Do you think the military could really handle another occupation of a country that doesnt want us there?
2006-11-29 06:33:49 · 18 answers · asked by Perplexed 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Under the Nuclear arms reduction treaty. We are obligated to maintain a predetermined amount of A-bombs.
By blowing off a few nukes the Weapons contractors could get the resupply contract. According to the FAR Federal Acquisition Regulations.at $50M a copy for A-bombs that is automatically $5M profit over and above all cost of production. Or as they say at the Lobbyist luncheon I'll give you 5 million reason$ to Bomb Iran.
Go big Red Go
2006-11-29 07:32:47 · answer #1 · answered by 43 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well, Oilman do like the price of oil to be as high as possible, arms manufacturers and military suppliers have to make even more profit than the previous year. War is a good way to give a larger portion of tax payers money to corporations and therefore shareholders.
Maybe Israel will do the bombing, though the American tax payer will still pick up the tab, and it would just be bombing to begin with, although Iran's response is far from predictable, and it certainly wont be bombed into compliance, so, a land invasion may well follow.
2006-11-29 14:58:24 · answer #2 · answered by Ringo G. 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Reason # 1: Bush thinks Iran is a threat
Reason # 2: Bush thinks Iran is a threat
Reason # 3: Bush thinks Iran is a threat.
I can provide you millions of reasons, but I suppose you get the idea.
US sure can handle another invasion and occupation, though that also could last many years, cost billions, cost thousands of lives of soldiers, etc. But it will succeed in shreading Iran to pieces.
2006-11-29 14:41:20 · answer #3 · answered by ramshi 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No Need to occupy them just take out the means to produce nuclear power and disrupt the infrastructure. Let them know what real power is and stop playing games. Russia, China and other countries are selling out their morality to get money from Iran. Our only hope is to eliminate the threat and let the rest of the world kiss our butts. Weakening the leadership will slow down aid to Hezbollah and other terrorist in the region.
2006-11-29 14:45:56 · answer #4 · answered by mr conservative 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Aminejad's letter to the American people is logical reason enough, even if it was the only reason.
Regardless of how you feel about our President, he is the diplomatic head of our nation. It is well established law. If you as an American attempted to go around the President to negotiate with another nation, you would be guilty of treason.
It is the way our nation operates.
2006-11-29 14:40:59 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There are no reasons to bomb Iran, we should try and work with them and use some diplomacy in the region instead of creating more hatred towards the US
2006-11-29 14:36:24 · answer #6 · answered by Docbrown 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
At the moment there are none and as far as I know there are no
plans to do so.
Unless of course you've heard something. Have you heard
something?
Thank you very much, while you're up!!!
2006-11-29 14:45:56 · answer #7 · answered by producer_vortex 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because a country with the name of Iran is not likely to fight back...Nyuk Nyuk
2006-11-29 15:08:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Who said anything about occupation? The idea is to destroy their nuke capabilities, & maybe their regime. I certainly wouldn't object to such a course of action.
2006-11-29 14:38:34 · answer #9 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
just to keep the american arms manufacturers in huge profit business which is also where those high ranking military officials retire to
2006-11-29 14:38:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋