The Bush administration keeps saying there are no invasion plans concerning Iran. The increased rhetoric...?

Question

accusing Tehran directly of being involved in Iraq. The buildup of carrier groups in the gulf...http://a831.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/9/l_7b5344fb8611df97d8377bb08df0017e.jpg Do you think there will be an invasion of Iran?

The link is not working, sorry.

Countries in the Middle East "want us to have a major presence there," Cheney said in a Newsweek interview published online yesterday. Referring to the deployment of the carrier USS John C. Stennis, Cheney said, "That sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat." This is carrier group number two in the Persian Gulf.

Answer 1

Invasion? No. We can't do that right now. We have our hands full, but we may HAVE to bomb their facilities.

Answer 2

What has he lied approximately? And what do you communicate a political answer? that's incredibly basic to spout all this rhetoric. "Bush lied & human beings died." that's the dumbest rhyme provided that "If the glove do no longer in effective condition, you will desire to acquit." Gee, each and every president in each and every warfare has mentioned something perceived as untrue and as inflicting the deaths of yankee infantrymen. And the stuff approximately Bush being a cheerleader and wealthy and spoiled isn't purely a million/2 certainty, yet so beat to dying that's uninteresting. i think of the infantrymen returning are plenty greater in touch with actuality than somebody who hasn't been there, and those I certainly have talked to are completely at the back of our president and this warfare. Oh and as for Vietnam section 2 - my husband and brother have been there. The warfare replace into certainly being gained, yet Nixon paid interest to "primary" opinion and pulled our troops out. i'm hoping that Bush and whoever suceeeds him, Democrat or Republican won't hear to the so-referred to as "primary" comments, and could see this via to the main suitable achieveable consequence for the individuals of Iraq and the individuals of the u . s ..

Answer 3

IN invasion of Iran ?? No. A war maybe, but not an invasion. It wont be so nice with Iran,,there would probably be no warnings, etc..

Well, if the citizens are chanting death to america during a supposed speech of PEACEFUL nuclear energy,,and claim they have no energy crisis at other times,,what do you think ??

also,,he held our soldiers hostages once..yes,,iranians president. They started the war...go see prophetofdoom.net

Answer 4

The United States is moving closer to war with Iran by accusing the "highest levels" of the Iranian government of supplying sophisticated roadside bombs that have killed 170 US troops and wounded 620.

The allegations against Iran are similar in tone and credibility to those made four years ago by the US government about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the invasion of 2003.

Senior US defence officials in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they believed the bombs were manufactured in Iran and smuggled across the border to Shia militants in Iraq. The weapons, identified as "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs) are said to be capable of destroying an Abrams tank.

The officials speaking in Baghdad used aggressive rhetoric suggesting that Washington wants to ratchet up its confrontation with Tehran. It has not ruled out using armed force and has sent a second carrier task force to the Gulf.

"We assess that these activities are coming from senior levels of the Iranian government," said an official in Baghdad, charging that the explosive devices come from the al-Quds Brigade and noting that it answers to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader. This is the first time the US has openly accused the Iranian government of being involved in sending weapons that kill Americans to Iraq.

The allegations by senior but unnamed US officials in Baghdad and Washington are bizarre. The US has been fighting a Sunni insurgency in Iraq since 2003 that is deeply hostile to Iran.

The White House may have decided that, in the run up to the 2008 presidential election, it would be much to its political advantage in the US to divert attention from its failure in Iraq by blaming Iran for being the hidden hand supporting its opponents.

It is likely that Shia militias have received weapons and money from Iran and possible that the Sunni insurgents have received some aid. But most Iraqi men possess weapons. Many millions of them received military training under Saddam Hussein. His well-supplied arsenals were all looted after his fall. No specialist on Iraq believes that Iran has ever been a serious promoter of the Sunni insurgency.

The evidence against Iran is even more insubstantial than the faked or mistaken evidence for Iraqi WMDs disseminated by the US and Britain in 2002 and 2003. The allegations appear to be full of exaggerations. Few Abrams tanks have been destroyed. It implies the Shias have been at war with the US while in fact they are controlled by parties which make up the Iraqi government.

Answer 5

Bush says there are no invasion plans concerning Iran. That does not mean there won't be plans to Invade Iran at some future date I hope we get out of Iraq before it happens.

Answer 6

I do believe that we will invade Iran.......There is solid evidence that Iran has been sending in weapons to be used against our soldiers......So do I agree with the invasion.....sure do.....if they are the reason that our guys are being killed over there, and keeping things from moving forward. But yes I do think we will go into Iran....and Russia can kiss Iran's rear for all I care.

Answer 7

Our incredibly expensive military should have current invasion plans for every country on the planet. I think you are attempting to stir some urgent concern about a US Iran operation, chill, the US doesn't have the manpower (without a draft) or assets to stage an invasion of Iran in the near future, and Iran and everybody else knows it. Iran is about four times larger than Iraq.
I wouldn't rule out a little gunboat diplomacy however.

Answer 8

Remember the Falkland Islands war? Maggie Thatcher told the news media England would not attack the Falkland Islands, and what happened the next day? Her lie told the truth. The Islands were attacked the next day by England, and they showed those dorks who was boss! America will attack Iran if they push us too far, since the aim of America is to protect it's own. God Bless America.

Answer 9

Everything in Iraq worked out just fine without a plan. Why would Bush need a plan for Iran???


Go big Red Go

Answer 10

You must understand that the Bush administration has a more heightened sense of awareness than the US citizens. It is also called paranoia!

Iran is baiting Bush and his cronies to make the first overt act; after which, American credibility will be shot.

Answer 11

Yes, I do think this is the NEOCONs plans. But we don't have enough troops to carry out a mission, and if we did it very may well started WW III. Bush is power hungry person who wants control of the world, and he scares the sh** out of me!

Oh,, and Bush does the EXACT oppisite of what ever he says that he is going to do...that is a given.