Is the president really thinking of using nuclear weapons to try and get Iran to stop making nuclear weapons?
474868
That will be real madness ,and its effect will literally lasts for ever.
619813
What's the relevance of all that ranting?  It's not an argument that the world would be safer if Iran had nukes.  I've no idea if the president of Iran is a "real Muslim" or not; he simply talks like a maniac.  The question of the USA's 100 year war record isn't directly relevant to the question of whether it would be good for the world if Iran had nukes, but as it happens, the USA tends to respond to attacks upon it, or upon other countries.
38378
You're just playing with us Jim; you don't want to nuke anybody anymore than you want them to nuke you. The real question is should we use cruise missiles to destroy Iran's nuclear reactor/s like Israel did with jets back in '81 to Iraq's reactor/s because they were making the bomb too?\n\nAnswer: No to the nukes, Yes to surgical strikes with cruise missiles, which I believe will eventually happen, unless Israel beats us to it!
62839
I'm not going to turn this into an anti or pro Bush diatribe (personally, I'm indifferent to him), but the Iran situation is indeed very serious, and it is not just Bush that thinks so.  France, Germany and Britain have been working on this for many years.  China and Russia are stake holders.  Even the Australia Group has issued an opinion.  What you're observing is simply more attention being paid to the matter by the media (don't forget the European Union has been working on this seriously since at least 2000, even before September 11).  Iran clearly wants nuclear weapons and has made overt threats to use them, which escalates the situation above a mere arms race.  Further, Iran has not been transparent with the program, which is a direct violation of an international treaty which the country signed on its own accord.  However, when the EU-3 first noticed that Iran had broken the treaty and bought the issue to international attention, the Iranians suddenly became indignant -- essentially casting asside an agreeement they had made with civilized society.   However, now the attention of the world's citizens is on Iran, I hope that the same level heads that have been working 'behind the scenes' continue to prevail.
1138208
Who doesn't talk about the Holocaust ?? Iran will never use Nuclear power for peaceful purpose because its President is a Joker, trying to appease the clearics. The nuclear power is their plan not his. He's just become the president and the Nuclear ambitions are much older. The Islamic Terrorists have Killed More Iraqies than the American. Does it answer all your questions? The so called jehadis are actually traitors in American eyes. America trained them , Funded them did everything for them and they inturn have stabbed america in the back.
482251
The US doesn't WANT to bomb Iran, however, the US also does not want Iran to develop nuclear weapons.  If other efforts to get Iran to stop their nuclear development program fails, the US will feel it has no choice but to destroy the Iranian nuclear program by force.\n\nHope that isn't too long-winded for you.
485143
Yes - Politics. Russia is not cooperating with US efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons (I really detest Cheney and Co. but I think they have a point that Iran shoul dnot have nuclear weapons, and if the UN can the the tool of deterring Iran, that would be great.  The US does NOT want to go war in Iran - they don't have th esoldiers to go to war in IRaq and Afghanistan.  They therefore want the UN to pressure Iran to srop their program, and Russia is blocking this as it has a veto on the UN security council which would be responsible for acting).\n\nCheney is therefore showing Russia that if they don't cooperate, he can cause problems for them too. It is NOT ideology: after slamming Russia he went to Kazakhstan, where the political situation is worse than Russia, and was very friendly, mostly because Kazakhstan has oil, is in Central Asia (the US lost its base in Kazakhstan's neighbor Uzbekistan and may lose its base in another neighbor Kyrgyzstan). All of these Central Asian states are near Afghanistan and Iran.
384352
I think any person (including President Bush who I happen to think is the best president since Abe Lincoln) who is under a lot of stress of running a country or some large class of social setting is bound to be a closet-case.  I doubt very much that Bush is the type to hide things in the closet, but I found out this morning that he plans to nuke Iran's political leaders' bunkers so that the people will overthrow the government and accept a diplomatic government setting.  I don't think this is the wisest thing to do, but it is far better than doing nothing.  And even after Bush's term is over, people will never cease to find things that he did wrong.  But if people are so charged up about the fact that there is no right or wrong, how can they be so emphatic that somebody is wrong?  And if you're supposed to tolerate people despite their opinions of right and wrong, then Bush is doing just that.  I have mixed feelings over nuking just anybody.\n\n  For one, he is openly declaring war on another country with a separated (but linked issue of possible terrorist actions) topic.  It is not totally unlike him because unlike the Afghanistan issue in which he thought that there were weapons of mass destruction, Iran has openly told the rest of the world that they have these weapons and in fact plan to use them.\n  But on the other hand, he had already declared global war on terror to stop terror in countries outside the US before they have a chance to strike inside.  Before the US dropped the H-bomb on Hiroshima, they had given the Chinese several explicit warnings to 'cease fire' or measures would be to force them to stop.  Bush's stand on nukes has been to seek them out and stop them from being made.  Now it seems that he has resigned to the answer of the popular question in the political category: Is bombing the Middle East the answer to solving the war problems?\n\n  I don't think it is.  I don't think that any one person can decide whether a war can be stopped or decide to take actions to keep a war from starting.  I admire any person who decides to keep a war from starting.  I haven't found any man (including Bush) who declares war on a country for reasons that seem right at the moment and then turn foul afterward.  The war that was declared after 9/11 was a retaliation.  The war on Iran would be a preventive action taken to try and keep anything bigger from exploding.  One thing is certain.  There will always be a war of some sort at all times.
145148
I think so. Iran is wanting nuclear weapons. They should live under the same rules as everyone else.
562928
I don't think so.\nI must admit, I havent really agreed on some of his decisions, like the Iraq War, but according to your definition, the President doesn't seem like one.  He isn't like Hitler, who tried to annihilate the Jews.  Nor is he like Stanlin.  He's apparently trying to spread democracy and catch bin Laden by creating a war.
442167
He is the president of Iran, and I fear that only he knows what he is looking for.  It seems he wants Iran to have nuclear weapons.
491884
Perhaps you were lost somewhere in recent history, but the Cold War ended for a reason. \n\nThere is no reason to consider the use of nuclear weapons on Iran. Look at Iraq. How can you possibly trust the intelligence the Bush Administration would rely on in order to initiate a pre-emptive nuclear strike? \n\nThe US can no longer use might and must learn again how to use diplomacy. This is not a democrat vs. republican issue. This is an issue that involves all of humanity.\n\nUse of nuclear weapons is harmful to everyone, not just the country or entity on which the weapons are used. Look at what the US did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the lasting impact it has had on the environment and the people of Japan. The US should be ashamed of testing nuclear weapons in that way!!\n\nAnyone still advocating the use of nuclear weapons needs to read up on diplomatic strategy and look at the inevitability of the fall of the US empire as well as global warming, cancer statistics among survivors and countless other issues. Nuclear weapons are even harmful for the US to store. \n\nSoon the US will no longer be in control in the world forum, as hard to believe as that is, the writing is on the wall.
882959
i believe the Iranian President is kinda radical crazy and is pretty much hellbent on controlling other countries in the middle east,Everyone knows he wont be happy till they have nucks,and I believe he will use them, unfortunately for the Iranian people most countries believe that also.He's probably Hitler reincarnate.
56062
Be real.  It's not just the US concerned about it, it's pretty much the rest of the world.  Iran cannot be trusted with it and that's that, their government is always unstable and you don't know who'll be controlling the nukes next year.
678053
Yes, the countdown has certainly begun.  This is a time of crises for the world.  I would hope that the used of nuclear weapons against Iran would be the last resort.  Because the first time nuclear weapons are to be used by any nation in an offensive measure, they must prepare to be counter attacked accordingly.  This could easily cause a chain reaction between countries and their allies sparking the Armageddon that we have feared sine the nuclear age has come alive.
207668
Well, I'll clear up all the bias here.\n\nWhile it would be a good idea (we certainly shouldn't let them keep nuklear weapons) to invade Iran, I personally think that Bush is too unpopular now to start another war. If he's going to do that, he needs to spend a year or so after this war focused on internal problems. His approval rating is pretty low.\n\nI would also suggest he put more of the actual combat on the shoulders of the UN, since they would definitely be behind us in this endeavor.\n\nIn case you're wondering, I am a very conservative person, and I approve of what Bush has done so far. But I realize what must be done. Wars begun with a low approval of the leader have a tendency to turn out badly.\n\nEdit: And to the post above mine, thank you for not realizing how nuclear power works. A nuclear reactor is far more complex to construct than a bomb. A reactor needs cooling, containment. A bomb just needs two chuncks of enriched Uranium and a couple sticks of dynamite.\n\nNow, if *you* were a sect of radical Islam bent on killing all of those who weren't your belief, and you had the option of spending a few million dollars to build a bomb or a few dozen million to develop a reactor, which one would you choose? Which would be more helpful in your present situation?
474334
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 for a date of the attack, it's unknown, be 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.