If USA attacks Iran is it likely to watch this movie 5 years later. "The fall of the American Imperialism"?
354279
sounds like the rhetoric that came out of iraq just before the war
1047368
The American people have never been thrilled with the long-term concept of empire.\n\nThe neocons will burn in hell.
377167
i think America wont try another bloody war like in Iraq, the Iranian ppl voted for thier president unlike Saddam so if there is any war coming it would be WW3.
686740
It looks like. In my opinion America is asking for more trouble, as if it hadn't enough. America has abused its freedom and its resources to the extend that the developing nations have started hating its dominating attitude. It's already on "war" with Iran and things are hotting up to a final nuclear holocaust.
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.
193918
It has begun and will eventually expand and yes America is the reason. \n\nNot the ordinary people, but the acts of those treasonous fucks in power with their 200G salaries and we don't give a fuck attitudes.\n\nI believe an attack on Iran will be the catalyst for the expansion of conflict.
366943
Since I am avid USA fan (let us not mention Iran-USA since I am in therapy to overcome the US performance in France 98) and I have lived in Mexico and seen how crappy the fans are toward the US (and it is nice the we now kick their "culos" most of the time).  I would hope that Iran kicks the living crap out of Mexico and send them to a humiliating defeat as the US did in Japan-Korea 2002.  Go Iran!  (con disculpas a los aficionados del "Tri")
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.
402755
I doubt if a WW III would happen, however if the US attacks Iran it can anticipate the following things. \nWe will start losing oil tankers in the gulf,  The war in Iraq will boil over into something many times worse than it is now, terrorits acts from groups such as Hezbollah and covert Iranian operations will happen with great frequency, and maybe in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles.\nThe price of oil will become astronomical and tens of thousands will be no longer employed as the airlines, hotels and spin off industries go into bankruptcy.  Oil will go from 100 to 300 dollars a barrel.\n\nAnd the sad thing is there in no need for the US to do this.
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.
348487
At this point, it looks like Iran will have to strike first.  Americans don't have the fortitude to start another war.
727756
Not again.  We did that once and look at what we created.\n\nWe destroyed a new democracy to put an corrupt flaky shah in there.\n\nSo they turned into barbarians and stormed the US Embassy and took hostages.\n\nDon't want to do that again, but they really need to stop finishing their prayers with "death to america"
192063
Certainly not in near future means woith one year. However, after pulling forces from Iraq, US will try to attempt on Iran.
165693
No, I thnk the US is behaving like the Roman Empire and I believe we will suffer the same fate Rome did in 456 A.D.\n\nThis war is a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.\nHas to be about oil - self aggrandizement, will-to-power, and money. I do not support Bush's Crusade. Never did.
313353
no, thats the very reason terrorism against us exists. if a military invaded your country & killed your friends & family would you let it be? i wouldnt. id go all the way off. we tamper with their economies, laws, cultures, news/info & rights. just ain right. so many note the proactive stance,'woudl you rather wait till they attack?'...yes. itll be bad but thats the way it is. what if someone took an interventionist stance on us? we'd be pissed & outraged. by that rational, iran should attack usa since weve already made it clear that we're in their business. about iran, they have no means of making any nuke weapons. they have 2nd generation urenco centrifuges. we have 10th generation. the threat is if india with their new fast burn multipliers will sell iran the uranium for a weapon. although, india makes more selling electricity than weapons. iran has made upgrades to their reactors which allow them to enrich to 8%, 93% is needed for a weapon.\nactually rogerpoirier2, we & uk had blockades on both germany & japan. japan & china were in a big war so russia was the only place they could get recources. remember, theyre an island, not that big. they have limited recources. germany was on their european tour thing & needed to be shut down & thats what we did. only when rngland was attacked did we officially get in it. \nww1\nhttp://weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=88\nww2 http://www.philipdru.com/stinnett_stream.html
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.
834886
Depends which Country the USA is bombing the crap out of at the time I think.