Management Project Software

Should the USA use Diplomacy or War with Iran on the nuclear issue?

NOTE: This question is only about personal views. No slams, hate speech or debate of which is right or wrong is allowed. Please make your view clear. In the history of the previous wars especially the Iraq war the USA went to war to disarm Saddam Hussein of WMDs. But it has shown there are no WMDs there and the intelligence was not correct. The USA government and other western powers have accused Iran of convert nuclear research to build a nuclear weapon. We as people have no access to this so called intelligence so is the government right or wrong in this issue? North Korea is on track to disarm because of the six party talks. Libya also agreed to disarm without war happening either. So is war necessary or not? Some have said there are proposed plans to attack Iran. What is your opinion if these plans do exist and the USA does go to war with Iran? NOTE: This is not a debate so be straight to the point on your view. If you are from Iran or any other country your view is welcome.

Public Comments

1. Yes. We should point 500 nuclear weapons in their direction. And tell their government to make a move.
2. I didn't realize that the two were mutually exclusive of each other. Silly me. "War is just an extension of diplomacy".
3. Hmmmm let me see...... Castro has been in power in Cuba for about 50 years now.... I don't see any difference with Iran...ohhh yeah...they want nuclear weapons....
4. Neither. Covert operations.
5. Well I am Iranian and I dont understand why we cant have nuclear power? Everyone else has it, so what? Why cant we? The US has nuclear bombs and has used them, Iran has never done anything to suggest that we would like to bomb somewhere. (Note: The president did not say he wanted to whipe israel off the map, that was a bad translation) I think just because you are not friends with somebody does mean that they should not be able to advance. And the US gave Iraq weapons of destruction during the Iran Iraq war.
6. Of course diplomacy should be used when possible. It was used with Saddam for over a decade before the decision was made to deal with what was, for years, considered a threat. However, Iran cannot be allowed to have nukes and sometimes talking to someone who is dishonest and crazy has a point where it just must end. We are not there yet with Iran.
7. War just means we kill a bunch of people before we come to a solution using diplomacy the leaders decide how many have to die before we're willing to talk all you need to do is look at history to know that war has never 'solved' anything
8. Actually, Libya disarmed because of the attacks against Iraq and Afghanistan. They knew they were on the list, and didn't want it to happen to them. The goal of North Korea's nuclear program was always to use it as leverage to get more aid from the civilized world. What is the goal of Iran's nuclear weapons program? This is a country which openly calls for genocide.. can we really risk it? We need to try more diplomacy with them, but there's little chance of it working. These are religious nuts who think they have a divine mandate to kill infidels. Historically diplomacy has NEVER worked against these types of people. War was the only thing that solved the problem. I'd love to be wrong.. I'd love for them to wake up tomorrow and decide to rejoin the rest of the world. But it's not likely.
9. Bomb the hell out of them Something that should have been done during Carters term
10. Why is it OK for the U.S and other countries to have nuclear bombs and then insist Iran doesn't even have the right to develop its own nuclear power industry? Because it would challenge the Israeli-U.S nuclear monopoly, in the region. Money Money Money. If/when the U.S attacks Iran it must also accept the devastating consequences, Iran has the right to protect itself from invading forces. There's no proof that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons - where is the proof? The U.S has no real interest in a Diplomatic resolution in Iran and continues to manipulate the truth about Iran and build a case for war.
11. It is a miracle that in sixty years , since the two bombs in Japan, no nuclear attacks have taken place. It does make one believe that human beings, in spite of all our flaws and limitations, are not that stupid. What makes the possibility of Nuclear weapons in Iran so dangerous, is that it is hard to believe that if they did have them they would not use them to wipe out Israel. But would Israel ever allow that? The key question for me is whether the State of Israel can survive a perpetual war for more than one hundred years. There are nor precedents in History for this, except perhaps the so-called One Hundred Years War of the XIVth century, essentially between the French and the English, but that was a peripheral confrontation. The Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the First Crusade , as all the others were great military fiascos, but some one hundred years later, after continuous conflicts with Islam, they were forced to leave this land defeated. As a westener, I think the same would be bad news indeed for us, and of course for Israel. I am not Israeli nor Jew. I am a Christian. As such I wish Israel found the way for peace in the Middle East, and the arab countries would finally acknowledge and accept the State of Israel. Only then many other problems, like Islamic terrorism and instability in the region and oil and natural gas reserves, will find a long term solution.