Iran`s DEADLINE ends tomorrow!!.

[illyrius]

What you think pals.

IRAN's DEADLINE ends tomorrow about stoppin the Nuclear works that they keep doin , and doin.. "Iranians President said that he wont stop the nuclear progress that his country is workin on"

I heard on the BBC NEWS that "America" is gettin ready for an possible attack..

WHAT U THINK? :hmmm:

[Mikelus Trento]

I think the sun will rise tomorrow morning, and set tomorrow night. And in the meantime no one will attack Iran. If that is what you fear.

[Atheist Peace]

I think the sun will rise tomorrow morning, and set tomorrow night. And in the meantime no one will attack Iran. If that is what you fear.

Indeed. Iran isn't actually expected to meet any of the deadlines or stop its nuclear programs. This worries me, because I must wonder how many western powers are actually devoted to negotiating successfully a disarmament on Iran's part, and how many would prefer to just let the situation stagnate, or even to go to war. I doubt any non-Americans want to go to war with Iran, at this point. But America's commitment to a diplomatic resolution seems quite lacking, and the U.S. participating is important to such a solution. The situation is certainly dangerous, but it's impossible to say how it will unfold at this point.

[William the Bastard]

Purely Militarily does any one else see that the Iranians are flanked by America already with Afghanistan and Iraq and perhaps that by invading another Muslim country ie Iran that they shall alienate more muslisms. Isn't this what Bin Ladin wants soo that say another Saladin can reunite the caliphate and have a muslim empire from Morocco to Pakistan?

[Khamarios]

The US isn't rly in position to start antoher warm, not to mention Iran should be a lot tougher opponent then Iraq. The US will be stretching its lines too thin if they do so.

[William the Bastard]

Too right US and UK same situation its called over being overstretched. I wonder what the chinese think of the Mid-East they have enough manpower to sweep in and claim oil for themselves?

[bigfootedfred]

Indeed. Iran isn't actually expected to meet any of the deadlines or stop its nuclear programs. This worries me, because I must wonder how many western powers are actually devoted to negotiating successfully a disarmament on Iran's part, and how many would prefer to just let the situation stagnate, or even to go to war. I doubt any non-Americans want to go to war with Iran, at this point. But America's commitment to a diplomatic resolution seems quite lacking, and the U.S. participating is important to such a solution. The situation is certainly dangerous, but it's impossible to say how it will unfold at this point.

Add to this situation.
The bush Administration...

to the op,
either Israel Strikes, and Iran uses its new missiles against Israel, allowing the US to 'defend its ally'.
Or the US strikes Iran.

[Your Lame Sister]

lol, the myth of US's "overstrechness" (if that's even a word). 70% of american soldiers are still stationed in north america, and america has more reserves.

[King Sakkeus]

Its still a fact that the US military hasnt got enough men&material to invade and occupy another country unless they use the draft.
Then again Iran is too big and their army is too good for any country to succesfully invade and occupy them for long. Its hopeless and its not necessary to stop their nuclear program.
Airstrikes are highly unreliable way to stop the program too and it would cause propably thousands of civilian casualties and still fail to disable the nuclear program completely.

The best option is to stop going down the road that brought us the Ayatollahs in Iran, 9/11 and other problems and actually stop destroying countries for resources or politics.
Maybe we wouldnt have to fear them nuking us if we hadnt screwed their country up in the first place.

[Tiwaz]

lol, the myth of US's "overstrechness" (if that's even a word). 70% of american soldiers are still stationed in north america, and america has more reserves.

But would people appriciate moving even half of that off to Iran to die in another pointless war?

Not to mention that this is long term thing apparently. It will be a strain for long time if USA does not admit defeat and pull out from Iraq alone. You can only keep up the recruitment so long by drumming various patriotic propaganda. Eventually people will come jaded to it as losses mount and every message of "immediate impending victory" are proven lies.

[LoZz]

lol, the myth of US's "overstrechness" (if that's even a word). 70% of american soldiers are still stationed in north america, and america has more reserves.

they may well have the men, but they are over stretched in terms of will power of the people and money

i think we may be underestimateing the iran army, it will be harder then the afgans and iraq, they will lose, no doubt, but they will take many americans with them, if it came to invasion of course.

[Khamarios]

lol, the myth of US's "overstrechness" (if that's even a word). 70% of american soldiers are still stationed in north america, and america has more reserves.

Well sometimes the military condition is not solely based on the man power. The problem is not about USA's ability to supply enough soldiers, it is about are they able to maintain its lines. The soldiers need equipments, salaries, supplies and stuffs. The tanks and aircrafts need maintiance and oil. All these are quite costly. Not to mention if it invaded Iran, it will cost A LOT MORE to maintain the conditions, such as rebuilding cities etc. The USA is alrdy trillions in debt, i don't think it is a wise move to double ur debts.

[powerpuff boys]

american cant afford to attack iran, to many troops are split up.

[LoZz]

the usa cant realy do anything untill they stablize iraq and afganistan, i also dont trust the usa intelligence, after all it was wrong on iraq, i do belive it is for civialian purposes.

[RZZZA]

I just dont think pre emptive warfare looks very good to anyone anymore.

[Garbarsardar]

One person's deadline is another's lifeline.

[KaerMorhen]

...until next time.

[jankren]

If USA decided to invade Persia, would the overzealous Iranian Shiah Muslims fight as insanely as the Japanese during WWII? I remember to hear that during the Iran-Iraq war, there was even special Iranian Shiah units whose task was merely to clear the land mines put by the Iraqis so Iranian troops could go through by stepping on the mines and died as martyrs according to their belief.

[Caelius]

The only impediment to a war with Iran would be the speed at which the US could deploy it's force multipliers and munitions....

[MasterAdnin]

If USA decided to invade Persia, would the overzealous Iranian Shiah Muslims fight as insanely as the Japanese during WWII? I remember to hear that during the Iran-Iraq war, there was even special Iranian Shiah units whose task was merely to clear the land mines put by the Iraqis so Iranian troops could go through by stepping on the mines and died as martyrs according to their belief.

Shi'ites are fierce warriors. That is obvious. They will fight harder than the Japanese in WW2. That too, if in fact the US attacks Iran, not only would they be screwing their relations with numerous countries, but they'd be screwing over the US public. I live in the US and understand how bad the deficit is. Although I strongly think that we can over come the deficit fairly easily, I don't want taxes going up, and don't want that going on during my life time. Not only that, the US would be highly criticized by other nations and would lose most if not all of it's legitimacy.

Another thing is Iran is no push over like Iraq. They are a much more stable country and their fiercely nationalistic. The Iraqi people were initially happy with the US invasion and toppling of the Iraqi regime. The Irani people will be pissed, they won't take it and will fight with everything they have to keep their current life style.

The thing that gets me the most pissed off is that our government, the US, thinks that they can do what ever they please while not allowing others to do the same. I hate hypocrites, and that is why I dislike our current governments actions and foreign relations.

of course there will be casualties, but that's war.
what bush should do is send in a strong LAND ATTACK to smash the iranian army, destroy the nuclear fascility and industry, and get out. the iranians won't fix the nuclear fascilities straight after the war because they will be busy rebuilding their country, and if they would try rebuilding their nuclear power later they will have to start from scratch. the only problem is popular oppinion in the US... apearently, the americans don't like to see their enemies beaten.

No, we don't like to see our friends and families being slaughtered in foreign countries because the current President has his own vendetta. Also, the American population does not want to pay more taxes to support a war that will not end any time soon. Not only that, Iran has no problems with the US. It is concerned with Israel and Iran knows attacking the US is literally a suicide action. It's like attacking a lion and expecting to come out the winner.

Salaam,
Adnan