Do you think a military stand-off with Iran is eventually inevitable?
354929
NO, not a stand off.  America (and some other countries) will just go in and blow them up.  And it can be made to look like they had an accident.
282419
For those of you who aren't hooked on the History Channel... (I might be a geek...)  If Iran does not comply with requests to shut down its nuclear program (regardless of its intent)... the U.S. primary strike will most likely be from the air.  A ground assault would require 300,000 troops which would put an enormous strain on the Armed Forces already spread into any area Uncle Sam's engorged nose is poked.\n\nBecause Iran most likely keeps terrorists funded, this initial strike may cause an increase of car bombings in Iraq and other places the U.S. has landed itself including, perhaps, her own soil.  Iran would most likely use the same guerilla warfare tactics being used in Iraq.\n\nIran has a professional army of 800,000 plus an untrained organization of recruits that number around 7 million.  One tactic the U.S. may use to prevent a duplication of the Iraq situation is to strike fast and hard from the air and promise that the next attack will be an all out invasion which would level any Iranian threat.  The hope is that the thought of a massive U.S. invasion would quell any Iranian urges to retaliate.\n\nThe problem with Iran is that it is 4 times as big as Iraq and its people are larger in number and different in character.  This is a proud nation, one which has had the longest standing borders of the middle eastern world.  Its a nation with a history of power and prestige.  And as recent history shows us, they have citizens willing to literally throw themselves at the enemy.  (Iraq/Iran war.)\n\nSo will an American attack on Iran prevent their uranium enrichment ambitions?  Maybe.  But let's remember that keeping the Iranian people happy while constraining the Iranian government is an extremely tricky thing to do.  And as long as Iran continues being elusive about their nuclear program and the U.S. adamant about knowing... an attack on Iran might be in our future.\n\nThe New York Times has a report quoting credible sources saying that the U.S. army is already training for an Iranian war.\n\nFor the U.S. government's reasons for going to war, see this link.\nhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123081,00.html
1139447
Nah possibility of a nuclear war with nations is slim but if a terrorist group were to get their hands on a nuke weapon then all bets are off. That's why Iran nuke program must be verifiable before they are allowed to have one - they sponsor terrorism (hezbollah, hamas, etc)
166715
the longer we wait the more causualities there will be.  Something needs to be done with Iran NOW.
192063
Certainly not in near future means woith one year. However, after pulling forces from Iraq, US will try to attempt on Iran.
537394
of Course ! that will be one of US hiding reason after WMD for invade Iran. Bush will take that option coz Iran is a threat for economic and politic of US.especially for rhe democracy program in middle east.
797815
More of a threat to the world than at any other time. It is not just a few small bands of nutjobs, but there are state sponsors, like Iran and Syria. Then there are the proliferators of WMD and delivery technology, like the North Koreans with their missiles, like the Pakistani nuclear scientist, like the Iranians will be. The ties between these states and terrorists - like Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah - means that eventually, they will get WMD.\n\nAnd all it takes is one incident, and the genie is out of the bottle.\n\nAnd retreating from Iraq is going to make that threat even worse.
1123672
I think the troops will still remain there coz u'll still have the war against terror and the al quida to deal with.If America attacks Iran(I pray that they dont),then u have a additional obligation of maintaining law and order in Iran.\nThe other line of thinking is the oil part,America will keep its troops stationed in every region where there is oil (to protect its interests).
547043
Hopefully Bush will be out of office before that happens. \nI don't think any military commander in the USA would seriously back Bush in a stunt like that. Iran is far bigger, and far better prepared than Iraq was. We had been bombing Iraq for 10 years when we sent in the military in 2003.\nThe US military is pretty over-extended as it is. Any attack on Iran would be very stupid. A lot of people killed on both sides. Needlessly, like all oil wars.\nUnfortunately, you won't get unbiased comments from the USA. Everyone will have an opinion. \n\nThey don't vote, but they have opinions.
322678
Probably not. The US is currently involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the cost of attacking Iran could prove to be very, very high. I imagine the Israelis will take out the Iranian nuclear capabilities at some point, should the US not intervene.
240157
It now appears a foregone conclusion that Iran will continue its nuclear program no matter what the United States and European Union offer to stop it. A military strike would likely be futile, since Iran has hardened and dispersed its nuclear complex. \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.\n\nThere are 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\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\nAnd the kind of society we live in and cherish in the West will change beyond recognition. We balk now at intrusive government measures to tap our phones or other intrusions into our civil liberties. 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, one lead-lined cargo ship away from another Hiroshima. \n\nYou ask what are the odds of an attack, over 50%, there are timeposts that military tacticians, i'm sure are looking at. The estimated dates of an operational nuke in Iran is anywhere between 2007 and 2012. \n\nThere are reports that the Israel deadline for strikes against Iran are the end of March. American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted. \n\nTehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in Iraq and Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.
145148
I think so. Iran is wanting nuclear weapons. They should live under the same rules as everyone else.
333706
A war between Iran and US would be a tragedy for both nations. It is not important who wins, it's important how many victims there will be on both sides. At the present technological stage, it should be easy to understand that war must never be an option.
27880
The U.N. will not be passing any resolutions anytime soon that would involve actual military action against any government or nation anytime soon. I doubt the EU would either since for that organization to pass any resolution that authorizes military force would require a general consensus among its member nations--you can count on them not act in such a way. Also, some member nations would be in the line of fire were Iran to complete its assembly of a nuclear weapon. Thus, considering that fact as well, they would be apprehensive. Thus it would down to us since it is unlikely that other nations would be bold enough to act with force premptively until they are directly threatened or attacked. So would I, right now, support U.S. military action against Iran? No, I would not: I believe our forces are spread too thin right now, domestically and across the globe where they are stationed in other countries. Also, it would be, in general, a bit too hasty to simply invade until we have secured Iraq. In an added note, I would respond to the last part of your question by asking you that if we did invade, why would we not take the time to topple the regime? In the event of an invasion, it would be the wisest choice to do that and not simply to "destroy" or dismantle the nuclear reactor facilities. To leave them in power would be like amputating the finger that has ganggreen, but not sterilizing it completely thus allowing it to fester and grow once more. Another problem with your final annecdote, it would not be so simply just to "destroy" a reactor. Such action would have massively negative reprocusions, i.e. a high civilian casualties. To dismantle it might prove just as tricky and it would surely take time and maintenance by specialists familiar with the workings of nuclear reactors. Additionally, were we to invade (and it is clear that if we did such an action must include toppling the religious-extremist regime as well)--for this reason it would be necessary for us to leave troops stationed their while the next government is installed as in Iraq. So finally, in order to do this most effectively were it to be done, Iraq would have to be secured and our troops pulled out of that region first. Before that happens, our hands are tied even if Rumsfeld or Bush will not admit it: we are chained to the options of diplomacy through the U.N. for now and/or to economic sanctions (which I believe have already been imposed). Logistically speaking, from a man-power and resource perspective, as well as a domestic approval view (whether or not both congress and the american people are in favor on such an action), it would not be in our best interest to take such action. I would not support it at this time.\n\nackerson87@yahoo.com if you would like to continue this discussion or have any other questions we might discuss.
525492
Of course not.  With the current most likely scenarios this will not happen.  If Iran continues its path of nuclear development, they will be increasingly separated from the rest of the world including some of the other Mid-East nations.  At some point a “face saving” way will be found so that they change direction or at some point the people of Iran will alter their government.
685881
Only if it becomes necessary.  If a ground invasion of Iran or N. Korea became imminent, you can bet that the draft would be re-activated before the fact, not after the fact.
1142993
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.