Amazon.com Widgets

Should the United States use military action against Iran?

  • The U.S. is justified in using military action to stop Iran.

    Iran is a threat to the region, to U.S. allies, and a threat the U.S. itself. Iran is not content to be left alone and, given the governments view of western culture, inclined to become a greater scourge to the world in general. Khomeini's views about right and wrong extend far beyond Farsi speaking people, and he is willing to go further than words if no one stands up to him.

  • The United States

    I personally agree,Iran will probably not be an issue, but to say military action is not a viable option is too premature. Our military could use bunker busting bombs to penetrate their nuclear operations. The sanctions have not halted their progress, and we must seek out an alternative. Military force might be that alternative.

  • No! Worst decision ever!!!

    We want to get rid of the Sunni militants who reside in the Middle East. It is not against Iran we want to fight. It is the Sunni military groups, the common one of which is none other than ISIS itself, that we pose as a threat to our peace. The truth is Iran shares our interest to defeat such militants so why not use this as an alliance? Reaching our third year with ISIS, people are looking forward to an end, and what is a better end than to crush the army that we despise so much so that they are weak and helpless. And what makes it easier than having a nation aid you in such combat? Nothing. With Iran on our side, we could start an alliance and this alliance can make our future with Iran much better. Until the 1900's, the US was not much of a friend of Europe. They were just trade partners. It was not until the World Wars that we've become ever more closer to them. If we are able to go through the same thing with Iran, a lot of future problematic situations could be disregarded.

    The first problem people think of when it comes to Iran nuclear power. We don't know what to do about it. It will be just very dumb as well as costly to take on Iran in war. If we were to do so it would be most likely a nuclear war. In fact, Iran is already dangerous when it comes to nuclear power. In just the Nagasaki bomb, also know as “Fat Man,” 6.1 kilograms of plutonium 239 is required. Iran is making 230 kilograms of plutonium 239 per year. In the “Little Boy,” which was the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, 60 kilograms of uranium 235 was used. Iran has 15,651 kilograms of plutonium 239. With just these numbers we can say that Iran can approximately make 260 “Little Boy” bombs and 37 “Fat Man” bombs per year. The damage from just one of them was already devastating. To have about 300 of them! Nations can be destroyed! And when nations start to get destroyed, more and more nations will join the war so that they can end such catastrophe immediately. We could essentially cause a World War Ⅲ that involves nuclear power. The US ended World War Ⅱ by dropping a nuclear bomb and that was in a war where nuclear weapons were not common. Now if nuclear weapons are the standard weapons, a lot stronger weapon must be used to scare off the opponents. Such a weapon would have to be able to blow up the planet and really that would be the last thing we want to do. Sure it will end a war, but how can there be war when there is no beings to take part in a war. Getting in a nuclear war would be highly dangerous and the last thing we ever do.

  • The US will not be justified in pursuing military action against Iran as it would be unprofitable and unwise to do so.

    We want to get rid of the Sunni militants who reside in the Middle East. It is not against Iran we want to fight. It is the Sunni military groups, the common one of which is none other than ISIS itself, that we pose as a threat to our peace. The truth is Iran shares our interest to defeat such militants so why not use this as an alliance? Reaching our third year with ISIS, people are looking forward to an end, and what is a better end than to crush the army that we despise so much so that they are weak and helpless. And what makes it easier than having a nation aid you in such combat? Nothing. With Iran on our side, we could start an alliance and this alliance can make our future with Iran much better. Until the 1900's, the US was not much of a friend of Europe. They were just trade partners. It was not until the World Wars that we've become ever more closer to them. If we are able to go through the same thing with Iran, a lot of future problematic situations could be disregarded.

    The first problem people think of when it comes to Iran nuclear power. We don't know what to do about it. It will be just very dumb as well as costly to take on Iran in war. If we were to do so it would be most likely a nuclear war. In fact, Iran is already dangerous when it comes to nuclear power. In just the Nagasaki bomb, also know as “Fat Man,” 6.1 kilograms of plutonium 239 is required. Iran is making 230 kilograms of plutonium 239 per year. In the “Little Boy,” which was the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, 60 kilograms of uranium 235 was used. Iran has 15,651 kilograms of plutonium 239. With just these numbers we can say that Iran can approximately make 260 “Little Boy” bombs and 37 “Fat Man” bombs per year. The damage from just one of them was already devastating. To have about 300 of them! Nations can be destroyed! And when nations start to get destroyed, more and more nations will join the war so that they can end such catastrophe immediately. We could essentially cause a World War Ⅲ that involves nuclear power. The US ended World War Ⅱ by dropping a nuclear bomb and that was in a war where nuclear weapons were not common. Now if nuclear weapons are the standard weapons, a lot stronger weapon must be used to scare off the opponents. Such a weapon would have to be able to blow up the planet and really that would be the last thing we want to do. Sure it will end a war, but how can there be war when there is no beings to take part in a war. Getting in a nuclear war would be highly dangerous and the last thing we ever do.

  • That will be the WORST DECISION EVER made!!!

    It is just unwise to take action against Iran. We want to get rid of the Sunni militants who reside in the Middle East. It is not against Iran we want to fight. It is the Sunni military groups, the common one of which is none other than ISIS itself, that we pose as a threat to our peace. The truth is Iran shares our interest to defeat such militants so why not use this as an alliance? Reaching our third year with ISIS, people are looking forward to an end, and what is a better end than to crush the army that we despise so much so that they are weak and helpless. And what makes it easier than having a nation aid you in such combat? Nothing. With Iran on our side, we could start an alliance and this alliance can make our future with Iran much better. Until the 1900's, the US was not much of a friend of Europe. They were just trade partners. It was not until the World Wars that we've become ever more closer to them. If we are able to go through the same thing with Iran, a lot of future problematic situations could be disregarded.

    The first problem people think of when it comes to Iran nuclear power. We don't know what to do about it. It will be just very dumb as well as costly to take on Iran in war. The war would be most likely a nuclear war. Truth is Iran is already dangerous when it comes to nuclear power. In just the Nagasaki bomb, also know as “Fat Man,” 6.1 kilograms of plutonium 239 is required. Iran is making 230 kilograms of plutonium 239 per year. In the “Little Boy,” which was the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, 60 kilograms of uranium 235 was used. Iran has 15,651 kilograms of plutonium 239. With just these numbers we can say that Iran can approximately make 260 “Little Boy” bombs and 37 “Fat Man” bombs per year. The damage from just one of them was already devastating. To have about 300 of them! Nations can be destroyed! And when nations start to get destroyed, more and more nations will join the war so that they can end such catastrophe immediately. We could essentially cause a World War Ⅲ that involves nuclear power. The US ended World War Ⅱ by dropping a nuclear bomb and that was in a war where nuclear weapons were not common. Now if nuclear weapons are the standard weapons, a lot stronger weapon must be used to scare off the opponents. Such a weapon would have to be able to blow up the planet and really that would be the last thing we want to do. Sure it will end a war, but how can there be war when there is no beings to cause or even acknowledge the war. Getting in a nuclear war would be highly dangerous and the last thing we ever do.

  • No more american blood for israel!

    What I fail to comprehend is on a post like this no one seems to address the real issue! Was the Iraqi American wars (1&2) about "weapons of mass destruction? NO! It was all about Israeli security. Was it about oil? NO! America gets most of it's oil from Canada, Mexico, and Nigeria. The only reason for instability in the middle east, is Israel! Built on a lie, from a scripture they don't believe in (bible), continued to illegally accummulate stolen technologies and atomic secrets, ( thank's France), and become the leading main power over the middle east. Their lobbying group in Washington D.C., is so powerful it can influence american/foreign policy. America has taken out the other "Big boys on the block" for Israel, but this time there is a blatantly disregard for America interests in the middle-east. Least of mention: since Israel has accquired their own nuclear capability, they have threatened nucluear war on: Russia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Egypt and also to all American and European nations that do do support Israel in time of war. But... What is the real argument here? I believe first and foremost, ( no matter your political affiliation) is complete transparency! Who cattered to lobbyist? Who acted for the people's will? We the people must hold politicians accountable judiciously. These bastards should be tried for treason! Thd people will prevail, not the gornment. "We made the government, the nation" ; " The government should fear the free-man; The free-man should not fear the government".

  • No, the United States should not use military action against Iran

    The united States should not take military action against Iran. They have taken far too much military action in the past with prior conflicts in the middle east, so I think it would be a bad decision to take military action in Iran. The US needs to learn to let countries handle their own conflicts.

  • Iran is inconsequential to American Policy.

    Iran really is not a threat to the US. The only reason Iran has engaged the US in any aggressive posturing at all is because the US acts as a protector for Israel. Iran and Israel are obviously not undergoing any peaceful relations. Military action against Iran would be pointless, unless the US has some reason for starting a new world war.

  • not at all

    No, I think that any use of force against Iran is just going to put us into a new war, which we really do not need right now, since the nation is deep in debt and we need to make sure we fix all of the problems that we have.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.