Am I the only one who knew when we invaded Iraq that Iran was next then Syria ? Not Saudi Arabia gthough because there is too much of a good and profitable business tie between them and the bush family.Maybe we should finish one illegal invasion before we start the next.
Its almost like a saturday night live skit.
We invade Iraq, screw that up so we move on to Iran thinking we will do better but then we will screw that up.
Maybe the US is looking for a reason to use the H-bomb.
2006-12-19 07:42:15 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
the tin foil hat answer is retarded just like the dingbat poster.We are building up forces right now. Iran is next.
2006-12-19 07:49:12 · update #1
But that scenario is foolish ALL the way around. we prove nothing and push this planet to the brink of annihilation
2006-12-19 07:44:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 2⤋
You are high if you believe that load. If we do invade Iran next it will be because of the UN and world politics and not because of Bush unless Iran attacks us first or helps someone else attack us. Bush will not hurry into battle before leaving office. Right or wrong about Iraq Bush has a black eye right now and he will let it heal for the rest of his time in office. We probably should take action against the president in Iran before he has a chance to take action against us but that is not the way it will be done.
As far as Saudi, they have been considered by our government even before the Bush's (and between them) to be allies. I don't agree with that, I have been there and they don't like us but our gov insist they are friends. How is the invasion in Iraq illegal?
2006-12-19 07:52:22 · answer #2 · answered by joevette 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Iran will not be an invasion - as we're not going to fight an expanded middle-east ground war and try to democratize TWO countries at once.
Iran will be a series of precision air-strikes aimed at 1) decapitating the leadership and 2) destroying their nuclear facillities - but only if we can get UN Security Council coverage for such action (like we had in the Iraqi invasion.)
2006-12-19 07:45:49 · answer #3 · answered by jbtascam 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
An invasion of iran would fail. There are alot of mountains and the terrain is not at all like iraq were it is flat. And the islamic insurgency an invasion of an islamic state would generate is far more powerful then america could beat. America would not even beable to occupy the entire nation like it did to iraq it would be far bloodyer and compleatly elogical. The only hope for america to win is for it not to fire the first bullet and to build a grand coalition which is highly unlikely considering they could not for iraq.
2006-12-19 07:47:52 · answer #4 · answered by super_duper_jojo 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think Iran would be the perfect place to use the H-bomb.
And I believe that Israel will take care of Syria when we take care of Iran. No invasion... just a lot of beautiful B-52's loaded with smart bombs. We know where everything is in that country, and don't have to set a foot in it to bring it to it's knees.
2006-12-19 08:15:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree Iran was on Bush's plan for invasions as they have a lot of oil! Bush just didn't figure on how bad a Commander in Chief he is as shown by absolute and total incompetence in Iraq!
In reality he has no reason to attack Iran as what Bush was saying about them building nukes was proved to be utter lie's (Go figure)!
Iran is perfectly within their right to nuclear power under Article IV Section 2 of the NPT. When inspected by the UN Atomic Agency, who is the entity which conducts inspections under the NPT, they found some uranium enriched to 3%!
Bush screams about them enriching uranium when he knows perfectly well a power plant runs on 5% enriched Uranium, which in it's natural state is 0.7%. Uranium must be enriched. What Iran does not have is 98% enriched uranium that is necessary for an atom bomb!
What's the beef?
2006-12-19 07:53:33 · answer #6 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No, we ought to consistently no longer invade Iran. What purpose are we going to end via invading Iran? possibly, no longer alot is going to get carried out. We already have better than sufficient to do to combat the war on Terror and help the Iraqi's benefit their independence for their freedom from terror. we ought to consistently be working for our way of existence and we ought to consistently deliver a clean message to the terrorist who opt to do us injury. "we will not tolerate terror as a existence-style interior the U. S. and our allies and people who terrorize us would be heavily punished, people shouldn't ought to stay in worry of terror" i think of taking Saddam out of potential replaced into better than sufficient reason to pass to war in Iraq. He replaced into replaced into the weapon of mass destruction to the adult adult males, woman, and young ones of Iraq. it quite is unhappy that we lost infantrymen interior the technique. Make no mistake, their provider to the country ought to consistently be remembered with honor and admire.
2016-10-15 06:20:33 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
maybe you have a solution for us all. forget the politics and open your eyes. compare hitler and ahmadinajad. see for yourself the erie likeness of their speeches. and i hope with your cognitive skills you are able to suggest ocean front property locations for tennessee, after global warming occurs-the big picture is 20 years from now. what will the world look like and where will we be(in the philosophical sense).
2006-12-19 08:12:31 · answer #8 · answered by BRYAN H 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That is why we are occupying the countries on both sides of Iran.
2006-12-19 08:24:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Thats a foregone conclusion.
Wake me up when we invade somewhere interesting like Canada or France.
2006-12-19 07:44:05 · answer #10 · answered by motorcitysmadman 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Who's talking invasion besides liberals? Air strikes should accomplish our purposes there.
2006-12-19 07:48:46 · answer #11 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋