Crime Family Administration\n\nKorea Will Be Seen By The Administration Following That(Also To Be The BUSH Crime Family In An Unprecedented 3RD Term)\n\nToss All That In With The EXISTING Afghani-Iraqi Operations\nWe Have WWIII\n\n***ALSO-The US Is Looking Pretty Good For A CIVIL WAR Right Here At Home In The Near Future\n\nBTW-foster8perk-The"ATTACKS"On 9/11 Were ORCHESTRATED By The Bush Crime Family
242671
If we invade Iran it will be a grave mistake for one they can fight back ,its not as easy as invading Iraq (and we've turned that into an impossible situation). Also my personal opinion is that whilst were pointing the finger at Iran and getting all above ourselves there are bigger nuclear issues  that are being avoided like North Korea and China that have nuclear capability and would without a shadow of a doubt, whilst every ones focus is off them attempt to take over the world. (and could quite possibly succeed)
24528
I'm not going to turn this into an anti or pro Bush diatribe (personally, I'm indifferent to him), but the Iran situation is indeed very serious, and it is not just Bush that thinks so.  France, Germany and Britain have been working on this for many years.  China and Russia are stake holders.  Even the Australia Group has issued an opinion.  What you're observing is simply more attention being paid to the matter by the media (don't forget the European Union has been working on this seriously since at least 2000, even before September 11).  Iran clearly wants nuclear weapons and has made overt threats to use them, which escalates the situation above a mere arms race.  Further, Iran has not been transparent with the program, which is a direct violation of an international treaty which the country signed on its own accord.  However, when the EU-3 first noticed that Iran had broken the treaty and bought the issue to international attention, the Iranians suddenly became indignant -- essentially casting asside an agreeement they had made with civilized society.   However, now the attention of the world's citizens is on Iran, I hope that the same level heads that have been working 'behind the scenes' continue to prevail.
469024
Despite the Anti-American rhetoric from Iran, it doesn't really want to have any major confrontation with the US, especially on a head-to-head basis, as militarily it is far weaker than the US.\n\nIn addition, the US has no real desire at present to send troops into Iran either (it's bad enough fighting battles in both Afghanistan and Iraq without fighting Iran also, since the best combat divisions are already tied up).\n\nIran is well aware that "attacking the US" would provoke a swift and powerful military response in the form of bombings and ship-launched missiles against strategic military targets in Iran, in order to prevent further Iranian attacks. The US would also ensure that Iranian nuclear facilities were well "bombed".\n\nThere would be no need for troops on the ground as the US wouldn't be seeking to invade, merely to punish.\n\nIn some ways an attack on a US ship by Iran would give the US an excuse to attack Iran and halt any nuclear intentions it had for the foreseeable future. \n\nHowever, Iran is not a "helpless kitten".\n\nWhen the USS Vincennes accidentally shot down an Iranian passenger plane, believing it to be a hostile jet, Iran vowed revenge - whatever it took.\n\nLess that 6th months later Pan Am Flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie killing all 270 people on board + 11 townsfolk who were subsequently hit by the falling debris.\n\nAlthough Colonel Gadaffi, who the the favorite whipping boy of the US was blamed, many intelligence agencies outside the US blamed Iran for funding the terrorists and proving the detonators.\n\nThe timing device used on the bomb was found to be similar to a batch sold to Iran 3 months earlier. 3 weeks before the bombing, West German police successful arrested several Arab terrorists who were plotting "to blow up a US plane". Two of the terrorists (now serving 20 years each in a German prison) admitted that Irananian Intelligence had supplied them with money, training and detonators.\n\nSo perhaps the real question is whether the US will cause a confrontation, either deliberably or accidentally with Iran, and how Iran, rather than the US, will react. \n\nMy guess would be a 6 or 7 suicide bombers in Times Square, Wall Street, near the Whitehouse, etc. There is a hell of a lot of "wannabe martyrs" in Iran, but they lack both the training and the funding. Iran can provide both.
215640
I think this is how Bush sees it. This is an analogy. Iran, Osama and N Korea are all school yard bullies. Osama comes and punches you square and hard in the face and runs away and hides, N Korea is just yelling verbal threats but other than that is doing nothing, and Iran is slowly walking to wards you cracking his knuckles, now who would you see as the immediate threat? George sees it as Iran, I dont know about you but thats just from one "Repub"
650216
soon, it definitely depends on Iran - if Iran does not comply and keeps going for nuclear weapons, we will be invading Iran for sure.  \n\nNear-term Iran, However I think China down the road may be WWIII if there ever is one.
172869
I think the U.S.'s idiot of a President would have the guts to go to war with Iran.  It's getting the support of Congress and the people of the U.S. that might be the problem.  Going to war with Iran would be completely stupid because the U.S. is already overextended in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in its war on terrorism.  I do believe something has to be done about Iran, but I really don't know what.  I sure hope it doesn't come to war though.  If it does, I'm moving out of the U.S. for good!
188868
The whole scenario has a sense of deja a vu and burdened with inevitabiilty at the same time....a train on a collision course, as it were. I mean the threats, going to the UN, the stubbornness on both sides, the threat (real or unreal) of WMDs.\n\nMost analysts believe Iran is years away from developing an operational nuke, the earliest estimate is 2012. The US is stretched thin in Iraq, the Natanz facility can only be taken out by a tactical nuke, the Iranian president is spouting off about the apocalyptic strain of Islam, ...\n\nShould we let Israel take care of it?? This is what we have to look forward to, if nothing is done....a 2007 nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran, a humiliating retreat from Iraq by US forces overwhelmed by Iranian-backed militias, and a four-year war between a US led coalition and Iranian-backed Shi'ite forces....pretty bleak, huh.\n\nChina and Russia are still 'rational' nuclear powers and still ascribe to the MAD doctrine. The two wild cards in the whole scenario will be N. Korea and Pres. Bush himself, any move on N. Korea's part to instigate defence of Iran or premptive Stike by the US will bring us to the brink of destruction.
417933
I think that the CIA probably knows more than the White House does about Iran, and if the White House is smart, they will listen to the CIA, and hopefully they will continue to have an open dialogue with Iran. As we learned with Iraq, war is not the way you deal with rogue states.
289230
I have no doubt that the USAA could easily defeat the Iranian Army and Air Force, though they would be harder to defeat than Iraq's.  A long war would cause considerable damage to Iran--at the very least all electrical generating stations would be bombed, you wouldn't be able to use your computer after the first day or two; and there would be no water supply as a result.  Having said all that, most Americans are probably against the war because we're already having enough trouble in Iraq trying to win the peace. \n\nKeep in mind that just because you have an atomic bomb doesn't mean you can actually deliver it anywhere.  If there were a war, any Iranian plane or missile trying to leave Iran would be noted and blasted out of the sky.  And I doubt Iran would try to use the Bomb inside its own country.  And if Iran did manage to drop the Bomb somewhere, it would give the US good reason for appropriate revenge on Iran.  Are you sure you want that?
167154
Its entirely possible.\nIf the Iranian president continues to use Kruschev-like rhetoric then the west will prepare for the worst.\n\nThe Iranian president wants a confrontation.  He continues to make provocative and frightening statements.  With his boasts and threats he gives the west fewer and fewer channels of diplomacy.  Perhaps he believes he can succeed where Saddam failed.\nThe west will not be a Chamberlain.
328587
The U.S. will not attack Iran until Iran uses military force on another country.  The U.S. will, however, impose economic sanctions preventing Iran's economy from emerging from the recession it finds itself in.  As to the second part of your question, yes, a U.S. invasion of Iran will inflict many casualties on the U.S. forces.  However, if you assume that Iran could actually defeat the U.S. in an armed conflict, you are mistaken.