Bush said he wanted to increase the number of troops in Iraq the other day, is this so he can invade Iran after the UN resolution?
2006-12-23 19:11:26 · 17 answers · asked by roy d 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
America tends only to wage war on those countries it believes to be less well equipped militarily than them (this hasn't actually helped them in the past - Korea, Vietnam, nor in more recent history, Iraq). America will not touch North Korea as they have the bomb and should Iran go ahead to get theirs, they should be safe from a US invasion. Also, the American public will surely have no appetite for war along with the newly elected Democrats who control both Houses - so, in answer to your question - I would say No, America is not looking to invade Iran, then again . . .
2006-12-24 03:06:07 · answer #1 · answered by Dr Watson (UK) 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Don't tell me someone has been listening check my answers as this is what I have been saying if Bush gains control of Iran & Iraq with Kuwait & the Saudais in his pocket how much of the oil in the middle east along does he and his buddies control ? Face facts Bush maybe a moron but because of his friends he is a dangerous one far more dangerous than any terrorist organization that his buddies have financed with their oil money !
2006-12-23 23:03:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
with or without the U.N. if bush want to invade Iran, he will, Let's hope Tony Blair will stop following him like a puppy dog. Hey why stop there, let's take over the world "another power crazy megalomaniac. Its OK to invade a country if you think it posse's a threat, to your security, but what do you do when you've won, look at Iraq someone should take the spade off him, hasn't he dug a big enough whole for himself and us too !!!
2006-12-23 20:53:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I really don't think so...Iran rejected the resolution and they still continue to enrich uranium,but I don't think Russia or China would be very happy to see that US is invading Iran...US should start by dealing with the disastrous situation in Afghanistan and Iraq,which they created,before invading another country who is no danger to anyone...
I really think it's hypocritical to give so much attention to what Iran is doing,since no one can prove that they are building a nuclear weapon,but give absolutely no attention to Israel,Pakistan and India who own the nuclear weapon and who refuse to sign the NPT...We should be more worried about Israel now,since last summer they used uranium bombs in Lebanon...Or about what India and Pakistan can do to each other,since they are not in very friendly relationships...
2006-12-23 22:22:33 · answer #4 · answered by Tinkerbell05 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I asked a couple questions on this the other day after hearing how we, the usa, was moving ships and military personnel close to Iran. Not to mention, Bush's call for more troops.
I can't imagine Congress giving him the go-ahead but it sure seems like he is 'aiming' some sort of military action at Iran.
2006-12-23 20:15:26 · answer #5 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No - Iran is a separate issue. Bush is trying to win in Iraq -
2006-12-23 19:13:27 · answer #6 · answered by Coach D. 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
examining the solutions above, I see that the uncomplicated reasons like ineptitude and intransigence on the area of the administration have been lined. yet regardless of if Bush and Cheney had the skill and the will, that is not sparkling that the Iranian chief could settle for something below club in the "Nuclear club." don't get me incorrect - I blame the administration for this mess, and that i'm against war as a answer to something, even nonetheless it appears that evidently the two factors in this dispute have chanced on their lowest uncomplicated denominator - intimidation, threats, and much less high priced propaganda ploys. They deserve one yet another, yet their respective populations deserve greater effective. we could constantly impeach our leaders and inspire the Iranians to overthrow theirs.
2016-10-28 06:51:39 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iraqi Shiite Cleric Won't Support Coalition Plan
Move Is a Blow to U.S. Efforts at Curtailing Violence
BAGHDAD, Iraq (Dec. 23) - A U.S.-backed plan to form a political coalition of Iraq's Shiites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds - a glimmer of hope in a nation torn by sectarian violence - failed to win the crucial support of the top Shiite cleric Saturday.
Lawmakers who presented the plan to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in the holy city of Najaf said they were told the unity of Shiites, who have the largest bloc in parliament, had to come first.
By shunning the coalition plan, al-Sistani sought to unite the Shiite's fractured 130-member United Iraqi Alliance. But his decision - which carries great weight with the country's Shiite majority - significantly weakens American hopes for a national unity government and strengthens the hand of the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Al-Sistani's decision may not doom the proposed coalition, but it significantly reduces its chances.
"There are obstacles in the face of forming this coalition, because al-Sistani does not support it," said Hassan al-Suneid, a top aide to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
An official close to al-Sistani, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media, said the cleric "will not bless nor support any new bloc or front. He only supports the unity of the Shiites."
The proposed coalition - which would not have included al-Sadr's supporters - could have isolated the militant cleric, commander of a militia army blamed for many sectarian attacks.
Several weeks ago, 30 Iraqi lawmakers and six Cabinet ministers who support al-Sadr launched a boycott of the government. They were protesting a meeting between the prime minister and President Bush.
Now the 275-member Iraqi parliament is in virtual paralysis.
On Saturday, the same Shiite delegation in Najaf that courted al-Sistani tried to persuade al-Sadr to bring his supporters back into government. Al-Sadr did not give a definite answer, according to some of those who met with him.
"He will give his final decision whether to rejoin the government and parliament after Eid al-Adha," Khaled al-Attiya, an independent who is parliament's deputy speaker, said after the meeting. Iraq's Shiites will celebrate the holiday from Dec. 31 to Jan. 4.
Some of al-Sadr's aides had earlier said he would soon end his political boycott and call off attacks by his militia, at least temporarily.
But al-Sistani's rejection of the new coalition - which would have excluded al-Sadr's supporters - strengthened his hand.
Al-Sistani holds no political post and rarely emerges from his home and adjacent office. But his word is considered law by many Shiites.
2006-12-23 19:47:58 · answer #8 · answered by rubiconski 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes I think thats the next move into Iran and WWW3
2006-12-23 19:26:31 · answer #9 · answered by tobybites 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
should be,because Iran wont leave Iraq alone ,and all the problems in Iraq ,is because of Mollla's regime.
2006-12-24 08:09:00 · answer #10 · answered by arya 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋