Seems like he just missed a golden opportunity. Time to face reality: no more crusade in the Middle East.
Iraq will be our last imperialist war.
2007-04-04 13:10:08 · 21 answers · asked by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
moreno, those ships were in the Persian Gulf the whole time! Some deterrant!
2007-04-04 13:29:36 · update #1
Pack your bags, were going in before Pelosi makes nice with them.
2007-04-04 13:13:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 6⤋
First off... The US in no way shape of form can ever be considered "imperialist," unless you're reading some history book that contradicts all established history.
Secondly many people confuse the difference between a tactical strike and a military invasion.
1) A full military invasion of Iran is not military possible with current forces being deployed at the numbers they are.
2) A tactical strike against the Nuclear Reactor and/or all military istallations is an extremely viable option however politcally incorrect it may be.
No one wants to deal with problems when the warning signs are there, yet when problems arise they complain that no action was done. Saddam gave warning signs in his struggle to power, in his invasion of Kuwait, the genocide of the Kurds... We went in twice with the backing of th world foolishly not removing Saddam because of Politics. People then seem to be utterly and completely aghast when we go back in to do what should have been done in the first place... All after repeated attacks on US military planes and the rejection of UN weapons inspectors which were violations of terms set forth from the previous invasion.
The US isnt in the middle east to take over countries, we arent getting more oil or paying any less for it. We have given money for rebuilding and are hoping to leave the region in a more stable environment than it has been. However the issues of religious/territorial differences has been a major hindrance in our goals but with the support of Sheiks now the goals seem much closer than they have been for some time. Like we proved after our occupation of Germany after WWII, we go in, we improve, we leave. End of story.
If anyone believes Iran is going through all of this in order to produce civilian grade plutonium i suggest you research a few things.
1) Why did Iran reject the US and the West's offer to give them civilian reactors and the plutonium necessary?
2) What is the difference between weapons grade and civilian grade plutonium
3) what is the rhetoric of Iran and why put themselves at odds with the US and the UN over something they were offered?
2007-04-04 13:39:58 · answer #2 · answered by Ryan C 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You say things which come across as negative - in sound - but what you're really saying is all about some deluded version of hope you hold out for! lmao! No matter who is in charge reality is reality. Do you think three naval strike forces are just "cruising" around our planet and just happen to end up in an area called the Persian gulf? LMFAO!! You are funny!
2007-04-04 13:29:48 · answer #3 · answered by solo_powered_boatie 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The goal is to control the entire middle east. What I fear is if they don't have control of Iraq before his term ends then we go in as a last ditch effort. Bush could care less what condition he leaves the world in.
They put off the Easter invasion. Too many people know about it.
But I bet he wanted to use the British sailors as a excuse.
I can hear him now. Dick order some of our sailors to land on the beach in Iran then when the Iranians take them hostage we can tell the world that Iran is holding our sailors hostage with nuklar weapons at their heads. Then we can invade.
2007-04-04 13:21:33 · answer #4 · answered by trichbopper 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
talking of Iran, CNN the different evening reported that Iran is one twelve months far flung from having the flexibility to create nuclear weapons. jointly as Iran will possibly no longer attack us immediately, if Iran follows its known trend, it may have no compunction over advertising its nukes to a occasion who could attack us. with a bit of luck, Israel, who replaced into threatened by Ahmadinejad to be wiped off the face of the earth, will do our job for us and take out Iran's nuclear reactors.
2016-10-21 01:20:43 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great Lib-Spin there!!! I don't know any other conservatives that gave that story any merit. It was always the libs that were pushing this story!
When I searched for this story after hearing about it I found it on a very liberal democratic website... with comments calling for the impeachment of Bush and blah blah blah... If anyone was buying this load of crap from the Russians and the French it was the libs...and they bought it hook, line, and sinker.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=152039&mesg_id=152039
2007-04-04 15:34:42 · answer #6 · answered by Carla R 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No and nor have I ever thought so. It would be stupid so not something that President Bush would do (stupid people are quickly screened from pilot training and only the best and the brightest get the ultra complicated fighter jets like W did).
2007-04-04 13:26:30 · answer #7 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They say that Iran gave up the hostages cause the
USS Nimitz and two other US ships were in the
Persian gulf. Check out News Max. Its seems
Iran is not that stupid.
GOD BLESS AMERICA AND OUR TROOPS!!!!
2007-04-04 13:26:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Even Bush isn't stupid enough to allow Iran to draw us into a war.. military or political. Iran is nothing but a paper tiger and one without a future unless it can somehow get it's hands on a chunk of Iraq... which it is trying desperately by any foul means possible to do. Nancy needs to shut the hell up and stop cuddling with terrorists simply to make Bush look bad to the muslim nations. Both parties are carrying our future over a cliff.
2007-04-04 13:17:40 · answer #9 · answered by reformed 2 · 2⤊ 4⤋
I never thought we were going to go into Iran. Once we finish our work in Iraq we mightconsider it but not before then. Plus, the cowards we have in Congress right now wouldn't allow us to go into Iran. They have no understanding whatsoever for national defense, international diplomacy, or standing up for what is good and proper. All they care about is undermining our President in any manner possible.
2007-04-04 13:24:52 · answer #10 · answered by Wookie 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Ain't heard a word from Conservatives, only wild speculation and innuendo from the Libs..
2007-04-04 13:20:43 · answer #11 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋