<p>I just read an article on digg about the U.S. and Israel supposedly preparing for war with Iran, and I'm disturbed by the thought.</p>
<p>I'm wondering, should the U.S. attack Iran?
If the U.S. attacks, what would be the consequences?
How can we prevent war with Iran?</p>
<p>The US won't invade Iran, and even if it did, it would only do it after the Iraq war is over. Of course, this assumes that Iran's involvement in Iraq stays the same.</p>
<p>Of course, if Iran starts say sending troops disguised as insurgents to Iraq and can prove it to the world (actually prove it to, not just an idea), then the US and Israel won't be the only ones at war with Iran.</p>
<p>Doubt it, the Iranians are too close to the Russians and Chinese. :D WWIII can't start before I enter college!!!</p>
<p>I sure as heck hope we don't get ourselves wrapped up in another war. Let's just focus on Iraq, so we can get the heck outta there.</p>
<p>Once this war is over, no way would the U.S. strike another; the costs with this war, money and lives, was extremely too much. And yeah, Iran is a major power like Russia, China. Iraq was a fart, which is why they did it. The politicians at my school even said no way would US attack Iran. But it sure would be cool!~</p>
<p>And I think there never will be another grand, chaotic war that was immense like ww1 & 2. Society has become too sophisticated to reach global war once again. Ancient times are over. Even if something like wwiii were to emerge, it'd be some stupid nuclear hits here and there, blah blah. no more grand powerful all man traditional war. but DAMN that would rock!</p>
<p>If the U.S. can't handle little old Iraq, how the hell can they even think about Iran? It's like floundering in Vietnam and then planning to attack China.</p>
<p>Plus Iran is almost a decade away from having nuclear weapons; don't let Bush's lies scare you once again. And even if Ahmad-whatshisname is a total nutcase, he's still subservient to the ayatollah and mullahs of Iran. And in case y'all didn't know, the current ayatollah would rather seek peace and cooperation with the U.S. than anything else. Too bad the Bush Administration ignored his letters of willing cooperation because it would take the wind out of the sails of the their Neoconservative Crusade, sanctioned by Pope Rumsfeld.</p>
<p>I think that war with Iran is unlikely and a bad idea until Iran's parliamentary elections occure next year since it is very possible that the conservatives could have a rough election as sanctions hurt Iran's economy and there is discontent with a lack of reforms in the nation. Ahmadinijad probably WANTS America to launch strikes against Iran(maybe the cause of his belligerent policies) so that he can wave the nationalist flag and win himself an election.</p>
<p>After 2008, if there isn't any real change and Iran continues towards nuclear armament, then I think the situation changes, but I think the best policy now is to not anger the largely Pro-US population of Iran and hope for the best in the 2008 election. Even if the Guardian Council eliminates "radical" pro reform candidates and vetoes real reforms, we can hope for a rebuke of Ahmadenijad's foreign policy, hopefully leading to policies more along the lines of their former President Khatami who advocated a "Dialogue Among Civilizations".</p>
<p>I think CC has now turned into Emo.com</p>
<p><em>goes to contemplate a world with no light</em></p>
<p>No one except the United States and Israel really views Iran as a threat. We just have a skewed perception. I can sympathise with Israel though feeling worried (but only sympathise).</p>
<p>Iran's only weapons are rhetoric. Honestly. They only declare war on fuzzy-looking British-Indian novelists.</p>
<p>baller4lyfe, they said the exact same thing as you did once. The entire world came up with a system so that there would never be a major world war again. They even came up with a global treaty forbidding war, signed by most major European nations, America, India, and Japan - it was called the Kellog-Briand Pact. Eleven years later, World War II began.</p>
<p>I am a little stunned that several people on this board are effectively saying that we will not attack Iran because we have our hands full in Iraq. Note for instance, the statement of the esteemed "moderate" Senator this past week.</p>
<p>It is precisely because of the war in Iraq -- and the supposed involvement of Iran therein -- that is being used to justify at least consideration of an attack on Iran.</p>
<p>I agree attacking Iran would be an insane move given the problem of Iraq. But I am not all convinced that sanity is a governing principle of the current administration.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree attacking Iran would be an insane move given the problem of Iraq. But I am not all convinced that sanity is a governing principle of the current administration.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Most government officials are even less sane than the rest of us... unfortunately. Hopefully Bush will realise that attacking Iran is a mess, and won't declare war there... And then hopefully we get a Dem for Pres in 08 (yay! I can vote soon... I've been waiting for that since I was 12 :D)... They generally try to avoid wars more... Hopefully that will be the case... And hopefully the new president will be able to make half-intelligent sentences.</p>
<p>Even though I don't think attacking Iran is a good idea now because I don't think it would be good policy, I do question some of the posts because it seems as if some people here seem to have an immediate reaction against possible strikes on Iran because A) It's war and war is of course never necessary and B)Because Evil Bush would be the one launching any attack and if Bush does it, it's evil. Not like Clinton. Clinton only bombed countries to save people. Bush does it because he's eeeeeevil. Even if Iran is killing American soldiers(something they've actually been doing for a couple of decades with no response) and developing nuclear weapons, it doesn't seem to matter to some people because it all must be part of Evil Bush's Evil Lies to start another of his Evil Wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure, Afghanistan wasn't Evil at first because of 9/11, but now that Bush is Evil, its safe to assume that everything associated with the War on Terrorism is also evil. Democrats don't actually start less wars, but it seems as if a Democrat would be more likely to be allowed to pursue a real foreign policy without everyone going into hysterics.</p>
<p>Actually, I think Clinton was an idiot too when he bombed places... I mean, I don't have all the facts about the Clinton era bombings, but I don't believe in offensive war. UNLESS there is a genocide going on. I'd be all for going into Darfur... of course, we no longer have the manpower for that. War is only appropriate as self-defense... I supported war with Afghanistan, at least to find the Taliban and Al Qaeda and all that... But then it became Iraq. Wtƒ, mate? They were not involved. Afghanistan, sure. Iraq, no. Attacking Iraq just made more people angry. Just created more radicals. Who will now go bomb more people, potentially Americans, and I am being selfish and saying that I do not want to be blown up. Nor do I want others to be blown up. Gah... Ok, I'm ranting nonsensically now, so I need to stop.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it seems as if some people here seem to have an immediate reaction against possible strikes on Iran because A) It's war and war is of course never necessary and B)Because Evil Bush would be the one launching any attack and if Bush does it, it's evil.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Bush has earned the "distinction" of having every one of his actions labeled, at first glance, as stupid and/or evil. Not because of ideology, but because of the fact that he has not done one thing well in his time at the White House. Regarding a possible war with Iran as insane simply because it's Bush's idea is not a bad foreign policy, as the recent past as shown us.</p>
<p>How is attacking a country that poses no immediate threat with over 600 000 sq miles to fight on, along with a native population of 70 million, going to make the world a better place? Stop being so shocked that a Islamo-Fascist nation wants to destroy Israel or denies the Holocaust. Hell, why don't we declare war on Mel Gibson while we're at it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I do question some of the posts because it seems as if some people here seem to have an immediate reaction against possible strikes on Iran because A) It's war and war is of course never necessary and B)Because Evil Bush would be the one launching any attack and if Bush does it, it's evil.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For the record, never a pacifist, I think wars are necessary to fight sometimes. I am pro-some wars. I am anti stupid and unnecessary wars. I believed Iraq to be that. </p>
<p>True, Iran may be on the verge of having nuclear weapons, and the reality is there's probably not a whole lot we can do it about it that won't come back and bite us in the butt in a worse way. It seems to me right now this should be more of a concern for our ally Israel than us directly. If we attack Iran, though, it will become a much larger concern for us.</p>
<p>Since the Bush Administration promised us that we were going to war on justifiable grounds -- even though the Iraq War was based on a priori unjustifiable concepts of pre-emptive strike -- and that we would be greeted by the Iraqis as liberators and quickly establish peaceful democracy in Iraq and since the Administration didn't understand the distinction between winning the fight "Mission Accomplished" and winning the occupation, I'd say that those not giving automatic credence to Bush's decisions to go to war are likely to be in the right. It doesn't have a lot to with good or evil, though it is fair to point out that the Iraq War has cost the US 3,500 lives and probably at least 200 times that in Iraqi deaths and has pretty much demolished a nation (as brutish as Saddam Husseins' regime was, it was more stable than the situation now).</p>
<p>^ Well, I don't support the war, but to be perfectly honest with ourselves, US troops were greeted as liberators. For about a week. Now most Iraqis want us to get out and let them rebuild their own country. It's just too bad that the one's with the most firepower want to rebuild Iraq in their own no-one-else-but-(insert particular sect here) image.</p>
<p>The US won't go to war with Iran without a Desert Storm-type situation, complete with the popular and international support.</p>
<p>Haha, no. Who the hell would we have in our expeditionary force? The Coast Guard?</p>
<p>^ Well of course, If you are old enough to remember the first Gulf War, you would remember that the US was far from going it alone then.</p>
<p>War in Iraq was a failure. Lets attack Iran now-->a bigger failure.
I really don't understand why a huge chunk of our taxes and foreign aid goes to a small nation like Israel. ~1/3 of US foreign aid goes to Israel.
And what is Israel doing with it? Going to Gaza and Palestine and killing innocent families, including innocent women and children.
Why would anybody sympathize with Israel?
Israel is not a 'country' in the first place. There are living on somebody else's property. Period.
I don't want to hear anybody mention Holocaust here because that is irrelevant to this. Nor should anybody call me 'anti-semitic', because that's just a nasty propaganda fueled by Zionist. I am asking a legitimate question.
If you oppose War in Iraq, you are unpatriotic. And if you raise your eyebrows on Israel's inappropriate actions, you are immediately labeled 'anti-semitic'. Preposterous.
And let there be no misunderstanding. I feel pity(of the highest degree) for Jews. I decry Hitler for commiting heinous crimes during Holocaust. But why take revenge from Palestinians? It was them who perpetrated these atrocities.
Go ask Germany for land. Give them Alaska or a part of your gazillion Shires (referring to Britain here) if you are so generous. Why only Jerusalem? Why pick only Palestine?</p>