Do you believe that Military action should be taken against Iran since they don't co-operate with anything?
340204
zombi is off his meds. no to ur Q;
392668
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!
431849
The usa know of the iran forces and i think polotics will also hold them back as it is not going to well for them in iraq. think they may let another country like isral hit iran first rarther than dent there reputation further by going to another war within the middle east.  the whole world think the iraq war was all about oil. at the end of the day we should not be looking for war to gain oil we should be looking at new resourses as oil will run out within the next 10 - 15 years.\n\nAirstrikes no chance from usa not without backup from the UN\n\n\nbelow is a news statment of isreal and iran\n\nIran has warned Israel it will react "most severely" if Israel uses force to try to destroy its nuclear facilities. \nForeign Minister Kamal Kharrazi was responding to reports that the United States is to sell Israel hundreds of "bunker-busting" bombs. \n\nIsrael urged the United Nations Security Council to take action to stop Iran's nuclear programme. \n\nThe US and Israel have accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies. \n\nIran recently defied calls by the UN's nuclear watchdog to suspend all enrichment-related activities, insisting its nuclear programme was for peaceful purposes only. \n\nNuclear 'nightmare' \n\nAccording to reports, the US is to sell Israel 5,000 hi-tech bombs, including 500 one-ton "bunker-busters", which can penetrate two metre (6.5ft) thick walls. \n\nIn 1981, Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor when it believed Saddam Hussein was close to producing a nuclear bomb. \n\nIsraeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said the UN must deal with the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons before it is too late. \n\n"[The Iranians] are trying to buy time, and the time has come to move the Iranian case to the Security Council in order to put an end to this nightmare," he told reporters after meeting UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. \n\n"We know that the Europeans are trying now to engage with the Iranians, but we know that the Iranians will never abandon their plans to develop nuclear weapons. They're only trying to hide it." \n\nHowever, Kamal Kharrazi said Israel, not Iran, was a threat to world peace. \n\n"Israel has always been a threat, not only against Iran, but all countries." \n\nWhen questioned about Israel's reported purchase of the bombs, Mr Kharrazi said, "be sure that any action by Israel certainly will be reacted by us most severely".\n\nmal UK\n\nI Also agree that iran is not the danger and israel is the big danger one that claims to be a friend is most proberbly the most dangerious of all USA are not to clever and still think of israel to be a friend, i dont think so israel have the power to take the usa this is my thoughts and the USA acctually help them by selling them arms USA Govenment is all about Greed not saying UK is any better but UK seems to follow bush
563474
yes, Iran would be justified to fight back.\nWould the US come and help out?  More than likely so.\nThere are treaties indicating that one country would come to the aid of another ally should that ally be attacked.  That is how WWI turned into a WW from an internal thingamajig of the Austrian Empire
1047168
This is an awesome question. I see what you mean by the tactics. Iran is surrounded. I think it may have been just dumb luck though.
324242
There is no need to conquer Iran.  There probably will not even be a need to attack Iran, but if the need arises, we would still not need to conquer them.  Iran presents two strategic problems for the US: the leadership and, to a certain extent, the people are rabidly opposed to Israel; and they actively support, supply and finance the insurgency in Iraq.\n\nSo far we have let the Europeans ply their typically Chamberlainesque appeasement tactics to the nuclear problem, but sooner or later we will have to explain to them and to the Russians that Iran will simply not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.  Period.  The problem will then almost certainly go rapidly away.  If it does not, we will destroy their nuclear facilities from the air.  No need to invade.  Pay no attention to Iranian threats; the worst they can do is lob a few missiles at Israel, like Saddam did in the first Gulf War.\n\nThe second problem is more intractable, but it has, I believe, an indirect solution.  Invade Syria.  That would cut off Baathist support for the insurgents, sever the main route for insurgent communications, and send an unambiguous message to the other states in the region, including Iran.
497569
I hope they don't for their own sake. i smell a rat: ruskies may have gifted iran with some serious weaponry in exchange for mega contracts.\n\nIf it does happen i hope all Nato countries and other allies like Australia, Japan, S Korea contribute more than just token forces to wipe out this irritant.
409665
A worst case scenario would unroll if the US were to launch a major air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities in the next few months.  A limited air strike against a "choke point", such as the Iranian uranium conversion facility at Isfahan, would like disrupt Iran's nuclear program for a long time.  The problem is what happens then?\n\nIran will respon in some way, all of which are devastatint to regional and international security.  They could lob scuds at Israel and US bases in the region.\n\nThe could block the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off the oil pipeline.\n\nThey could stop selling oil.\n\nThey could use their connections with Hezbullah to launch terrorist strikes against US interest.\n\nThey could do all or any of the above in combination. The only feasible targeting of a US nuclear attack would be the hardened facility at Natanz, under 75 ft of hard rock.  The other nuclear facilities are soft targets and can be taken out by conventional weapons.\n\nWhatever course the US takes, be prepared for the UNIMAGINABLE>
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
458954
Iran has right to have the nulcear power if us, and other countries have. There is possibility of use of nuclear power against any country from the other countreis too.
877466
i just wanna say if the USA started a war with Iran.Iran well win.......and Iran well be the new strongest country in the world instead of the USA\nhope so
571250
Well now.  A US battle battle group, which consist of aircraft carriers, destroyers, nuclear attack submarines, is capable singly of defeating any power on earth.  And the US has twelve battle groups. So at the very least Iran would be wiped out twelvefold.\n\nRemember how Saddam Hussein's "Mother of all Battles" turned out to be a total non-event.  Iran would simply cease to exist in a matter of days.\n\nAll your conceited, self-serving phony so-called religious rhetoric is useless drivvel.
530172
I would think so.  If you look at Iraq & Afgahnistan both occupied - you will see the two major borders of Iran.  I say that Iran was the main objective all along.  I also believe that this needs to be done.  Iran is bulding nuclear weapons under peoples lives in the city and openly telling the whole world that it is to be used on us and our allies.  They are not looking for peace - they are looking to settle their anger.  Iran isn't the beautiful country it use to be back before 79.  It is a place ran by crookit people who have had too much power placed in their hands and over power the rest.  It is a country that has a population of 75% under the age of thirty who also want us to go in.  Anyone of the country that has spoken against the government have been killed or hurt.  People live under constant fear - and that is the truth. Some act as though they are fine about living that way, but those are the first of ignorence.  They are usaully the ones that came against the Shah - and deep inside live with the regrets.  Yes - the time has come.
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.
519674
I see the Point of the Article.....But  I think the Administration is taking the right Approach here,This is my opinion why:1-The younger Generation of Iran do not like its Gov. Policies.Wouldnt be surprised if some or all allied nations trying to stir people against war.2-Irans leader has been making unprovoked threats to many nations,making this a European problem as well.Because of types of threats,War could very well mean WWIII.I think Administration is hoping that our Allies take the lead in any negotiations because Irans military capabilities make it a bigger threat to europe.3-If it comes to American military involvement,look at a map,to see where our soldiers are with regards to Iran.With Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan,Fleets in Persian Gulf, And our bases in Europe and Asia,we are well positioned Militarily.Although my personal belief is that Iranian leader is Crazy(literally)I hope this situation resloves itself.The majority of young Iranians are just like us,they want to live like us and european nations,its just that they have a lunatic with a very large military loyal to that lunatic for a leader.Please note that my opinion is based on what I know and learned through discussions with Iranian Immigrants at school.\nSorry 4 any typos...heavily medicated....
532696
It should not be allowed nuclear capabilities, and we should all endever to prevent this occurance, because it is not within the intrests of the Western world. I recognise the arguement that Iran is as unstable or backward as the Western press portray it to be, however a neuclear Iranian would enable it to dictate policy in the region to a much larger degree, look at North Korea for example. The West needs a weaker Iran to exploit its natural resources, we should not be apologetic about this fact, we should however be careful how we go about it. As previous events have shown, badly planned interferance is far worse than isolationism.
649307
Niether USA nor Iran want to go to war with the other.  Their respective leaders merely want to make them sound tough to their resppective people.