According to a Yahoo news report: A recent House of Representatives committee report on Iran's nuclear capability is "outrageous and dishonest" in trying to make a case that Tehran's program is geared toward making weapons, a senior official of the U.N. nuclear watchdog has said.
Do u think they are repeating the same stategy like before they invaded Iran?
2006-09-14 18:45:26 · 26 answers · asked by vincegill 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Yes I meant before they invaded Iraq
2006-09-14 19:12:06 · update #1
Look first of all you have to go back to the shah of iran in the sixties and seventies. Who was there best friend? The united states needed a friend in the gulf and gave him everything he wanted. Guess what that was? Yes nuke power ( not alot just enuf to keep them happy)along with war tanks and planes. Now the shah was spending so much on that crap that the ppl were starving. So iran has a revolution and the shah gets disposed. Now the freaks take over.
So now the u.s. dosent have a friend in the persian gulf. Meanwhile saddam hussian gets pissed at iran and starts a war. Well if he knew what he was doing he coulda won but stopped short. Well iran gets freaks together and they were fightin for allah. Well it pushed saddam back. Well he did'nt like that and went to the u.s. and wanted help. Well guess who helped him? Yes the u.s. Is this a joke or what? Anyways when the u.s. interviened. iran backed down but they hate the u.s. and i don't blame them. So whats the morel of the story? IF YOU DON'T WANT SOMEONE TO HAVE IT. DON'T GIVE IT TO THEM. THE US HAS NO ONE TO BLAME FOR THIS NUKE CRAP BUT THEMSELVES. The answer to your question is your damn right the u.s. knows they have it....FLO
2006-09-14 19:19:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I suppose you mean invaded Iraq. No, I do not think they are using same tactics. Once burnt, twice shy.
The situation is totally different, Iraq always denied
weapons of mass destruction whereas Iran admit to going
ahead with enrichment of nuclear fuel for peaceful
purposes. If they will go ahead with use in weapons of
mass destruction is an open question. However this time
there are many ountries involved and Blair is a burnt
Candle. Also the US are over streched with their
military overseas at a time they are coming into
elections. Taking all this into account, I believe
that Bush will be more cautious and leave matters up
to the UN for a final decision.
2006-09-15 02:43:02 · answer #2 · answered by Ricky 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think you mean "before they invaded IRAQ" but yes I get your drift.
In answer to your question - yes it is not only possible but highly likely they did. The United Nations International Atomic Energy Authority also concurred that the U.S. Government were vastly over-stating Iran's nuclear capabilities and intentions.
Like Iraq, this could (and probably is) another attempt by the U.S. to control the oil - they're not content with filching the oil from Iraq they want Iran's too.
2006-09-15 01:56:42 · answer #3 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It may just be the case that Iran are telling a lie about their nuke capability and what they have succeeded in accomplishing so far. One piece of the jigsaw which you might like to add which seems to be missing from most news on the subject is CHINA. The Chinese want oil, Iran has oil and wants nuke. The Chinese got nuke. SWAP etc.
2006-09-15 02:50:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
What lies ,a high school physics student could build a nuke given refined or weapons grade plutonium .Peaceful use is a blind ,they want nukes plain and simple with dominance of the Islamic world the ultimate goal.
2006-09-15 07:19:09 · answer #5 · answered by joseph m 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iran is floating on oil,Bush is an oilman and so are most of the leaders of his administration (the lovely Condee is a sexy woman of course) these people will do anything to ensure that Americans will get their oil. So the answer is probably deliberate misinformation on the part of GWB
2006-09-15 02:52:49 · answer #6 · answered by Rob Roy 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes,Bush & his gang are trying to build a case for attacking Iran by their usual method of lying & twisting the evidence.This time,America will have to go it alone,there is no way a British Prime-Minister will get away with lying to the public,as Blair did.
2006-09-15 02:48:00 · answer #7 · answered by michael k 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think you mean 'before they invaded Iraq'.
Yes precisely, you've hit the nail on the head.
Another poor excuse for another poor war, in the name of oil.
2006-09-15 11:40:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO one knows. Except the governments of Iran and USA
And we havn't invaded Iran that I know of.
2006-09-15 01:52:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
of course they are exaggerating the threat of iran for their own purposes.they are only interested in attacking countries that have something they need OIL.us oil is running out so they need to control everbodyelses then they can keep burying their heads in the sand and continue polluting the earth at the expence of mankind.
2006-09-15 04:20:30 · answer #10 · answered by casino man 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋