The Bush controlled Military can't even handle Baghdad, why do Cons think he should invade Iran now?

Answer 1

Cons can't handle the truth, George Bush denounced the Geneva Convention didn't he? This isn't his concern now since Iran is a part of it with Great Britain. It's not hostages, it's POW's as the language for the Humane person.

Answer 2

undergo in recommendations the large military drawdown interior the early ninety's. properly, its all coming back to chew them now. We somewhat have sufficient to disguise what's happening now. even nevertheless, conflict with Iran is a very diverse concern than Iraq. Iran is a substantial threat to the U.S. and the the remainder of the international. The Iran issue is already coming to the factor the place negotiations are valueless. you won't be in a position to negotiate with a dictator that's lifeless set on beginning a conflict. Do your homework, Iran is placing the international up so there is not any determination yet conflict. The decider is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!

Answer 3

From a soldier(me) - Handling Baghdad like how? If you want it completely demolished and all the citizens dead - sure we could handle that in a matter of days, hours, hell even a minute. But the goal was to invoke structure, freedom, and safety into the country. With the amount of terrorist cells and gorillas still in the area it is hard to keep the citizens safe. The idea is to take out the these different types of opposition with little or no collateral damage.

If the troops packed up and left before a government ran by the people, for the people was established then another dictator or highly irrational person could take control of the area. The region would be highly unstable and the citizen would be at danger for genocide again - just like Hussien was fond of doing to the Kurds.

This is a military policing action at this point, just like after WW2 in Germany and Italy.

Iran is another story, only time will tell what comes of that situation. The main reason we stayed out of these regions is because they were 3rd world and most European nations wanted to keep them that way so the 3rd world country would not use many natural resourse and export these nature resourses to European countries. But now that terrorism has been globalized and the possiblity of nuclear / chemical terrorism has become a reality it doesn't look like European countries/America want to set back and find out if they will attack. Middle eastern/Asia area people understand overpowering domination, thats why their dictators have so much power and that's why force is implied to show them. Moreover, they won't listen to reason and back away from nuclear arms interest.

Answer 4

I don't think we should or can invade Iran at this time. Maybe a surgical airstrike to take out their nuclear program...
I do, however think it is VERY important that we keep Iran from expanding into Iraq. There is a reason we sold weapons and supported Saddam for so many years, he held Iran at bay. Friendly governments such as Saudi Arabia that sell us our oil MUST be protected in order to protect our economy, our way of life, and our standard of living. The cost of a barrel of oil is reflected in EVERYTHING we buy, including our food, due to transportation costs. If those governments fall, and get replaced by western hating radical Islam governments, we will be at their total mercy, not a good position to be in. That's why i think withdrawing the troops from Iraq is a HUGE MISTAKE. We should remain there, permantly if need be. (we STILL have troops in Germany and Japan, so that is not unprecedented.)

Answer 5

If the democrats would stop making the war in Iraq a political issue and let our military do their job to the best of their ability, it would be fixed. The latest troop increase has made GREAT progress, but you won't find reporting of it on the mainstream media.

Our enemies are not going to line up and let us handle them at our convenience. They see weakness and they are taking advantage of it. This is why we should have NEVER reduced our military power under Clinton after the cold war settled. If we have to go at Iran, so be it.

I just wish Pelosi and the democrats had not added BILLIONS in pork to the troop funding bill. Yeah, sure they care about the troops and winning the war...

Answer 6

It's about belief in their own power, it's not rational. This is what a high level Bush official (rumored to be Rove) said a few years ago:

"''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities"

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/2004-10-16b.html

Answer 7

The LOG CABIN CON'S are at a 90% in Iraq now, I don't see the chickenhawk NEOCONS signing up. Here is my source:

Answer 8

Four years of "war" in a country with no military and we haven't won squat. Doesn't that tell anyone we aren't there fighting a war?

Answer 9

Because Iran has seized a crew of 15 Britains. and Bush wants to get involved.

Answer 10

It is Mr. Bush or President Bush and that goes whether you like him or not! FYI, Mr. Bush's generals and military strategists are IN CHARGE of the war not the President!!!!!