and should he also nuke other exteremist of other religions?
2007-02-15 09:44:38 · 14 answers · asked by asdkj a 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
No, Bush shouldn't nuke Iran.
If he's really concerned about middle east extremists funding and supporting and supplying insurgents in Iraq targeting U.S. soldiers, he should start with the Saudis - given they've publicly said they're trying to kill us at the highest levels. And that the evidence on the ground supports that most of the foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudi.
"Sheik Saleh Al Luhaidan, seen in video seated to the right of the crown prince, is chief justice of Saudi Arabia's Supreme Judicial Council. His sermons and words carry great significance.
In an audiotape secretly recorded at a government mosque last October and obtained by NBC News, Luhaidan encourages young Saudis to go to Iraq to wage war against Americans. "
Bush's concern with Iran is truly hilarious. From the beginning he and the neocons conspired with Iranian double agents like Ahmad Chalabi to provide false intelligence about Saddam - knowing that the new majority Shiite government that would be installed would be pro-Iran, knowing they would forge military ties with Iran, knowing that it would result in a new Islamic state. But none of the wider repercussions of that was considered, because Bush was going to take Saddam out no matter what the consequences.
2007-02-15 09:52:21 · answer #1 · answered by Mark P 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Should, maybe, we worry about North Korea before anything?
And, nuclear warfare isn't a good answer to anything. Not unless you want that cute little "end of the world" flash animation coming true (You have seen that, I trust? If not, go to http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php and watch. It's informative)
Besides, there are a lot of people in Iran who aren't extremists. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were controversial enough even after years at war and the carnage of Pearl Harbor. Iran hasn't been an outright aggressor yet, especially not on such a large scale. There is no cause at all to nuke Iran.
... extremists of other religions? Like fundamentalist Christians? Who, granted, annoy the vast majority of the population but are mostly harmless?
You do realize that a nuclear weapon can't be keyed to wipe out certain specific groups. It creates mass destruction, right?
Hm, and, wouldn't it be kind of hypocritical for the "land of the free" to start persecuting people in the name of religion. Oh, I know! Why don't we just reinstate the Crusades?!
2007-02-15 17:59:49 · answer #2 · answered by silent_pavane 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nukes and war are not the answer to every situation that is contrary to your beliefs. Nukes have fall out. That fall out could fall on our allies or eventually on you and me. To even consider nukes is the most outrageously stupid idea I have ever heard for that situation. We haven't even tried to talk to them. Even though the Irani government has signaled and said outright they want to talk with us. If he is going to nuke extremists in other religions I would go for Jerry Fallwell and those guys first. They are extremists and we don't have as far to go to get them. You must think everybody who doesn't agree with you is an extremist. Not all Muslims are extremists but you sit there biting on the Administration clap trap propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
2007-02-15 17:57:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Iran, despite its nutso president, is actually a peacful, largely secular country that happens to be controlled by religious conservatives. They are not extreme muslims, most of them, and they could be our biggest ally in the middle east if Amedinajad and Bush would cut the whole High Noon act.
2007-02-15 17:54:55 · answer #4 · answered by Year of the Monkey 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Mate.. if you think bombing everyone up is going to fix the problems of the planet.. the global warming.. the loss of species.. the increase number of uncurable diseaeses.. SARS.. not to mention TERRORISM.. then you are one delusional puppy!!
Clearly you voted for Bush and are just another dumb ignorant fool who ahs no idea what he is voting for..
So what you're saying is you want WW3 and or USA top be bombed silly.. which is what will happen if WW3 were to break out.. because.. since WW2.. USA has had it all it's own way.. but it wants more more more.. even if it has to start bombing other people's religions and soverieng nations..
OIL THIEFS!!
2007-02-15 17:50:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
No, Bush can't even say nuclear correctly. Do you really trust him to use a nuke?
2007-02-15 18:50:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That would make him an extremist who kills over religion on a scale 100,000 times worse than anything a muslim group has ever done.
2007-02-15 17:48:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Let me see..... you want to go somewhere else and condemn them to death because they kill for religion?
That sounds like the talk of another fanatical extremist(probably claims to be a Christian-they did a LOT of killing for their faith)
2007-02-15 18:17:02 · answer #8 · answered by ButwhatdoIno? 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps the rest of the World would be safer if some one nuked the USA instead.
2007-02-15 17:47:48 · answer #9 · answered by cavinue 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋
should iran nuke america? extreme******* who kill people for oil
2007-02-16 06:19:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋