Attack on Iran inevitable?

Erm... no. America is not anti muslim, nor is our government. Our government hates the muslims who choose to blow themselves up (and consequently, other people) because of their religion. We know every muslim is not like that. Granted, our government thinks alot more muslims are suicide bombers than there probably are, but it isn't anti-muslim. Iran's government, on the other hand, is completely anti-Semetic.

And in further posting (this is for everyone), can we just say American-government, or American-people? It is confusing... I can't tell if you think the entirety of America thinks certain things, or just our government.

 

But don't just limit that to America. England, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, France, Spain, Poland, Russia, Zimbabwe, Israel, etc. all deserve that kind of distinction. For example:

Even though that's somewhat specific, I'm not sure it's specific enough. Is it really the entirety of the Iranian government, or just that crackpot who was running it (is he even still in power)?

 

Right-O.

I'm (obviously) not sure whether the entire government is or not, but their leader most certainly is. In any case, the person calling the shots, and thus, affecting people, is anti-Semetic.
Er, right?

 

Well, I remember reading something about him being forced to resign or some such, but that could just be wishful thinking on my part, or speculation on their part combined with bad memory on mine.

 

There is a third option, military blockade. Hey, we got military on both sides in Iraq and Afganistan, put the Navy in the Gulf and stop their oil shipments. It's their government's only true lifeline: cashflow.

Finally, some true history. Look what the Japanese did in China and the Phillipnes. Given the chance to invade in American mainland, civilans would have been targeted. Why do we all place modern political correctness on th our views of the past. ALL WARS before 1980 included major civilan deaths, it was just part of war, mostly due to the inacuracy of weapons, or for the sheer terror it inspired to break the will of the combatants.

How did he kill those tens of thousands of Kurds?

 

^Well, it's pretty obvious that he had chemical weapons at the time he used them on the Kurds. What I think that comment was meant to relate was that he didn't have any in the years before the current war. In fact, he probably hasn't had any WMD since the end of the Gulf War.

 

Certainly, there was manufacturing and shipyards in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But they weren't bombing soldiers. They bombed civillians. Women and children. The Japanese still have problems with birth defects due to the employment of that weapon. We knew the consequences. We knew the target. And we dropped the bomb, anyway.

 

Those must have been the ones we sold him!

 

Well, Truman thought about nuking Toyko, but this WOULD have been massive civilian casualties.

Back to Iran, someone has to stand up to the new lunatic on the block. I say screw Europe and go in with the Israelis.

 

I'm sure thats exactly what they want - war

Diplomacy until they actually have a threat.

 

Am I the only one who remembers that, after Iraq did exactly what we told them to do, we went to war anyway? Frankly, I'm not willing to believe anything the US government has to say about Iran now. If France and Germany feel Iran is a credible threat, that's one thing. Otherwise, Iran's (probably) peaceful pursuit of nuclear energy should be considered peaceful.

 

Our government is paranoid of anyone that could possibly (maybe) be developing weapons with the power of nuclear warheads. They have a right to be, as anyone does. I do believe, however, that we are taking it to far as to prepare for bombing and the like. Talking and listening works too, you dumbass! (<--- that was directed to Bush, not you )

Hopefully Iran has power (electrical, not power power) in mind, not war.

 

I'm wondering - could Iran count on any support if they were invaded? Because if they can - things could get messy real damn fast. It would be an excellent opportunity for anti-US countries to throw them out of the Middle East, and they're probably pretty nervous about the US presence there in general.

What about China? Would they intervene? They certainly are in the diplomatic way, would they provide military aid as well? They certainly have the ability to.

Russia? They're quite friendly with Iran. Would they step in (and I'm thinking actively, not 'give them night-vision goggles like they did in Iraq)?

 

Both Russia and China are no match for the current US military, and i'm quite certain they are not looking for a conflict. However, the US wouldn't gain anything from picking a fight with said nations, so as always...it's going to be compromising all the way.

 

well... tought US juz want oil right ??
it's okay to be rich... but... why they stand on all people shoes ??
and.. well... give them all poisonus food...

 

If the US was in conflict with Russia, China, Iran, and Iraq, the US would be totally doomed, but that is not going to happen anyway.

 

Don't be so sure. Our doom seems to be pretty much what Bush is shooting for.