Should the U.S. Use Military Force Against Iran?
Once a distant, mysterious land, the U.S. has become intensely embroiled in Middle Eastern politics. While simultaneously waging campaigns in both Afghanistan and Iraq, America has turned a wary eye to Iran and its alleged nuclear weapons. With the lives of potentially thousands of soldiers and citizens at stake in both countries, should the U.S. take direct military action against Iran?








Two trillion wrongs don't make a right
Who are you arguing with?
A while back, Iraq was responsible for all things evil in the Middle East.
I never said that, and I don't align myself with those who do. We should have attacked Iran to begin with. And we should help our ally Canada regardless of who attacks them. What do Muslims have to do with it?
Fight like we mean it:
"ordered not to bomb key targets, such as power plants, and to avoid firing into mosques (where insurgents hide) lest we offend Muslim sensibilities. Instead, we sent our troops to lift Iraq out of poverty, open new schools, fix up hospitals, feed the hungry, unclog sewers--a Peace Corps, not an army corps, mission." Is any of this not true? I'm open to argument on this subject, as the only information I have is purely rhetorical, and therefore somewhat untrustworthy. I accepted it as true because it wasn't refuted by an expert on the 'No' side.
- Hank
August 16, 2008 9:58AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.