Is President Bush guiding us into a war with Iran? Isn't there enough on our plate? A writer for the?

Question

Associated Press wrote that the signs are the same before the invasion of Iraq. There has been a steady drumbeat of warnings and veiled threats from the Bush Administration. Bush has tried to make the case that Iran is sending weapons across to the insurgents in Iraq, but there is no evidence to support this, just as there was no evidence of WMD's in Iraq. Has junior never seen a war he didn't like, or is it just those he doesn't have to fight in himself?

Answer 1

in all honesty the whole reason for going into Iraq was for Iran. The intel may have shown WMD's but the fact that they magicaly disappeared as soon as we were able to look for them and all of the stuff that is now happening with Iran's military coming in and fighting our is just the beginning

Answer 2

Thats what the surge is for, reinforcement, around Februray 21st when the UN deadline runs out, a 'false flag' will occur to get America to attack Iran.

Watching supporters of Bush and Blair is like watching a beaten Wife defending the actions of her abusive Husband

Answer 3

I don't know yet...I really don't think we are being led into a war with Iran. But, they (this is no joke) get together in major cities every friday, I think it is and chant "Death to America". They hate us. But, we will try our best to use diplomacy first. We will tell them: Either we can try to help you as a country, and you leave us alone, or we will destroy your economy/government/etc. War would be hell for us( what war isn't hell), but we would still hurt them pretty bad. Plus, don't they actually have a military, that aren't dressed like civilians and taking cheap shots at our troops when they have their backs turned (Al-Quada)

Answer 4

I doubt everyone in this thread is popular with no matter if that is critical or no longer. the authorities went to conflict on Iraq bc they believed they were practise terrorists, clone of bill Clinton did even as he approved air strikes the week of the Lewinsky tale destroy. We believed he had WMD, which we and one hundred,000 Kurdish households pronounced firsthand. like it or no longer, the conflict develop into justified to get rid of a dictator who invaded our greatest chum in 1990 and were continually capturing at our plane for the years between the wars. in case you imagine he would were reasoned with, you should have hopped a plane and tried. And gotten beheaded bc loose-speech that is equipped to you right here, isn't accessible for tens of millions international huge. and that is easily worth scuffling with for. Its person-friendly to Monday morning quarterback. on your opinion, what percentage American corpses do you pick to make certain mendacity between fragments of Iranian-made hardware in the previous you imagine they're in touch? how are you going to trust they're in common words attracted to non violent nuclear technologies even as they received't enable inspectors in to verify? The data is there and one ought to seem with readability of purpose and information of overseas coverage and be armed with better than only a pipe dream of what should be in a simplistic comic-e book reality. Please do not ever run for public place of work. except in Iran.

Answer 5

its not just bush imo .. the foreign policy we see at work in the middle east and the balkans earlier ... has been in the works for over a decade, at least since the end of the cold war ... its a larger thing than just bush and unless there is a major awakening to what is going on i fear we will continue our imperialism in the middle east and there will be hundreds of thousands or more lives lost if not millions ... the goal ... i believe it is to solidify americas status as the singular world super power for well into the future ......

Answer 6

oh i get it and al qaeda has nothing to do with it..right? LMFAO...you liberals are incredible....No were not being guided into a war and we dont determine whats on the plate, al qaeda does when they attack and attempt to kill us.

and if you belive everything you see from the associated press, there are alot more important issues for you to deal with then whats being discussed here.

Answer 7

I think Bush is leading America to vague and dark future .He should be stopped by Congress not to create new wars.

Answer 8

The signs sure point that direction.

Answer 9

i suppose its ok for them to devolope nuks and constantly chant "DEATH TO AMERICA" get this through your head, they want us dead, so would you rather kill those who want to die or see your family vaporized by a newly minted iranian nuk

Answer 10

Oh Yes WMD's were all about Pres Bush!

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.