do you that america must attack to iran or no?
143853
I think the US has proven to be a more unstable country than any other in the history of modern politics.\n\nInvading 2 countries, throwing out their leadership and installing their own leaders, monopolyzing all corporate interests in those countries (oil, road, electric, etc.) and lying to its own people about its intents ("terror" "weapons of mass destruction" etc.).\n\nUSA is a frightening place to the International arena it would seem.\n\nName any country that has caused so much destruction.
440338
no cuz we dont have enough troops and money to start a war with Iran. but with Bush we never know what he will do next, like a drunk guy, you never know were he will stumble to.
318311
yes he will have them, and yes he may misuse it by attacking other countries, and no the usa cant attack iran cuz if the us did it will turn the world to hell
439676
I totally agree.  I'm in Iraq right now, and I really don't wanna be shipped out to Iran over some dreamed up threat.  The only reason these terrorists attack us is because we can't keep our nose out of other countries business.  If we hadn't been in Saudi Arabia than Al Queda wouldn't have been all upset with us.  I don't see why we can't find another means for fuel other than relying on our enemies.  It doesn't make any sense.  Wait yes it does, everyone in Washington is rich because of oil!  They don't wanna see it go.  \n\nThe U.S. dropped the biggest bombs in history, not Iran.  So why exactly are we allowed to have nukes?  Because we'll use them "responsibly" I guess.  Haha, what a joke!   (oh, and Roosevelt knew about and could have prevented Pearl Harbor.  So don't act like that was justified.)
614090
America and the others (axis of evil) will always find a reason to install puppet government's. The nuclear Iran problem is just like the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq was supposed to have. America will go and attack because of the supposed threat and then a few years later it will turn out to be wrong information, by which time so many people will have been killed.
606651
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?
260342
Using military forces...No.\n\nBUT\n\nI think they will manipulate the World Economy so America collapses under economic ruin...especially if ANY military action is taken against Iran.
355628
it would be a total disaster if so.  it would require an occupation, since only bombing iran would allow them to retaliate against the iraq, israel, and afghanistan as well as automatically providing al-qaida with its strongest ally ever.  iran would be able to launch terrorist attacks around the world if it was bombed. an occupation would also be a disaster.  iraq is tough enough, and there most of the population supports the US.  Any occupation of a country where the people like their gov. (as in iran) is much more difficult than an occupation where the people were oppressed by their gov. (like iraq)
857440
I agree - we can't win in Iraq without addressing Iran and Syria, who are supplying the terrorists.\n\nSadly, I doubt America's politicians or public have the will to do it.
42168
I don't understand. US suggests they want to attack Israel. But Iran has already tons of WMD's and an outstanding army (nothing to do with the Taliban Afghanistan, or the isolated Sadam), besides the great power of being the fourth reserve of oil, and the economic power it represents.  \nIran says they want nuclear power, to be a developed country. But it's not necessary to have nuclear power to develop. Many European countries or the neighbour Arab Emirats, are more than developed wihtout nuclear power. \n\nA military strike would be the worse option. If they want to have nuclear power or even nukes, they should, like many other countries, even with dictators do. Only because they don't have a good relationship with Israel or US, it shouldn't be banned. \nIf in 10 years they dare to attack someone with nukes, they will be easily smashed back. \nI mean they might be extremists, but they're not suicides.
618415
It maybe.In fact we as people have no idea.But the thing is that as there are lots of radicals in Iran who are ready to be  suicide bomber,America will be stuck in iran.
41523
Your country's "President" needs to be wiped off the face of this earth and all it's Mullahs stripped of their power and moolah. ;-)\n\nOtherwise, I think we should nuke Iran.
145192
Prepare yourself for the unthinkable: war against Iran may be a necessity. Will it be doomsday. i think not, unless Iran becomes a nuclear power.\n\nTHE UNIMAGINABLE but ultimately inescapable truth is that we are going to have to get ready for war with Iran.  Confronted with nightmarish perils we instinctively choose to seize the opportunity to blame Bush and the right, cursing our domestic opponents for the situation they’ve put us in. \n\nThe rapidly intensifying crisis with regard to Iran exemplifies the phenomenon. \n\n While we were chasing phantom nuclear weapons in Mesopotamia, next door Iran was busy building real ones. Now we are enfeebled, militarily and politically, our diplomatic tools blunted beyond repair by the errors in Iraq. \n\n All that matters now is what we do. \n\nThe unavoidable reality is that we now need urgently to steel ourselves to the ugly probability that diplomacy will not now suffice: one or way or another, unconscionable acts of war may now be unavoidable. \n\nThose who say war is unthinkable are right. In the nuclear age, no one wins.  Military strikes, even limited, targeted and accurate ones, will have devastating consequences for the region and for the world.\n\nA war, even a limited one, will almost certainly raise oil prices to recession-inducing levels, as Iran cuts itself off from global markets. The loss of Iranian supply and the already stretched nature of production in the Arab world and elsewhere means prices of $150 per barrel are easily imaginable. Military strikes will foster more violence in the Middle East, strengthen the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, fuel anti-Western sentiment among Muslims everywhere and encourage more terrorism against us at home. \n\nAll true. All fearfully powerful arguments against the use of the military option. But multiplied together, squared, and then cubed, the weight of these arguments does not come close to matching the case for us to stop, by whatever means may be necessary, Iran from becoming a nuclear power. \n\nThe refusal of the current Iranian leadership to accept the Holocaust as historical fact is simply a recognition of their own plans to redefine the notion as soon as they get a chance (“Now this is what we call a holocaust”). But this threat is only, incredibly, a relatively small part of the problem. \n\nIf Iran goes nuclear, it will demonstrate conclusively that even the world’s greatest superpower, unrivalled militarily, under a leadership of proven willingness to take bold military steps, could not stop a country as destabilising as Iran from achieving its nuclear ambitions. \n\nSomething short of military action may yet prevail on Iran. Perhaps sanctions will turn their leadership from its doomsday ambitions. Perhaps Russia can somehow be persuaded to give them an incentive to think again, perhaps people will let by gones be by gones and live happily ever after. But we can’t count on this optimistic scenario now. And so we must ready ourselves for what may be the unthinkable necessity.
610665
Within few months of America attacking Iran
84647
I don't know where you heard the American people want to kill you, but it's completely false. The vast majority of the American people want Iranians to have freedom to choose their path in life without fear of an opressive government. Americans would gladly support Irans people in building a free and prosperous nation which would be welcomed with open arms by all nations. The problem is the Iranian government talking about using nuclear weapons in premptive attacks. Its not the people, its the government.
148428
This is a country that has been openly preaching hate and advocating obliteration of its enemies for nearly thirty years. I HOPE the U.S. attacks Iran rather than allowing it to become a nuclear power. I'm afraid that if it does, it will have to carry the burden by itself, because the rest of the world has shown itself unenthusiastic for unrewarding but necessary hardships.
109426
Not going to happen. Europe and the US going to war with Iran is a possibility.