Is war with Iran inevitable?

By jj
@jjstream (313)
United States
March 30, 2009 12:18pm CST
Do you think the latest diplomatic overtures of the Obama administration, will succeed in getting Iran to drop their nuclear ambitions, allow UN weapons inspectors, unfettered access to their facilities and cease training, arming, and financing Iraqi Shiite militia? I think the Iranians have no interest in signing any agreement that would involve them agreeing to any of the above demands. They view themselves as a regional superpower, and we are the only ones who stand in their way. They will most likely use these diplomatic initiatives, as a stalling tactic to build a nuclear device, which they believe will prevent us from taking aggressive military action against them. In my view, unless we can obtain through our intelligence community or through the UN, verifiable proof that they've halted production of enriched uranium, then regime change will be the only viable option. What do you think?
1 person likes this
9 responses
• United States
31 Mar 09
I agree with you 100%. The only thing that is on there mind is regional power to altimatly control most, if not all, of the middle east. Iran has no intentions to drop any nuclear programs, including acheiving the development of nuclear bombs. May it be only one or many of them. They are a threat to regional and globle peace. They will continue to mock the U.N. and the rest of the world community to acheive superiority. Remember, there beleif is that the western region is evil and must be destroyed. We are satins and we're destroying the world. The muslums have worned us, either change your christianity beleifs to the muslem beleifs, or you will all die.
2 people like this
@ESKARENA1 (18299)
31 Mar 09
But surely the USA is an equal threat to world peace, where are the UN peace keeping forces? shouldnt they be invading America?
• United States
31 Mar 09
Good response, eskarena1. America is indeed the biggest threat to humanity, and hate to say it, but the U.N. is in a league with the U.S., they both seek to dominate the world. Not for nothing, but next time anybody gets the chance, compare a picture of Queen Elizabeth to George W. Bush.. the resembalance is absolutely haunting.
@echomonster (2227)
• Greenwood, Mississippi
30 Mar 09
I don't think it's inevitable at all. There are so many things that could happen to prevent a war, from a change in the political climate in Iran (which has a young population, many of whom are are fascinated by technology like cell phones) to the increasing adoption of alternative energy sources which in the long run will make the Middle East increasingly irrelevant to the rest of the world unless the region adopts to changing times. I agree in principle with nuclear nonproliferation but I don't think it's worked. Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea all have nukes -- it doesn't look like the genie can be put back in the bottle. While there should be consequences for a state that opts to develop nuclear weapons, I don't think war is necessarily the answer. Frankly, North Korea seems to me to be a lot crazier and less predictable than Iran. If even NK has been able to avoid war so far, despite all sorts of saber-rattling and provocation, I bet Iran will be able to do so as well.
2 people like this
@ESKARENA1 (18299)
31 Mar 09
Only one country has ever used Neuclear weapons, now then which country qwould that be?
@jjstream (313)
• United States
1 Apr 09
Good point, echomonster. Even if Iran has reached an agreement on it's nuclear weapons program, do you think that they will also stop financing and arming the Iraqi militia that are attacking our troops? Now that Mr. Obama has announced a troop withdrawal, maybe the Iranians will back off. What if they develop a nuclear weapon and sell it to a third party that's hostile to us?
@xfahctor (14128)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
30 Mar 09
The last thing the U.S. needs is another front opened up. I doubt very much we are going there anytime soon. Iseal may spark something itself but I doubt we are going there. It is interesting to note how absolutely nothing has changed in the minds of people like A-jhad, Chavez, Quadafi, Kim jong IL and the like. I thought our enemies would be now tripping over themselves to be friends with us because Bush was gone, how is it possible they still feel the same way about us?
1 person likes this
• United States
31 Mar 09
Because America sucks. They're trying to dominate the world, here. Do you really believe what Bush said, about how "..they hate is for our freedom.."? Really?
• United States
31 Mar 09
Yeah..umm..Iran is by no means a threat. Obaba's puppet self is the threat. Iran simply means to defend itself when we storm them, for no reason, just like Iraq. The "nuclear ambition" scare is just another way for the government to create a false sense of security so that we'd all look to them to "rescue" the world from "those who hate democracy". Come on, now.. ask yourself.. who really hates freedom? Think about it..
1 person likes this
@jonesy123 (3950)
• United States
30 Mar 09
In the future maybe. Wouldn't be the first time. Won't happen under Obama though. He won't touch that region unless it absolutely can't be avoided anymore. Something terrible would have to happen for that to take place... Remember, he won on the premise of ending a war in that area (well, now it's all slowed down to even a recent statement from the White House that we won't leave there any faster than originally planned...) Anyhow, he simply cannot afford another war there. At least not the way things are right now. The UN intervening and the US and other western countries wanting to stop Iraq from having a nuclear arsenal only has to do with the desire of preventing a shift in power in that area. They of course also don't want a usually rather temperamental leadership to have the capability to aim such a weapon at on of their countries. The US entering Iraq, well, the suspected nuclear arsenal was just a cover. Iraq also was a training ground for al quaida and Saddam was getting more and more iratic but unfortunately had started to gather up too much support in that region for his agenda... Knocking a dictator out of power, well that's just a happy by-product. All it comes down to is control in that area, influence... And all because of the oil. Otherwise nobody would care and they could kill each other like so many African nations quarrel. Just look at Sudan, nobody cares if you don't have anything to offer to the world. So, if push comes to fall, Obama might see himself forced to go in, but he won't act as easily and swiftly as Bush did (where I have to say that Bush went in way too early and was a bully, but that's another discussion,lol)
@xfahctor (14128)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
30 Mar 09
"Something terrible would have to happen for that to take place." http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
@xfahctor (14128)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
30 Mar 09
page 11 (pdf page 11) is probably the most relevent and specific
@jonesy123 (3950)
• United States
30 Mar 09
Wouldn't he have to approve of that? It would have been something from the outside...
@Arkie69 (2156)
• United States
30 Mar 09
This nuclear weapon stuff of a bunch of bull. There is no doubt if they ever used them they would be wiped off the earth in the blink of an eye. Or government is trying to use this just like they did the weapons of mass destruction they used to invade Iraq. They are trying to scare the American people into supporting an attack on Iran. Anyone with half a brain and at least one good eye should be able to see that. They have been using this junk for years to muster public support for their little wars. It's all about Iran's oil just like it was Iraq's. You bet war with Iran is inevitable. Our government under pressure from the big oil companies will see to that. These people fully intend to control the bulk of the worlds oil. When they have done that there will be no need for all these wars. They know that who ever controls the oil will control the world. The best thing that could happen to this world is to run out of oil. Art
• United States
31 Mar 09
Yeah! Great post, bro!! 9/11 was exactly the same, a "test", if you will, to calculate the responses of the people. They're trying to scare the public into believing in them, so that we feel justified with all of their criminal actions. The real enemy is in office, people, and YOU voted for him. Now, we're all being led on by some puppet..
@Arkie69 (2156)
• United States
31 Mar 09
I didn't vote for Bush or Obama. In fact I have never voted and never will. You can't blame me for that one. Art
@deleepkv (39)
• India
30 Mar 09
Iran has all the rights to develop a nuclear reactors to generate electricity.we only want to make sure that they use it for peaceful purpose.
@Arkie69 (2156)
• United States
30 Mar 09
Ask yourself this question and answer it honestly. If the US has the right to have nuclear weapons does Iran or any other country not have the same right? I would think they should. Art
• United States
30 Mar 09
Yes, I agree Iran has the right to explore and develop nuclear power to generate electricity or any other peacful means. No, Not if that country threatens the pure existence of another country, or any other country for that matter.
@ESKARENA1 (18299)
31 Mar 09
In time President Obama will invade Iran, Bush almost certainly qwould have done, nothing changes that much blessed be
@Squeegis (17)
• Canada
30 Mar 09
If NOBODY had bombs. Nobody would have to worry about ANY of this.
• United States
31 Mar 09
Hah, good response. Tell that to the shattered pieces of humanity, though. Life has become nothing more than a race to supremacy.