how do you think the U.S. should handle Iran? diplomatic or war?
345177
The us is already at war with iraq and terrorism mainly. if we were to go to war with iran our problem would be multiplied by a catastrophic amount possibly leading to world war three.\n\nI also disagree with the person right before me it is a problem to every one . iran will want to use those weopons on the first person that pisses them off they are a ticking time bomb.
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.
459616
Personally I do not think that we need to go nuclear on anyone. Iran is a Middle Eastern country that we should not have involvement in. This country (US) is great on spreading democracy but other than oil what is our interest there? Why in the world do we need to be making everyone do our bidding? We need to focus in this country on how to improve our own job situations, education, over population, excessive oil use, and  focus on our country not theirs. That is my opinion.
563523
First of all the US has never threatened war with Iran.\n\nWe have never threatened military action.\n\nAll of the 'threats' are being made by people who do not speak for the US government.  The truth of the matter is that every nation wants the US to resolve the Iran problem militarily - but does not want to be seen as supporting that action.\n\nSad that you did not catch this.
669035
probaly Iran,almost any mid-east country,,North Korea,,,but I think we should just bring all the troops home,,park them around the country's borders,,place the Navy on the east and west coast oceans,,,and worry about our own country,,most of those third world countrys don't like us, don't want us there,,so lets get out,,let them kill each other off for what ever dumb religious reason they have, but thats just my opinion
786455
Well Iran has been wanting to talk with the US for a while now.  When the Pres of Iran wrote his letter to Bush he said that he would love to talk to the US to discuss options.  Yet we just blew him off and talked about military options.  We make Iran to be this big bad guy but if we were to just listen to what they really say instead of listen to what just the media and our own govt tell us...we'd understand it better.
868739
As of right now US cant invade Iran because it does not have the support of the American people and the UN. \nIran is not like Iraq its military is more advanced and better trained. Starting a war with Iran might trigger a war with the Muslim nations thus before starting a war with Iran a lot of pros and cons must be considered and a lot of allies are required and some from Muslim nations.
56062
Be real.  It's not just the US concerned about it, it's pretty much the rest of the world.  Iran cannot be trusted with it and that's that, their government is always unstable and you don't know who'll be controlling the nukes next year.
266377
Prepare yourself for the unthinkable: war against Iran may be a necessity. THE UNIMAGINABLE but ultimately inescapable truth is that we are going to have to get ready for war with Iran. \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. Military strikes, even limited, targeted and accurate ones, will have devastating consequences for the region and for the world. \n \n\nIf Iran gets safely and unmolested to nuclear status, it will be a threshold moment in the history of the world, up there with the Bolshevik Revolution and the coming of Hitler. \n\n\nAnd the kind of society we live in and cherish in the West, a long way from Tehran or Damascus, will change beyond recognition. We balk now at intrusive government measures to tap our phones or stop us saying incendiary things in mosques. Imagine how much more our freedoms will be curtailed if our governments fear we are just one telephone call or e-mail, one plane journey or truckload away from another Hiroshima. \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. But we can’t count on this optimistic scenario now. And so we must ready ourselves for what may be the unthinkable necessity.
640884
Hopefully never. Even though Iran's push for enriched uranium is totally wrong, for the US to go and attack another arabic nation would open up a whole new bag of worms. I think Bush and his mates should get over themselves. Violence solves nothing...just causes more pain for more people.
87620
The odds are that a coalition will end up attacking Iran.  They can do alot to "placate" the world, but every day we wait they are getting closer to destabilizing the entire region.  Those who think the military cannot handle another engagement, bullpuckey.  We can call up ALL reserve and guard troops, we can start conscription, and we would WIN!  I hope like hell this does not happen, but America will not be bullied, or allow one country, JUST like Iraq, to threaten the WORLD's (not Cheney's or Bush's) oil supply.  If it was disrupted for any length of time, with a regional war, or by the theocracy in Iran(backed up with Nukes), the WORLD economy would go into instant depression.  \n\nThen who would we blame???  People forget that the entire WORLD needs peace and free access to resources, that way we all can prosper!
210852
of course peace should be the target for everybody in this world,but FAIR PEACE.\nif usa or israel or anybody else attacked IRAN or any other nation,its logic that they should defend themselve by attacking back.
311108
No, I don't think America should do this. They must learn from their past experiences...(Vietnam, Iraq..). Its the war of OIL. and let me tell you that Iran is not Iraq or Vietnam, and America knows it very well.\nAnd why the hell Americans love to be the global POLICE. They have everything with them(Nuclear weapons), but nobody else could have it. What is this non sense.
390150
Here's a conversation I had with an Iranian yesterday:\n\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:22:40 PM): hi\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:23:12 PM): i want to talk to you about the question you asked\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:23:28 PM): Sure\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:24:04 PM): which question?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:24:35 PM): The question about supporting military action against Iran\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:24:39 PM): OK\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:24:45 PM): What do you know about Iran?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:24:59 PM): And about persian people?\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:25:15 PM): I know that the Iranian President wants a war with the United States\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:25:51 PM): so it should cause milions of people and children to die?\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:26:11 PM): What, war with the US?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:26:23 PM): Yes\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:26:46 PM): The war which hasn't started, and in not going to start\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:27:05 PM): No, I don't believe that. I believe the Iranian government is trying to push the US into a war to prove some kind of point\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:28:04 PM): I don't think Iran's people agree with it, nor do they want a war, when Iran threatens the US or US allies with missile strikes or threatens to take a country out, that is pretty much a call to war\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:28:32 PM): OK\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:28:44 PM): So you mean you support it, right?\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:29:06 PM): But, think about this, if someone had a gun and threatened to shoot you, what would you do in reaction?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:29:47 PM): If i knew that the gun isn't real and it cant never hurt me, i wouldn't take a serious reaction\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:30:05 PM): I don't know that I do support it, but I can sympathize with people who are threatened militarily. It doesn't mean I want war, it just means I understand why they feel that way\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:30:26 PM): So what about us?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:30:33 PM): What about OUR feelings?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:30:42 PM): No one cares about them\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:31:39 PM): I feel that you are not in disagreement with your government leaders, however I do care about the millions of people caught in the middle, such as yourself. You don't want war any more than our people\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:32:07 PM): I don't disagree with the government?!!!\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:32:24 PM): No one agrees with them\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:32:35 PM): I don't think it will even become a physical war, just a war of words... like two men who flex their mustles to try to prove who's stronger\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:33:21 PM): So you agree that it's okay to say that your government will wipe a country out of existence?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:33:28 PM): I think it's pretty obvious that who's stronger, there's no need to war\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:33:57 PM): They can't do that ! They can't\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:34:39 PM): I don't care about them, you can send them to the hell, so that we can breathe easy\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:34:47 PM): But i'm worried about the people, children, lovers, memories\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:35:49 PM): They're deciding on their own, there's no one who supports or agrees with them\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:36:05 PM): Same here, that's why I don't understand why Iran would want to threaten powerful nations like Israel and the US\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:36:11 PM): Except some stupid people like themselves\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:36:27 PM): Iran doesn't want this\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:36:46 PM): Ahmadi nejad wants so\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:36:54 PM): Neither does the US. I think the only ones that want it are the news media because it means ratings\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:37:48 PM): So what about the people? When are they gonna decide about their own future?\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:38:09 PM): who? your people? our people?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:38:30 PM): our people\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:38:54 PM): Yo
670545
America’s Options Against Iran. Iran’s nuclear program is a matter of concern. The real question, of course, is “what can the United States do about it?”\n\nThe options are negotiate, launch aerial attacks to take out the nuclear program, or to enact regime change through one means or another. Negotiation is not exactly an option – Iran has pretty much ruled out any deal that would limit its nuclear weapons program. There is also the fact that the Israelis will not patiently sit by while the Iranians use negotiations to buy time to continue their nuclear weapons development. These two factors leave only the option of stopping the program through air attacks or regime change.\n\nAir attacks have huge problems. Iran has a widely-dispersed nuclear program. There are at least 23 cities (plus uranium mines) in this program. However, targeting does not just involve the nuclear program. Iran also has a huge missile program. There are 40 cities or islands involved with Iran’s missile program, which also would need to be hit – so as to limit or preferably eliminate delivery options for the Iranians. This means at least 63 sites have to be hit in order to guarantee a major disruption to the Iranian nuclear program and its delivery system.\n\nThe type of air attack involved would probably be on the order of the first day of the 1991 Gulf War, in which a devastating air attack was launched over a month’s time. Even that devastating attack was not enough to prevent Saddam Hussein from launching missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia in the 1991 Gulf War. In 2003, special operations forces were able to prevent a large number of launches, but their use is a huge step forward. Iran has some modern planes (particularly the MiG-29 Fulcrum), but the majority of their aircraft are old F-14As, F-4 Phantoms, J-7 Fishbeds, and F-5E Tigers. An air campaign would be able to hit the sites, and degrade the program. Iranian response would unpredictable, though.\n\nThe best option to guarantee a halt to Iran’s nuclear weapons program is to overthrow the imams. There are two ways this can be done; sponsoring the domestic opposition (which has significant popular support), or through an invasion. The former option has worked in the past. In the 1980s, the CIA was able to keep the Polish Solidarity movement functioning as an opposition movement despite martial law and opposition by the Polish and Russian secret police. That said, the effort took eight years, and the CIA back then was run by William Casey. Today’s CIA has become more of a bureaucracy, and much more risk-averse. The other problem with such an effort is that the situation in Iran is markedly different in two respects: Poland did not have a lengthy history of sponsoring terrorist attacks, nor was that country trying to develop nuclear weapons.\n\nThe other option is an invasion. This is probably the touchiest option. Currently, Iraq involves 17 American  brigades and three division headquarters. Afghanistan involves another division headquarters and three brigades. The 2nd Infantry Division is pretty much committed to defending the Republic of Korea. Two more divisions are carrying out peacekeeping in various parts of the world (the Sinai, Kosovo, and Bosnia being major deployments on that front). This is seven out of 24 divisions available (12 active, 8 National Guard, 3 active Marine, one reserve Marine). The Army is arguably stretched thin, since some divisions will have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. Until the situation in Iraq stabilizes or additional divisions are formed up, that will remain the case. Iraq has become an insurgency, and those take time (usually five to ten years). Iran would, in all likelihood, develop a similar insurgency. That will further tie down American forces in the region.\n\nThe options against Iran are limited, in large part due to the “peace dividend” of the 1990s, in which eight active-duty and four National Guard divisions were dis
52865
see what results of Europe's talks(which are becoming worse and worse) then use sanctions and arrange for military capabilities to be optimized against Iran, possibly sending another Aircraft carrier to the region. Get Iraq under control to free up military power in case Iran immerses itself into its Nuke making program. (there is no doubt that it is producing the technology and material to make nukes and has the intention to.)
524299
Personally, I think we should step aside and let Israel take care of Iran for us.  We could claim total ignorance.