Bush won't rule out nuclear strike on Iran?
472119
The media is really hyperinflating this.   The use of a strategical nuclear bomb must come from Congress.   The President may authorize the use of a single tactical nuke.   Doing that without Congressional approval would be political suicide for everyone under G.W. Bush though.   Bush doesn't have anything to lose by using this strategy, but he will utilize every other option he has before going that route. \n\nI would think that if Iran does not comply soon (and the clock is ticking my friend), covert actions will be taken if possible.   If they aren't an option, then it is likely that you will see the use of the B1 bombers and Tomahawk missles.  Perhaps some F-111 or other precision bombers too.   \n\nIran isn't stupid either.  They have their labs in fortified areas....surrounded by civilian populations, so when they are bombed, they can cry to the bleeding heart liberals that we bombed the women and children.   \n\nDon't look for nukes from the US to be hitting Iran soon.  Let's just make sure nukes from Iran aren't hitting the US anytime sooner either.
866863
bush won't talk to him because he knows that Ahmadinejad is much, much smarter than him.  I think a Battle Royal would be the way to go.  I would liek to see bush physically get his ass kicked, rather than mentally like we have seen for 6 years.
289061
I think the Bush administration has already lost all credibility.  I doubt they spend much time worrying about that.\n\nTo answer your question, in my opinion, no, we won't invade Iran.  I don't think the American public is prepared to go along with another war when we're already in the quagmire of Iraq.
493341
For all we know the leaders of Iran are shilling for Bush and his Neocon buddies. maybe they are simply playing a part in the overall geo-political strategy of peak oil.\n\nDont believe the hype.
440338
no cuz we dont have enough troops and money to start a war with Iran. but with Bush we never know what he will do next, like a drunk guy, you never know were he will stumble to.
1023938
You must be patient.  Folks like Iran and N. Korea are still in the planning and preparation stage, not to mention a few south american countries that don't hold a very high regard for us either.  For now though President Bush is working as diligently as he knows how to alienate potential allies in the next war and insure that if one does break out, we'll go it alone.
672160
TJ Says:\nEarthschoes I seriously believe we will go nuclear. If Iran even thinks about launching, well they know Isreal will blow them off the map. If Iran tries to sneak a nuke in the US and succeeds, well Iran will get wipe off the face of the Earth, even if Russia and China try to stop us.\n\nAnd it looks to me like we are near WW3.\nBRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!
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.
497359
People above me who are blaming this on Bush, read a newspaper.  This is not a problem that President Bush is inventing.  The United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and Europe agree that this is a problem.  Open your eyes and stop blaming everything in the world on Bush.  The Iranian problem can be solved peacefully if the leadership of Iran will stop trying to get nuclear weapons.  They say that nothing will stop them from their nuclear programs.  If they don't change their minds, the problem will not be able to be solved peacefully.
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.
499177
Like it or not, Iran and North Korea are not allowed to have nuclear weapons because an alliance of nations (namely the UN and NATO) have passed restrictions against thier developing of such weapons... That being said, I do (and any reasonable person should) think it is AT LEAST a little hypocritical that we attempt to disarm the world, and yet spend record amounts to arm ourselves (we, as in the the US)... I do agree with you that Bush (at the moment) is a far greater threat to world peace (like him or not, actions are louder than words), than any two nations combined... What angers me is that we are trying to stop Iran from developing nuclear power... they have the legal right to develop nuclear power under the UN, but also must submit themselves to inspection (something they have refused to do)... but, keep in mind that the US openly has a nuclear weapons program, and only a small fraction of it is "visable" to the UN (despite what the politicians say)... With ALL of the above being said, if Iran would openly submit to inspection, I would not be against their RIGHT to develop peaceful nuclear energy (note that all US nuclear POWER facilities are open for inspection)... as for nuclear weapons, it is my firm belief that if one country wishes to disarm another peacefuly, it must do so its self... that is not to say we should completely disarm our nuclear stockpile, as this would create an imbsalance between us, and other world powers (namely China and Russia)... I do know for a fact, that a nuclear (weapons) Iran is a danger to the world, in particular, the US, Europe, and its neigbors... really it is a far more complicated issue than it seems on the surface, and WAY more complicated than our political leaders (and those of other nations) want us to believe. Sanctions (economic, and material) have been proposed (against Iran), but I believe, that given our fragile economic state, imposing such sanctions, would be the economic equivelent of "kicking ourselves in the (censored by yahoo)", and would therefore most likely fail quicly, or WE would face the consequences of economic recesion (thus succeeding in punishing ourselves!?!)... most politicians are playing this economic impact down, and I fear that our government may start bombing Iran soon (much like Iraq under Clinton)... now I know you asked to minimize the "Bush bashing", but I just gotta get it out of my system... It is my thought that the war-monger, chickenhawk, ideological, neofacist, Bushite, republican morons (notice I insulted republicans, and not conservatives, as they are not always one and the same), will drag us into another unecisary conflict... now that I've got that out of my system... I just am not sure what is the BEST solution (or if there is a "best" solution), but I know what we certainly shoudn't do, and I fear we will do it anyways...\n\nto directly answer your question, we are alowed to have a say, only because of our size, and military might, if Iran had these two factors over us, (they were the super power), THEY would be telling US what to do... it's not right, but such struggles between human powers/groups/factions have been going on since the begining of humanity... and will probably go on until humanity is gone... I hate to say it (and as a member of the human race, I am ashamed to), but nothing has changed, same concepts, just different weapons, and different names... same old desires, fortune, land, and power... don't think about it too hard, or you'll wind up like me... the sad thing is majority is power, and in this world, the individule has little say, something I recognize, but never really like to believe...\n\nAnyways, sorry for the long, drawn out, boring rant, but it is a complicated issue, like I said, don't stress about it to mutch.\n\n*************************************\nNever fear "marty barber", I am 100% sure that a good portion of your people are hypo
158607
I don't think it's likely that the US will get invovled with a war with Iran. Seeing as how the US is still taking care of things in Iraq. I am pretty sure that the US will not goto war with Iran in the near future.
511058
The same reason George Bush can't say "Nuclear";\n\nIGNORANCE!
981147
I think we can all savely conclude that Bush is going to do whatever he wants to do no matter WHO speaks out in opposition.\n\nLast year, many CIA and military generals spoke out on the fact they personally told him there were no WMDs in Iraq. Did anybody care? Did it affect Bush? No\n\nhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/
1125102
We may ask but that doesn't mean that Turkey will just go along with an attack on Iran.  \nAfter all, as a democracy, the Turkish Parliment voted against allowing U.S. forces to use their bases for invading Iraq.
379494
Today?...NO. Somewhere in the near future..YES. Considering he planned the war in Iraq, there is no doubt that he wont invade Iran to. The plans are on the table, the option is open..why no just start a world war 3. I really think that is what this country is coming too.
675970
I hope not.. it would be a big mistake if they attacked Iran