What is the best way to prevent from a new war because of Iran's nuclear programm?
396692
Collaboration, understanding and empathy. Not in that order.
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
828550
Iran should be nuked but better if they should be warned first to make amends to their nuclear arms program.
557497
There is going to be a war with Iran and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. If the USA does not stop iran they will develope a nuclear war head and get it to the U.S. because they hate American's and freedom, Also they think it will please thier god(who is gay) they are going to have to be B.I.T.C.H. slapped or the west is doomed.
339104
The "red lines" for military action is when Iran has developed:\n\n1. weapons grade enriched uranium (90-95%), ~2008\n2. next technical hurdle is constructing the trigger mechanism. 2010-11\n3. engineering device for delivery, ie, making it small enough to fit on a warhead. 2012 at the earliest.\n\nEach step is no small feat, by 2012, there may be a regime change and all the current tension will have subsided.   \n \nThe point i've been trying to make is that we've lived under the shadow of nuclear holocaust for 50 years, the real tension is the hair triggers of the US and Russian arsenals, forget about the Iranian potential.
449214
The only way to have "Mutually Assured Destruction" is to be opposed in your ability to destroy by an entity with equal ability as yourself. \n\nThe only country on earth with as much Nuclear Power to destroy us is Russia: and even their power is limited. \n\nBut - in the case of Iran (which is why I'm guessing you're asking about this) there is wisdom in the "MAD" doctrine, to the extent that it is a HUGE discouragement for our enemies to use Nuclear weapons if they fully believe that we will promptly and without delay wipe them from the face of the earth.\n\nBut - they have to believe we'd do it. \n\nAs Hamlet once said, "Ay, there's the rub."
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.
1125429
Hopefully, Iran.  Someone needs to stop them before they initiate a nuclear holocaust.
864501
Let's all pray he doesn't start another war somewhere to take people's minds off his goofups!\nHe seems to have his eyes on Iran. God help us!
41704
most probably america will easily solve this by droping a nuke on the iranians...maybe they'll drop it on moscow too if its convientent since they like bombing up other countries like japan,vietnam,afghanistan,iraq....etc..
106532
One thing's for sure, US won't go for another war, it already has too many on its hands.\nAfter being referred to UN Security Council, pressure will be placed on Iran. \nWith no country coming to its rescue at this point, let's see whether Iran buckles under the pressure or not.\nMost probably, it won't. Because developing a nuclear capability is more of a pride for each nation, even if its only a deterrant.\nBut, only time will tell!
46986
What we should do is to work with the rest of the world to isolate Iran. That would mean no trade with the country except for food. It would destroy their economy and send the message that the world won't tolerate their behavior. \n\nWhat will happen will be completly different and nothing will happen to Iran. Many countries are too thirsty for their oil so they will not support any sanctions.\n\nI think what we should do is to kill the top leaders of Iran. War is too expensive and sanctions do not work.
174546
- Sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, or at least take the lead in replacing it with something more than a pro-polluter smoke screen (no pun intended). \n\n - Cease the practice of unilateral "first strike" wars. You can be defensive-minded about security and be just as safe, if not moreso. But hitting first makes you look like an a-----e, especially if the information you're using to justify the war is shoddy at best. \n\n - Remove the Evangelical Christian influence on our foreign policy, especially in regards to health services and the environment. People who don't believe in the rapture/apocalypse don't appreciate it when countries go around trying to provoke it. \n\n - Cease all development of "new classes" of nuclear weapons. It makes our country look positively idiotic when we threaten Iran while developing "battlefield nukes" which are oft touted as "nukes you can actually USE!". \n\n - Finally, as the previous answer so aptly stated kick Bush the f--k out of office.
583109
The whole concern over Iran is that they have the means to build nukes and that scares the crap out of GWB. But starting a war with Iran could create more problems then it solves. We fear that Iran may use the nukes on us but if we start a war with them then they will definatly nuke us. We have nothing to fear as long as they have no ICBMs(Intercontinental Ballistic Missles)
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
428294
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons yet.\n\nAmericans ALWAYS think of things in "negative-prevention" but has anyone considered "positive-prevention"? A little gob of goodies for Iran if they do not pursue nuclear weapons may go a lot further then rattling the sabre(again.). You catch more bees with honey then vinegar.
454565
Iran is not going to be able to develop nuclear weapons and a lot of nations, not just the U.S. would stand to oppose it with military force if need be.\n\nThe funny thing is, like most middle east oil producers, Iran has less than 13 months of capital to support its economy. A real embargo, a true cessation of all oil exports would so cripple the nation I doubt its government would last 90 days.\n\nSadly the east and west are so dependent on petroleum that solution is not likely to happen.