Is it because of our GREAT track record over the past 30 years with our wars? We've what.. had one go well? (Bush Sr.'s)
2007-03-23 05:01:07 · 18 answers · asked by pip 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
need and want are different things.... :P
2007-03-23 05:09:33 · update #1
Because if many people aren't fighting against an enemy that they hate, they have no focus or purpose in their lives.
That's the definition of "war-monger" -- someone who lives for war, and loves conflict.
2007-03-23 05:05:23 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 8⤊ 4⤋
If you mean by so many people "the British" who had 15 sailors taken hostage then why not be eager. Bush Sr's war was to liberate Kuwait from Saddam. Bush Jr's is to liberate Iraq from Saddam. IMO we did that very sucessfully. The rebuilding is the part that has gone sour in many a lib eye.
2007-03-23 12:11:20 · answer #2 · answered by mbush40 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wars only go well when politicians stay out of it and let the military do their job.
I would also like to point out that Iran is actively provoking the West and this will only go on so long before either the US or Great Brittian decide they have had enough and push that little red button Iran doesn't think we'll use. Then we'll just go, "Oops! My bad."
2007-03-23 12:08:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think that people are eager to get into that war. Most people believe that it was Iran we should have went to war with in the first place. There military is somewhat superior to what Iraq's was, not to mention their willingness and ability to fund terrorism. The whole nuke thing also gets people a little worried to.
2007-03-23 12:12:14 · answer #4 · answered by krm2020 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Our track record over the past 30 years is poor because we didn't fight the wars like wars.
We tried to fight "limited" wars - with ground troops.
Contrary to popular belief, bombing has been very effective:
The allies bombed most German cities to the stone age, making the Russian takeover easier.
Bombing ended WWII in the Pacific.
It was not until LBJ STOPPED bombing in 'Nam that we started to lose that war.
Nixon's bombing of Hanoi and the supply lines in Laos and Cambodia got Ho Chi Minh back to the bargaining table.
The Israelis took out Saddam's nuclear program through a bombing raid.
We DID win the war against Saddam, in all of a week and a half, starting with a bombing campaign.
We're out of troops now, maybe a "war with Iran" will mean good old fashioned bombing them into submission.
I just don't understand - we have the technology, the only difficulty is that we lack sea-based stealth and we don't have truly good de-icing capability on stealth aircraft, at least we didn't ten years ago, but this is the freakin' DESERT and the B2 can carry so much fuel that you don't need a carrier-based solution.
We could reduce the country to a pile of rubble and ash in a few days.
So to the tune of one of my favorite Cole Porter songs:
Let's do it, let's bomb Iran.
Who voted thumbs down - what, you don't like Cole Porter? Who doesn't like Cole Porter???
2007-03-23 12:12:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Iran Threatens U.S. With Harm and Pain Over Nuke Meeting.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187160,00.html
Iran Threatens to Hide Nuke Program, Share Technology
TEHREN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's top leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
warned Wednesday that the country will pursue nuclear activities outside international regulations if the U.N. Security Council insists it stop uranium enrichment.
Russia Pulling Out of Iran Nuke Project: Russia is bringing home its technicians and engineers from Iran's unfinished nuclear reactor site at a time of growing international pressure on Theran to curb its atomic ambitions,...
http://www.topix.net/world?full
Iran threatens to nuke Israel,
Bush Threatens to Isolate Iran Over Nuke Plan
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/o,7340,L-3327730,00.html
While the President of Iran is threatening to Nuke U.S and Israel the President of USA responds with dignity saying; he will isolate Iran over nuke plan..
Who is the real bully here?
2007-03-23 23:25:44 · answer #6 · answered by gigiemilu 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Conservatives are in a mindest that we "must" go to war if the right-wing parts of the media spin it that way.
And it's blatantly irresponsible. So much for the "Republicans are strong on defense" argument.
If they were so strong on defense, they'd weigh their options with MUCH better care.
2003 Pre-emptive strike in Iraq a case in point.
2007-03-23 12:09:13 · answer #7 · answered by Da Man 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
from the point of view of Halliburton and Lokheed Martin, the Irak war is already a success, so will be the Iran war...
2007-03-23 12:10:47 · answer #8 · answered by Thom Jefferson 1 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Who's eager?
2007-03-23 12:17:58 · answer #9 · answered by Apachecat 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is like salt and pepper shakers we have the Iraq we need the Iran! If we had Hungry we would need turkey Got it!
2007-03-23 12:08:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋