Make sure to choose some country with no nukes and virtually no offensive capability. You don't want innocent USA servicemen being hurt while they are just doing their job, do you.
The non proliferation treaty must be supported. If not there is a clear and present danger that the US will run out of easy targets and how is George II going to get re-elected then..
2007-02-25 02:56:17 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
jh, isnt cowardice the largest and most highly equipped nuclear superpower on earth threatening to attack a country which does not even have nuclear power stations the definition of cowardice?
2007-02-25 03:05:02 · update #1
Good point Beldin
2007-02-25 03:13:51 · update #2
Gee Panthrchic, I think it means you don't want the coutries you attack to have the means to fight back
2007-02-25 03:24:38 · update #3
No private, I am saying that the USA should mind its own business and stop attacking anyone, large or small, but it is particularly loathsome when they look for glory by stomping on countries which have no means to retaliate.
2007-02-25 05:34:19 · update #4
For definate Iran the US is already spreading iits lies and propaganda and giving false reports to the UN .Iran has attempted negotiations with the whitehouse with a european country as a go between but al attemps where rejected
2007-02-25 03:33:37 · answer #1 · answered by keny 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The US would have a lot more moral authority if it gave up its nukes, too, but the idea of the Iranian imams handing off nuclear weapons to Hezbollah is a little scary. Maybe you'd feel that the world were more peaceful if some US and Israeli cities were to go up in radioactive mushroom clouds? Maybe they'll decide to really get even with the Paris police, too. And with Denmark for printing those cartoons.
2007-02-25 03:15:14 · answer #2 · answered by kscottmccormick 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
there's a super sort of information censorship interior the mainstream media on the subject of the killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan by skill of the U. S. defense force. there is indiscriminate killing happening. subsequently further and added effortless human beings in those countries are becoming to be a member of businesses like the Taliban and Al-Qa'ida.
2016-10-16 11:09:39 · answer #3 · answered by scafuri 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your childish comments are symbolic of the misinformed leftist lobby.
USA uses its military and economic might responsibly.Every person in every democracy will feel the benefit of American action abroad,in the same way as they feel the negatives of communism and Islamic terror when rogue states are free to run amok.
The people of Iraq and Afghanistan in general are not fighting the occupying forces.Iran,the Taliban and Al quaeda are the ones causing death and destruction to their own kind.
Are you suggesting that USA should single out nations more capable of defending themeselves as opposed to the ones who oppress their own people and fund terrorism?
Every time ignorant loud mouthed misinformed people slander allied activity abroad,they are playing into the hands of enemy propagandists and causing casualties amongst civilians and troops alike.
Your freedom and the future of your children is being bought by the commitment of george bush and the blood of allied soldiers.
Perhaps living a year or two in Iran would improve your perspective.
2007-02-25 05:23:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I don't think the US will threaten anyone. However, I do think that Iran will be taken out without much advance warning by either the US or Israel since nobody else in the world has any balls. As far as other countries, the US took out the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11 attack. Also, the UN had 18 resolutions against Iraq and 1441 authorized the use of force against Saddam Hussein. It took the balls of the US and Britain to actually enforce the UN resolution and do the dirty work since other countries like Germany, Russia, France and Spain (who pulled out early) are weak nations.
2007-02-25 02:59:16 · answer #5 · answered by ccguy 3 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Well,Lets say camel turd licker,You'd sooner play with a panthers balls,then to attack us.Your supplying your Iraq relatives with explosives to harm our kids trying to bring a democratic free nation together for you ignorant people.Good thing I'm not in Bushes seat,you would of already been dust.
2007-02-25 04:12:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
The US is a bully nation and the quicker its people wake up and smell the gunpowder the better. They can get rid of their elderly bunch of senators who are still living in the second world war era and start getting a fresher set of modern people. They are too stuck in the past.
2007-02-25 06:18:27 · answer #7 · answered by K. Marx iii 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well since the biggest threat to current administration (the self described only "real" Americans) are US liberals, I'd say the next invasion should be Massecuetts, San Francisco & NYC.
2007-02-25 03:07:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Dubya can't be reelcted again, so he has just under 2 years to do whatever it is the neo-cons have planned. My bet is Iran will be hit by cruise missiles pretty soon.
2007-02-25 04:28:34 · answer #9 · answered by jezza 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Some poor innocent country while ignoring the biggest threat (climate change). Alaska is melting away slowly too.
And the asker failed to mention "Oil Producing Country"
2007-02-25 03:09:14 · answer #10 · answered by SS4 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋