As we speak, a dictator who has stated his desire to destroy another nation, is enriching uranium. WHAT SHOULD WE DO.
remember, we have already offered him uranium for energy use, and he declined it.
2007-01-23 06:52:49 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
--
why are you putting it in bush's hands, im asking YOU! Do you have no ideas other than to critisize someones idea?
Does someone reallythink the best way to deal iwth it is to wait until he has a nucliear weapon? After you allow him to develop it, what then, should we put a 'sanction' on him? If we did that, he would never dare use it, would he?
2007-01-23 07:00:51 · update #1
Why would a liberal think i don'tcare about North korea? However, when kim Ill says he is going to wipe another nation off the face of the earth, I will rate his threat higher than Irans.
2007-01-23 09:36:16 · update #2
AL F is proof positive how they say that "libs" cant answer a question without some sort of cheap jab... and thus avoiding the question altogether. I am not a Lib, I am not a Con, I find that I hate politicians equally and I think they are all dirty and worthless.
That being said, we are fvcked either way. We do something about it ( like Iraq ) and we end up in a possible quagmire of a war, where civilians and our own troops die everyday, for what would almost come to appear as no good reason. Even though the original purpose was "noble" Or we do nothing about it and allow these people to develop the potential to act on their heated desires.
2007-01-23 07:13:25 · answer #1 · answered by Dylan m 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
well... it's tough... but I also find it amusing that you're crying about Iran when N. Korea is about 5 years ahead of Iran, possibly with a nuke, and you don't seem to care?
and do you believe that Kim is less crazy than Iran? I don't, in fact, from what I've read, he's more crazy... and has much more advanced delivery systems...
what do I think we should do? I think we should look at N. Korea first... and get the Chinese very involved... because if things go bad, it's in China's back yard... and they should be very interested...
and the guy that made the threats... Ahmadejad... has no military power in Iran... the military is completely in control of the religous leaders that are above him, mainly the supreme leader...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Government_and_politics
and by the way, I love the conservatives that say "libs don't have any answers"... when in fact... it seems to be all they can say is "libs don't have any answers"... nothing constructive either...
2007-01-23 07:30:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sorry but the Democrats, Liberals, SPs or whatever other tag you place on them can't come up with a solution short of the obvious one - talking. It's all they can do is talk - talk out one side of their face and then lie from the other. Look at where it got the Liberals in Great Britain in WWII when they praised Neville Chamberlain and his "peace in our time" pact with Hitler? But there is a BIG difference between Hitler and Ahmadinejad that would be a HUGE difference in this new "Munich Pact." Hitler wanted to conquer the world - Ahmadinejad wants to see it blown up to bring about the return of the Mahdi to make way for a new Islamic world.
I believe Ann Coulter said it best - you just can't talk to a Liberal. And these words (mine) are from someone that is a Libertarian just so you know.
2007-01-23 07:13:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
we can not just run around destroying other countires because they threaten someone. We will have to wait until a time when he actually produces such a weapon and either uses it or we feel that threat is imminent. That is the way it works. If we just run and bomb just because he said he wants to destroy another country, then what seperates us from other terrorists? We teach our kids to defend themselves but do not throw the first punch. The same needs to be said here.
2007-01-23 06:58:31 · answer #4 · answered by Sarcastic Gazette 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Tell Mr. Bush we've already exhausted our resources ousting Saddam and keeping more brown-skinned people from entering Texas.
2007-01-23 06:56:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Give up and let him do whatever he wants... It always worked before for Clinton, except every now and then if it is a really weak country we can throw a couple of cruise missiles at it.
Besides, didn't appeasement work with Hitler in the late 1930s he got what he wanted and then stopped, right?
2007-01-23 06:56:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hate to disappoint you, but there are no solutions coming from them anytime soon. Only ad hominem attacks and demands for 'change' without any real solutions of their own.
2007-01-23 07:05:21 · answer #7 · answered by MacLeod_73 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
on the prompt's Democrat celebration is depending on the concept of having as many human beings as feasible depending on the authorities, truly than doing what they could to lead them to good and self sufficient.
2016-10-16 00:06:09 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
With troops spread all over the place, a better question would be what can we do?
2007-01-23 06:56:32 · answer #9 · answered by Keiko 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If we follow the true conservative hero, Ronald Reagan, I guess we sell him some weapons.
2007-01-23 06:56:46 · answer #10 · answered by Schmorgen 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋