can USA afford a war with Iran ?
398682
The U.S. already can't afford the war in Iraq. But as long as there is private money to be made in oil and defense contracts, this administration will keep finding places to fight.
649818
Bush is an idiot, but Iran is a threat. Why Irans leader would put his whole country in jeapordy is just dumb. The US would destroy Iran and not even feel a scratch. Noone is that niave to think that any country right now could invade the US, so this means all wars are fought on their soil.. dumb moves.
759212
I think it would depend on the circumstances. Undoubtedly, some Americans would fight , no matter what the intentions of the invaders. \n\nIf we had been suffering under an abusive, oppressive, dictatorial regime, and the Iranians offered some measure of freedom, I think they would win popular support among Americans.\n\nIf they invaded now, with things as they are, they would face tremendous opposition. We have a pretty good system now, and what the Iranians have to offer doesn't even come close.\n\nI know the point you are trying to make here, but I think you are seeing a false equivalence between U.S. democracy and Baathist rule of Iraq. Our system, whatever it's flaws, at least has a fundamental respect for the rights of the individual. Hussein's system did not. Our system is open to popular influence...his certainly was not. You can't hypothetically "turn things around" without acknowledging this.
331039
Definately.  The war in Iraq isn't going that well for us, and Iran is a bigger, more powerful country.
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.
520347
no the us cant afford it at all we are in two wars already and in too much debt so no
179065
I think the USA is more of a world wide danger than Iran is.  Iran might be a "threat", but the USA is currently a world wide problem in many ways.\n\nIn fact, there are dozens and dozens of country that seem to benefit from when the American market goes south.  Many foreigners also contributing to American business so that hopefully will elect a president that will support the needs of the world for the upcoming election.\n\nMore than anything, we need the world on our side, and right now, much of the world (besides England) is not in our favor.
309545
WE won't attack Iran,we might bomb your enrichment facilities.Iran is maneuvering its self into a position that most of the world will not allow.Yes you have oil,But larger more powerful countries who could take it have instead either not bought from you or have bought from you.\nBut the world is hungry for that oil,can Iran really afford to go around slapping faces of larger nations?
482639
this is going to be tuff to call.\n\nLet us reason this out.\n\nWhy he wont attack Iran?\n\n- Dwindling rating at home\n- Election year 2008 is fast approaching. While there is an opinion that senate elections may be won by the Democrat, given their current condition, they may not be able to challenge the republicans in 2008, as they do not have an experience nominee, unlike a republican nominee like a McCain or a Gulliani. So the republicans may hold Bush back on this invasion.\n- Lack of international support. Russia and China have significant business investments in Iran\n- It will hopelessly complicate the Iraq issue, considering the proximity of Iran and its influence in Southern Iraq.\n- The Oil prices are already at $75, and an attach will def send it to closer to $100\n- It will damage the credibility of US in the Middle East and nobody would like to do business with it
618164
The current "disagreement" will end peacefully... well, without war. The US cannot independently act militarily against Iran -Internationally it would mean political suicide. The US WILL need to have UN backing for any military action against Iran. The world watched the illegal Iraq campaign take place... We all see the problem of "Enduring Freedom!" They will NOT standby and watch a similar action in Iran. There is just no justification for it. Regardless of the empty political rhetoric of the Iranian leaders, the world does good business with Iran.\n\nThis does leave open one other option for the US, and, disregarding "black op's" (Terrorist insurgency) the US could act unilaterally against Iran... \n\nThis is the worst case scenario internationally. And just when does it make sense to go to war with a country and use "nuclear weaponry" against them because they are POSSIBLY embarking on a program to manufacture nuclear materials?!?\n\nThe world is watching, and the world doesn't watch US news.
594168
that's a possibility.\nThey say that Osama benladin was a CIA agent and that the American government hired him to start the war thus inevitably giving them access to Iran's oil.\nBut then again this would raise very serious doubts to most Americans.\nNow let me ask you... what made you ask that question?
618
Never. Iraq was not a succesful example for US. They'll put more economical pressure on Iran rather than military action.
512588
Right now we are heading to a war in Iran if Iran keeps up with WMD's.  A war on Civilisation is still verry unlikly the U.S. never had a war like that before.
348487
At this point, it looks like Iran will have to strike first.  Americans don't have the fortitude to start another war.
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>
513922
It won't be a war ... Iran is like twice almost three times as big as Iraq. But that is not the reason we will or won't go to war with Iran. The people of Iran are far more sophisticated about the modern world than Iraq was .. the people of Iran know far to well that a nuclear option with the west is an option that is one that they can not win. The nuclear option can not work for them .. the Israelis have the bomb ... India has the bomb .. Pakistan has the bomb ... nobody wants another bomb in the 'hood ! Israel will not let them have a bomb ... no question ... they just won't sit still for it ... they have taken them out before ... and the US will just let them do it ... It's a tough roll of the dice .. it's a hot piece of real estate in the world ... but I bet that's the way it plays out. Russia and China want the oil ... but I don't think they want to play the nuclear gambit ... yet ! Iran's gov't doesn't want to back down... that shows weakness ... but the people of Iran don't back the gov't. ... more people in Iran oppose the gov't. in place ... so we sit and wait and see if they can vote them out .. or if the military takes over the state !
475094
Bush government may attack to Iran(an attack to Syria is also within possibilities) or support the attack of Israel. But I don’t think that it is going to be within one year at least since USA may have some trouble in its backyard within forthcoming months. Brazil-China relations become closer. There is already a tension with Venezuela. There will be elections in around 10 South-America countries in 2006. At the end of this year, USA may have other Chavezes to deal with. USA is already in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is risky to attack not only Iran but any other country before having stability in the backyard. \n\nYou may look over the following link to see whats going there.\nAnalysis: How the US 'lost' Latin America \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4861320.stm