Blair has to keep his buddy happy and he would benefit from his actions after he leaves office. Seems a bit more back itching may be going down.
Bush needs and wants badly to invade Iran just like he did with Iraq. The Pentagon has already drawn up a plan of action against Iran (Bush said, it was just done as a precaution).
Isn't it time that the western world stayed the hell out of other countries affairs?
We wouldn't take kindly to those countries coming over and bossing us around.
Bush wants the oil...I'd like the world to just say: "Bush you are nolonger allowed to bully other countries, if you continue your oil supply will be cut off forever".
2007-04-05 02:50:03 · 12 answers · asked by Eriduserpent~ 3 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Interesting point of view that might very well be true. However The "anti terror aliance " has neither the means nor the men to afford another war. People are allready apauled to see yet another body come back from Iraq they'd never accept another conflict. And besides both leaders are nearly at the end of their mandates and are likely to be replaced by their opposition thanks to their ways so it's very unlikely that there would be conflict.
2007-04-05 03:02:01 · answer #1 · answered by peter gunn 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I do not think the recent Iran issue was set in motion to aid George the 2nd. I think it was what it was. The Iranian leadership did not get what it wanted, so backed off without firing a shot. This is good. As for George the 2nd: he is already on a major losing track, and public opinion in USA is about to turn sharp against his admin policies. There, the major issue is very poor management of this entire flawed effort. YET, it IS a civil-religious war in Iraq. This kind of insanity is not in resolution, because our armed forces are trained to WIN, not have hands tied --- done because of another flawed agreement with the Iraqi government. // As for getting the oil cut off: that will provide tremendous incentive to switch to alternative energy sources. The benefits?: reduction in global warming, reduced dependence on foreign sources, further increase in technological advances. It's another potential win-win.
2007-04-05 04:46:17 · answer #2 · answered by harry61_06 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As an American I can say that I'm clueless. Since King George II the Dark Lord (Bush) has become the mighty ruler of my country, we no longer get accurate news coverage. The pen is mightier than the sword to stir up the masses. I believe it had something to do with an Iranian captive that we deny holding but was somehow magically returned to the Iranian government prior to the release of your sailors.
2007-04-05 11:55:35 · answer #3 · answered by harvestmooninjune 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
So, you are saying that Blair orchestrated the capture of 15 Britons so that the incident would be resolved to the embarrassment of the UK and that somehow aids GWBush in justifying an invasion of Iran?
That's what you think?
2007-04-05 02:57:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hi,
You are correct, and totally agree that it is an economic issue, veiled in allogory & rhetoric.
I laugh at the notion that George Doubleyou and his merry men call themselves "World Peacekeepers", and that Tony and his gang tow the line.
Just as an aside, when George Senior was on his travels to the Mid-East, his lead car had to pull into a BP petrol station.
There's a fact, hardly a secret.
So I fully agree with your article
Bob.
2007-04-05 03:39:18 · answer #5 · answered by Bob the Boat 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
first of all, the squaddies are in Iraq and Bush claims the reason that we are conserving them there is by way of the fact he first theory that there have been weapons of mass destruction. as quickly as we've been given there, Bush discovered no weapons so he stored the squaddies there as a fashion to help the Iraqi people to freedom. and that's the reason our squaddies are nevertheless there.
2016-12-15 16:46:53 · answer #6 · answered by gagliano 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No I dont think so. I think Iran was trying to find out how far they could push Great Britian and the world. When they found out they couldnt they backed down to save face. It amazes me how many people think Bush is behind everyting. He gets credited with all this all by himself not the whole government.
2007-04-05 03:41:06 · answer #7 · answered by mnwomen 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No; it was half Rosie O'Donnell & half The Donald . Two half-wits ..that don't make a wit of sense .
2007-04-05 20:18:22 · answer #8 · answered by missmayzie 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes, to bad he did not grab the opportunity to move into Iran.
2007-04-05 14:53:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Wouldn't suprise me.
2007-04-05 05:27:28 · answer #10 · answered by truth_and_time_tells_all 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋