In the morning news I heard the above information as Mr. Bush said yesterday.
I request all the viewers/ participants to come out with their esteemed opinion!!!
2006-09-01 18:51:21 · 6 answers · asked by SESHADRI K 6 in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
Why do you think they are sending 16,000 UN troops to Lebanon? Do you think we need that many troops there? Oh sure, they're a peacekeeping force now, but it sure will be handy to have them there if the UN decides to go to war.
Bush would have to start a war before the next election, because Al Gore won't start a war with Iran. Oh did I mention Al Gore is going to win the next election? I don't even know if he's running, but he should. Furthermore, Gore would have accepted Ahmadenejad's challenge to a live debate on world issues, unlike Bush's chicken-shite-****.
Personally I think we should let Iran continue enriching uranium. No I don't trust them. I don't agree with Ahmadenejad's "Death to Israel" statements, and I am certainly not blind to their poor track record with WMDs. However, the US has no place bossing around the rest of the world. If any country wants to use nuclear technology for power then who should be allowed to stop them? Sure they should be closely watched and they should voluntarily allow inspections by a neutral party.
The US media is controlled by the US military/government and they are demonizing Ahmadenejad, just as Iran does with the US to its own people. He may actually not be as bad as we all think he is.
We need talks, not sanctions and wars. We need to throw Iran a bone here so that they will cooperate. Ahmadenejad is being backed into a corner and is making some pretty serious threats himself.
This WILL turn out to be a bloody war, with destruction on Earth like never before seen. This war won't stay in the Middle East, it will make it to US mainland.
Iran has a pretty tough military and they probably won't play nice.
Why are we taunting this man?
2006-09-01 19:10:36 · answer #1 · answered by whatispunk 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This is very BAD news. If the UN were going to send in a few drones, take out the nuclear plants and call it good, I might be able to forgive that, but thats not whats going to happen.
There are going to be casualties, the Iranian people are going to be angry, and we've all seen what happens when muslims get angry. Heck, I KNOW people from Iran, they're fookin' SCARY when they're pissed.
Iran is not Iraq. It's bigger and meaner, and its a democratic country, though it I'd call it a theocracy. The US cannot afford another battleground right now, their forces are stretched too thin, and our meddling in the middle east would turn into a full-blown holy war with Nuclear weapons. No thanks.
_________________
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in a final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
2006-09-02 02:03:18 · answer #2 · answered by Roadpizza 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would the thought of any war being unavoidable be good news? Thats horrible news that thats one of the first options he considers..Its also horrible that it should even have to come to this..
2006-09-02 01:57:09 · answer #3 · answered by pentalityism 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i alrready knew, when he was elected that it was coming.
i been trying to warn people and they don't listen.
but now thou shall see.
Last two nights dreams, and I normally dont remember them
Behold a pale horse, from Revelation was the word given to me
then last night a nuke bomb the pope and the president.
get ready boys.
DRAFT
By the way, don't make fun of the jews anymore cause of their disbeleif, gentiles don't beleive it either. But it's okay. Not much fun being left to our own devices is it?
2006-09-02 18:44:13 · answer #4 · answered by eg_ansel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as Iran has little Hitler and the Mullahs running the show, it looks unavoidable.
2006-09-02 04:42:02 · answer #5 · answered by composertype 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
meh
2006-09-02 01:56:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋