Everyone knew it was Iran that was supplying the hi tech shaped charges that are being used to decimate even heavy tanks in road side bombs. Now that the U.S. is finally saying so and pointing a finger and defining how many U.S. citizens have been killed by their bombs in Iraq (172 and counting), when will we make them pay a price? Besides the watered down UN sanctions that mean nothing to Iran since they have massive trade with russia and china. And btw since everyone wanted us to let the UN handle the nuke issue with iran and let diplomacy deal with them, how is that working? Iran just laughs and goes on their merry way developing the bomb.
2007-02-12 07:30:13 · 13 answers · asked by Steelhead 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The left doesn't care. They simply blame Bush and absolve themselves of having to deal with the problem.
2007-02-12 07:35:47 · answer #1 · answered by Jadis 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Diplomacy in this part of the world is almost as useless as the UN itself. The paper tiger, for lack of a better description, has done all that it can do, now it's time to see what two US carrier groups are prepared to do about Iran.
Of coarse the group that is wandering aimlessly, yet continues to make noise about how they intend to aide the enemy, you know who I mean, the democratic party, had better come up with some resolutions that make sense to the American people.
This group of misfits had better start doing more than opposing everything GWB is doing, because the American people are finally beginning to understand just how dangerous the middle east situation really is and that political bumbling by the democrats is not going to get the job done.
So, Nancy and friends, maybe it's time you shiit or got off the pot, because I'm not willing to see the enemy gain any more ground than it already has, because of your silly attempts to discredit the president when he's the only one that really gives a damn!
2007-02-12 12:59:41 · answer #2 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
that is all hypocrisy, my pal. And all that American double-regular that the U. S. practice to different international locations. what type of common sense is it, that its suggested as an act of conflict at the same time as different international locations do it, and yet at the same time as the U. S. does an similar aspect, its no longer an act of conflict?. in the course of the Soviet-Afghan conflict (1979-1989), the U. S. provided fingers and money to the Afghan mujahedeens (that coated the Taliban and the crew of Osama Bin weighted down) who were combating hostile to the Soviet troops on the time. isn't this an act of conflict?. in the course of the Iran-Iraq conflict (1980-1988), the U. S. provided fingers (that coated fighter aircrafts, floor-to-air missiles and chemical guns) to Saddam Hussein, which he used hostile to Iranian troops. isn't this an act of conflict?. in the course of the Arab-Israeli conflict (Yom Kippur conflict, 1973), the U. S. provided aircrafts, missiles, and guns to Israel. This US help for Israel made Saudi Arabia impose an oil-embargo that brought about extreme gasoline rationing in the U. S.. Wasn't this US action an act of conflict?. in case you keep an open suggestions and evaluate what the Iranians are doing now and what the U. S. were doing in the previous, do you spot any large difference?. Now, take a closer look on the data, then ask the question again to your self. And to the poster above me who's attempting to justify US previous moves through pointing out that providing fingers to international locations with a "status nationwide military" isn't an act of conflict, properly... his reasoning is warped and defies undemanding experience. in case you bear in mind the "Iran-Contra Deal" of the previous due 80's, the position the U. S. bought guns to Iran and use the money to finance the Contra rebels of Nicaragua. The Contras are rebels or insurgents (and not in any respect Nicaragua's status nationwide military). And the more severe reality is that the U. S. bought guns to Iran (which the U. S. had already in the previous declared as a hostile u . s . and u . s . of america's sworn enemy). How would you justify such moves?.
2016-12-04 02:25:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The evidence of weapons supplied by Iran can be true. But why cry foul, instead of accepting what it is?. The U.S. did the same thing in the past, and the whole world knows this.
The U.S. supplied weapons to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War. The U.S. sold huge quantities of weapons to Iran during the Iran-Contra deal. The U.S. supplied weapons to Afghan mujahedeens during the Soviet-Afghan War (including Stinger missiles that shot down Soviet helicopters).
So what's the big deal about the Iranian arms found in Iraq?. The U.S. is just getting a dose of its own medicine.
Remember the Golden Rule : "Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you".
2007-02-12 13:05:25 · answer #4 · answered by roadwarrior 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yea~ I feel Ya,but with the defeatocrats in the majority, there isn't much we can do. All they want to do is to continue griping about the President and the war. They say they have solutions but I haven't heard not one. They don't want this country to win the war on terror,it would make them look too bad. Iran and Syria has been sending weapons and manpower to Iraq to kill Our Soldiers.The dems could care less, They keep saying its a civil war. It's not.
2007-02-12 07:42:13 · answer #5 · answered by Classic96 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Having been there and having seen alot of devastating attacks on our military forces. I can honestly tell you that American forces currently have enough to deal with, we cannot take on anymore fronts with the size and state of our military forces.
We currently have 2 carrier battle groups in the gulf. However, if we employ them to attack Iran. You can bet they will decimate the majority of those 2 battle groups.
Iran has developed the most sophisticated anti-ship missile on the face of the earth. None of our ships has the ability to stop so much as even one of those missiles from striking it.
It is extremely fast and is unstoppable according to the joint chiefs. We haven't lost a aircraft carrier since WW2. If one or both were struck with say 6 of these anti-ship missiles we could lose 4,000 to 6,000 military personnel within minutes.
We need a larger military, we need more sophisticated defensive weapons to deal with that threat from iran.
The joint chiefs believe that it would require the use of battlefield nuclear weapons to be employed on a grand scale in order to attack iran with any degree of success and it would not put a stop to their nuclear bomb making abilities.
For the time being we need to deal with iraq. But i have a sick feeling that Mr. Bush is going to want to attack iran before we are ready to deal with that additional front.
2007-02-12 07:44:27 · answer #6 · answered by michael_trussell 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Not every action that the US government takes is visible to us all of the time. I would be shocked and dismayed if we did not have extensive intelligence and covert operations underway at the moment.
For that matter, we are engaging in interdiction activities to try to stem the flow of Iranian support for the insurgency.
2007-02-12 07:36:13 · answer #7 · answered by zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Action with what- America's army is bogged down in Iraq. Iran aren't scared of America, and after the debacle in Iraq I don't blame them.
2007-02-12 07:37:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Well, our soldiers must catch em naked doing the dirty work. It will be good if we have some our good reporters in the scene with cameras too. Then the Iranians are really screwed!
2007-02-12 07:37:57 · answer #9 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
the world needs military power balance,
I am cheering for the Iranians and Iraqis.
The Americans are too agressive and they have done this under the pretext of 9/11 attacks which was an inside US government job!!!
2007-02-12 07:36:27 · answer #10 · answered by lovefights 3 · 2⤊ 5⤋