The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Nukes

Poll

Nukes multiple choice
	.Does the US have the right to use force to stop Iran's of the acquisition of the bomb?
	Is the US obliged to stop Iran's bomb making plans ?
	Should the US aid such an attempt by Israel ?
	Should the US depend on sanctions ?
	Should the US maintain a 'hands off' policy?
Votes accepted starting: Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:01 PM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

May I punt.

I tend to think the US has the right to interfere but I don't trust us in being smart enough to do the right thing.

If the US administration still considers itself bound to the Constitution, it cannot consider an act of war without a Congressional declaration. But then, the US hasn't fought a declared war since WW2. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Somalia, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan... all "police actions" rather than legally declared wars.

I voted "hands off" because the Congress hasn't taken up the issue. I think the US should protect it's friends and allies, but not in the same unconstitutional way we've been doing for the last half-century.

I agree with Robin.....

With one exception, if other of Iran allies get involved (which I heard is a possibility) we may have to get in there....

I hope that should it come to intervention we come in with devastating speed and overwhelming power.
Whether we attack or not it seems very likely a great deal of innocents will die.

yeah, I don't know all the intracies....Israel has the capacity to do what they have to do to take out Iran's nuclear facilities without us.... and also probably withstand some type of counter attack by Iran....I think we should leave that alone, it should all work in Israel's favor, they have more capability and stronger military....

if other countries (Iran's allies) step in as part of a counter-attack....we need to be there!!! how long would it take congress to sign off on that I don't know, but we better be on-call just in case, that's for sure!

Below is some words from former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. I wonder how many statesmen we have in U.S. politics like this Robert Gates? I believe sanctions are the finest policy at this time.

“We have to be honest with ourselves,” Gates said. “We can no more eliminate the risk of terrorism altogether than we can eliminate crime.”

He said Iran had been one of the most difficult foreign relation situations he’d seen in decades. The most ideal outcome, Iranian leaders bowing to increased economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure, is also the least likely. He said the alternatives, attacking Iran or allowing Iran to get a nuclear weapon would be disastrous.

“If you think Iraq was hard, an attack on Iran in my opinion would be a catastrophe,” Gates said.

He said the attacking the country would only delay, not stop, its nuclear program and would also bridge a growing rift between Iranian leaders and its citizens.

“While we could undoubtedly set back their nuclear program two or three years, 70 million Iranians unhappy and restive with their government would rally behind the mullahs,” Gates said.