http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070126/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iran
2007-01-26 04:07:59 · 33 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
With all due respect and gratitude to the Answerers, to me "countering" means conflict, and conflcit may/will lead to war!
That is how many bloody wars started in the 1900s.
I have no reason to believe what Mr. Bush's announced "intentions" are - he has already proven beyond reasonable doubt that he is truth-challenged!
2007-01-26 04:20:54 · update #1
I'd say that Bush is testing the waters...
He knows Congress is not going to allow aggression actually on Iranian soil. BUT, he also knows that if he can make it look like Iran is attacking the USA, then he can make the new Democratic Congress look weak if they don't take action against Iran.
Basically, he is going to antagonize them then one day, there will be some sort of claim that USA troops were attacked by a band of Iranians = then the real Iranian war will begin.
2007-01-26 04:16:15 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 5⤊ 5⤋
Here we go again Chicken Little and the left only reading part of the story or only listening to part of a story. He made no mention in Yahoo of going to war with Iran. These measures will be blockaids.Any Iranian and syraian who is seen entering iraq and who is in possession of weapons to be used against our Soliders will be killed. We are not going to war with IRAN. Read the whole report.
2007-01-27 03:49:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
WOW some people are SOOO stupid! of course i dont mean you.. *cough* *cough*.. just a generalization... *COUGH*
This is what the iranians do...
in each terrorist group in Iraq, the Iranians send like... a representative, an agent. The Iranian Agent helps the insurgents with their plans, helps them plan, funds the terrorists with ammo/bombs, gives the terrorists special information on their target(s) and acts as a mentor for the terrorists...
basically they are an accomplice...
they are people who are helping the terrorists kill american soldiers, nato soldiers, Iraqi soldiers... Their involvement in the sectarian violence is meant to destroy the Iraqi government. Therefore, by definition, they are considered terrorists. Because they are terrorists, they are treated like terrorists.. captured/killed...
why should we treat these terrorists any differently, just because they are Iranian?
Bush is only making people more aware of this by making a new name for these terrorists. Iranian Agents.
Hes not calling for war... wtf?! where did that assumption come from lol? You misunderstood, you cant make accusations like this until you understand what you're reading.
Hes not going into Iran to kill agents.. Only agents on Iraqi soil. Theres no war on the Iranian government, although we know they are behind it all...
we are just stepping up our actions on the specific people influencing/sponsoring these terrorists who are commiting this sectarian violence in Iraq.
2007-01-26 04:20:40 · answer #3 · answered by Corey 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Read your post/ link. Bush just said that he would allow our troops to do what was necessary to protect themselves and the Iraqi people from Iranian supported attacks. He also said that they were not going to cross the border into Iran but would work on diplomatic solutions. I think our troops should be allowed permission to try and win the Iraqi war instead of just playing police.
2007-01-26 04:19:02 · answer #4 · answered by joevette 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, he did not actually authorize an attack against Iran.
But check out this article about what many people believe is a coming war with Iran:
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/810/32/
2007-01-26 17:06:07 · answer #5 · answered by Zezo Zeze Zadfrack 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"While promising tougher action, the White House said the United States does not intend to cross the Iraq-Iran border to attack Iranians."
If the Iranians do not want a fight, they should stop all activity in Iraq.
What do you think we should do about the fact Iran is "supplying IED equipment and or training that was being used to harm American soldiers?" Just let them do it?
2007-01-26 04:15:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Maybe you should read that article. It says that American forces are authorized to take whatever actions are necessary to stop Iranian agents in Iraq. It specifically said that the order does not give them permission to cross the border.
What is probably happening is that US forces will try to stop Iranians from entering Iraq illegally. With your logic, US Border Patrol is at war with Mexico.
2007-01-26 04:13:56 · answer #7 · answered by A.Mercer 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
About everything I have to say on this subject has already been said by Beach Bum...Way to go Bum!! I am sure this is only the beginning of something very large now that its been brought out for us to consider.
2007-01-26 13:15:01 · answer #8 · answered by royneal 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We've always been authorized to attack combatants in iraq, no matter what country they come from. Bush is just getting us ready to accept a war with iran that will drive america further down into the pits of a recession. Save your money america!
2007-01-26 04:18:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
No, the problem in Iraq has been the weapons and terrorists coming across the border. This is just like when Nixon bombed the North Vietnamese and VC's supply chains in Cambodia - the Libs claimed he was "bombing Cambodia" - Ho Chi Minh ran the supply chains through Cambodia because he knew that if Nixon bombed them, the Libs would make this claim.
But Nixon DID bomb them and then bombed the hell out of Hannoi and got the North Vietnamese to agree to peace terms. Hate him for Watergate but he got us out of war that JFK had gotten us into and that LBJ had prevented us from winning.
2007-01-26 04:15:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋