-Bush has gotten bored with Afghanistan since the military couldn't find bin Laden. No hanging parties there.
-Saddam has been hung, but Iraq has fallen into a civil war, and lots of our troops are dying there (so are Iraqis but Bush could care less).
-The US has scared Iran before, so Bush is considering invading or bombing them, as well as Syria. He can use the "nuclear weapon" card or the "harboring terrorists" card for either of those two invasions or bombings. He could kick some butt again, and feel like a winner again.
-But no one messes with North Korea. They really ARE crazy. If the US tries to do anything to them, they'll blow up half the world. Bush will bluster away, but he'll only go after North Korea with weapons if god tells him it's time for judgement day.
2007-02-02 15:56:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by edith clarke 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
That would be next Tuesday... No, seriously> By 'we' I guess you mean the US and you think that everyone reading your excellent question is an American... But I could be wrong and in writing 'we' you may believe that a giant coalition of the entire planet is indeed attacking Iran at this monent. Thing is Sparky, nobody is attacking Iran. But let's assume that Iranian factories are busily manufacturing nuclear weapons and putting stickers on each one saying "Take that, Satan Bush! (God is Great, aint he?)" and the 7th fleet is steaming through the straits of Hormuz.
The airforce bombards Teheran to smithereenies killing hundreds of thousands of evil Iranians and their families. The oilfields are secured so that the new generation humvee (6 inches to the gallon) can be produced in Mexico. America is victorious once again!! So why don't 'WE' attack North Korea? Because they have the second largest standing army on Earth and 20000 field pieces trained on Seoul. They could take out Tokyo with a nuke if they wanted. And they might just do it if 'WE' attacked them. So no, "WE" only attack countries that can't fight back. In fact the main criteria seem to include: plenty of illiterate conscripts, rampant corruption in the government, no WMDs, (remember them?) and oil.
2007-02-02 13:11:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by VIP 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
First, you do not attack a rustic that has nuclear guns, in spite of in the journey that they're a lot less sensible than those you've. the prospect is too tremendous. North Korea's acquisition of nuclear guns has shielded them from any form of preemptive attack. If Iran is able to make stronger nuclear guns before someone destroys their centers, they is also data against attack. The opposite is authentic, too, regardless of the reality that. Iran and North Korea will not in any respect attack any nuclear-possessing or nuclear-allied u . s . a . because the prospect of nuclear conflict is too tremendous. 2d, they promote them. North Korea sells all of its technologies. If Iran ever develops nuclear guns, they probable will promote them too. that is a much better possibility to the different nuclear powers. in the journey that they promote their guns to terrorists, the doctrine of jointly guaranteed destruction will grow to be very nearly inappropriate. Terrorists do not belong to at least one u . s . a ., or perhaps one area. If terrorists were to set off off nuclear guns contained in the U. S., the U. S. would not be ready to justify nuclear retaliation antagonistic to the country or international places the position the terrorists stay, because the alternative to apply those guns grow to be not sanctioned via the authorities. Even the conflict in Afghanistan is arguable, because the Taliban did not formally help Al Qaeda. And that conflict has brought about fewer civilian deaths than a nuclear conflict ought to.
2016-12-03 09:22:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
you are making up stories and asking for approval. USA has not attacked Iran, that is number one. north Korea might have nuclear weapons and the developments are watched carefully and closely -- discussions are going on. i do not speak for the government. that is what i read in the news. so back to your questions "wait and see" is the answer.
2007-02-02 12:45:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by s t 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
since when have been attackin Iran?? i agree wit u about N korea. probably we afraid they can retaliate more than Iraq ever could
2007-02-02 17:29:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by lady26 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Never because China won't allow it and they control the US economy.
2007-02-02 18:01:02
·
answer #6
·
answered by brainstorm 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sooner the better or we should shut our mouth.
2007-02-02 13:53:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
as soon as the chinese give us the green light.
2007-02-02 18:48:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋