How can you now deny the Bush administration was ALWAYS going to attack IRAN?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6376639.stm

Answer 1

I knew that war in Iran was coming when I heard the President say "we aren't planning a war in Iran".

Any way clearly .

The 2 aircraft carriers are there to deliver tea to the region in an act of peace and love.

The practice drill of closeing the Iraq border was just because soon they will outlaw Sunday shopping and they wanted to practice that. No war here boys.

And most important President Bush said there won't be a war in Iran .

Clearly every one who thinks a war will be coming with Iran based on 2 aircraft carriers leaked BBC documents and a troop build up along with a drill at closing the Iraq Iran border is smoking crack - They should remember Bush said No

Answer 2

The war with Iran began years ago. The Saudis along with the rest of the Arab members of OPEC are keeping oil production up which is putting an economic stranglehold on Iran.

The clerics have reminded Ahmadinejan that they, specifically the Ayatollah runs Iran, not the President. If there is any military action in Iran it will be under the auspices of the UN. The US most likely will not participate.

In the meantime Bush and the Saudis are bankrupting Iran, just like Reagan did to the former Soviet Union.

Also this BBC article is very sad, it doesn't list any facts or sources. It only quotes a BBC security correspondent who can only guess at, but not know, Central Command plans. My how the BBC has fallen from being the world's preeminent news source.

Answer 3

By reading the article in the link one would find the truth that it is a plan "IF" something were to warrant an attack. But too many people read the headlines and get all excited and not read the article. This is typical of the uninformed.

"It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres."

And here is the reason for the plan

"Earlier this month US officers in Iraq said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi Shia militias. However the most senior US military officer later cast doubt on this, saying that they only had proof that weapons "made in Iran" were being used in Iraq."

Answer 4

There are quite a few widely commonplace recommendations. a million. Having a nuke means not at all having to say you're sorry. Iran sees itself as a significant participant interior the ME and the international. they save claiming that as inheritor to the Persian Empire, they "own" the different gulf states. they're genuine movers interior the Shia slaughter of Sunni in the course of the area. So, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Jordan are all in touch that Iran will attack them immediately or by proxies e.g., Hamas or Hezbollah and that no one will be in a position to reign them in because they'd have nukes and no one needs to brazenly threaten the insane guy with Nukes. for instance: N Korea. They blew up a South Korean deliver about 6 months in the past for no glaring reason. Torpedo - death. yet, at the same time as the guy with the nuke says "no longer me... it ought to were some different person. Oh, and that i'll rain gods fireplace on your head in case you declare it became me because it really is an act of warfare" human beings pass tsk tsk and enable it pass. it really is why each and each of those Arab states i discussed have pleaded with the US to renounce Iran, utilizing rigidity if mandatory. extra lately Saudi Arabia has said that if Iran does get nukes, it means nuclear hands race because the Arab states can not enable Iran (Persians) have a nuke until eventually THEY a minimum of have nukes too. 2. definitely use. this can take both of two varieties. possible deniability and allowing another crew to have it to apply it. Or use it themselves. they fairly trust that death at the same time as killing infidels receives you to heaven. They cleared mine fields by having their youthful ones play in them.

Answer 5

You can, only the most lying or delusional Neo-Con could, it's in PNAC the Neo-Con blueprint to terrorise the World for the last 6 years and the forseeable future, but just what did they meen by, "A new Pearl Harbour", that needs to happen to rally the American people behind their plans?

Oh a thumbs down from someone who supports the Neo-Con torture brigade, thank God for that, at least I know I am upsetting them

Answer 6

Well luckly we all know the Liberals view Bush as the villain in a game where Iran has threatened to blow Isreal off the face of the map, continuesly disobey UN orders, and pay terrorists cells who kill our troops.

Answer 7

I guess you have a limited understand of the word contingency.

Answer 8

sorry I cant watch anything but Fox to maintain my distorted view of this Administration's practices

Answer 9

because he would've done it already