either that or .... no that won't work to try to live in peace and harmony with the rest of mankind would it. You (Americans) just bought a new hummer or expensive car so all you car about is filling up the fuel tank.
2007-03-24 05:01:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Should the U.S. go after Iran? Maybe that is on the horizon.
There are US troops in Iraq to the west of Iran, there are US troops in Afghanistan to the east of Iran. And a strike group led by the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis recently joined a similar force in the Persian Gulf led by the carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. Furthermore, the French nuclear carrier Charles de Gaulle and its task force met up with the USS John C. Stennis last Wednesday.
Iran has ignored all deadlines to cease enrichment of uranium. The UN has finally voted to expand imposing sanctions on Iran and giving Iran a final 60 days. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad abruptly canceled his planned trip to New York to address the U.N. Security Council.
U.S. and British officials said a boarding party from the frigate HMS Cornwall was seized about during a routine inspection of a merchant ship inside Iraqi territorial waters near the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway.
The seizure of two Royal Navy inflatable boats took place just outside the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, a 125-mile channel dividing Iraq from Iran. Its name means Arab Coastline in Arabic, and Iranians call it Arvandrud - Persian for Arvand River. A 1975 treaty recognized the middle of the waterway as the border.
Iranians send arms to Iraqi extremists, including sophisticated roadside bombs. This week, two commanders of an Iraqi Shiite militia told The Associated Press in Baghdad that hundreds of Iraqi Shiites had crossed into Iran for training by the elite Quds force, a branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard thought to have trained Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.
2007-03-24 12:38:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Of course not. We have no intention of doing so. It would be catestrophic on many levels, besides just being simply wrong. What would be the pre-text for war? Meddling in Iraq? ... that is beyond a joke, we complain about Iranians in Iraq while we have 300,000 people there. Who is the bigger meddler? Nuclear weapons? if that be the case, we should go after Israel, Russia, Pakistan, India, etc. etc. etc.
All this rhetoric you hear from leaders are just meant for domestic audiences, ya know, to keep the fear up. And due to the personal leadership faults of many in charge.
The US should learn to work with Iran on common interests and give up the illusion that a nuclear free Iran is an option. We are not going to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon if they are determined to do so. The only question is what relationship are you going to have with such a country after the fact.
2007-03-24 12:34:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by spur_101 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. But if there's one thing the Afghanistan/Iraq war has shown us is that our military was very weak combat troop-wise with insufficient numbers and equipment, thanks to the Clinton administration. Since we are now in the stage of building up our military back to proficient numbers, now we should also rebuild our CIA to infiltrate the countries of concern, locate and report to our government th activities of the countries instead of outright invasion. Only then should we enter a nation after proving to the United Nations the reason for entry, as one of a coalition.
2007-03-24 12:09:35
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't understand why U.S go after this kind country like Iraq and Iran..U.S have enough problem in there country..U.S should focus there problem not by other country..lol
2007-03-24 12:04:47
·
answer #5
·
answered by joy emz 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think the US has enough problems at home, with a very corrupt government that is being run by special interests.
The oil companys rule in the USA and will go any where they think there is oil. We have problems this country is falling apart at the seems.
2007-03-24 11:59:08
·
answer #6
·
answered by Vanessa 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
ahhhh..... NO!!!!!!! its been 4 years since they been in iraq and they still cant handle them. imagine if they go to iran more people will get killed and more teenagers of the age of 18 will be recruited if they arent studying. that's what i think.
2007-03-24 12:10:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by Im cold? 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Just beat the tin cans in planet of apes.
When they can't even differentiates what is a movie as entertainment in planet of apes.
While blindly exposing the misery of their own ancestors over a movie in planet of apes.
Ever wonder how they were trying to confirm the misery of their own ancestors living in misery back in the past in planet of apes?
Ever wonder who were making a mess with animosity over a movie in planet of apes?
Ever wonder how children with self lack of knowledge will blindly follow the blind over the ghostly stories with animosity will create a mess out of the mole-hill in planet of apes?
Luke 6.39-40
2007-03-24 12:12:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
YES,,,,
If Winston Churchill was around, that would not have happened. ( captured 15 marines ).
Whether a weak kid in school, or a weak country in the world.
Weakness will always be stepped on.
Kill or be killed,,,,
Only the strong survive.
Mother natures rule, not mine.
2007-03-24 12:16:06
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why not they got Iraq exactly where they want them...Iran...what next?
2007-03-24 12:08:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by "*♥*Nafisa*♥*" 4
·
0⤊
0⤋