What are we waiting for? Seriously.
2007-04-06 18:47:23 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
It sure would be cheaper.
But, unfortunately, the repurcussions wouldn't be.
2007-04-06 18:57:05 · answer #1 · answered by Karma 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
First of all...The war is not about oil. If it was, why wouldn't we just attack Saudi Arabia? They have tons more oil than Iraq and it would have been easier to get to.
I don't think bombing the entire country would be a good idea. Not only would we kill millions of innocent civilians, but at the same time, Al Qaeda is not based in any country. They occupy pretty much the entire Middle East. By bombing Iraq, there would be very serious repercussions.
2007-04-06 19:01:39 · answer #2 · answered by Chris_Knows 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
First of all the "a-bomb" was state of the are in oh say, 1945! We have way better nuclear devises than a-bombs. Secondly, we would be killing nothing but innocent people. There are only a handful of bad apples in Iraq. Why eff the whole country over just to get them? That is just plain dumb. Not to mention the impact fallout would have on the entire region, including precious Israel.
2007-04-06 18:52:25 · answer #3 · answered by I'll Take That One! 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
"Dropping" is such an inaccurate was to release a nuclear weapon. Perhaps the use of a percision weapon would be better.
What are we waiting for? Are you serious? Other than killing 100,000s of innocent Iraqis, devastating their oil capabilities and generally making the USA the bad guy....well; nothing I suppose.
ANSWER: The goal is to provide Iraq and its people with a working...hopefully democratic, USA friendly government...not a waste land of radioactive glass and sand for the next 1000 years.
2007-04-06 18:58:13 · answer #4 · answered by iraq51 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It would leave the country in a state of unrest, and open up a power vacuum. You think the Jihad status is bad now? America would lose a vast majority of its support (we're still catching grief for Hiro and Naga, not to mention the Napalm in Vietnam). It just isn't a feasible idea... trust me I would love it if it would work.
Irradiated oil can be cleaned up. If Bush was really a moron, he would have dropped an A-bomb on the "innocent women and children" as well as the insurgants.
2007-04-06 18:51:42 · answer #5 · answered by lizardking_livesforever 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
You know, this comment always makes me shake my head.
You people who are so supportive of the war in Iraq, claim that the war is to make us safer? How does starting nuclear war make us safer? And the major reason for entering Iraq was because he supposedly had weapons of mass distruction; which a nuclear bomb is, yet YOU want to use one. You know..... the U.S. is the only country to have ever actually used a nuke on an enemy. Yet we go nutty when certain countries want one; like Iran or North Korea. No wonder they want one....we don't threaten to nuke countries that can strike back with their own nuke!
Your statement is sickening.
And.... for those who now deny WMDs were the reason we entered Iraq, and the real reason was to rid them of a ruthless dictator, well, weren't they safer with Hussein than they would be with nuclear bomb and it's fallout?
So seriously, all you really want to do is kill a bunch of people? Is that what you are saying? And this makes you better than the "terrorists" how?
2007-04-06 18:54:10 · answer #6 · answered by Yinzer from Sixburgh 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Well, if you were any type of HUMAN, let alone an American, then you would understand that, simply dropping a nuclear bomb on lots of other INNOCENT people who wouldn't have the means to hurt us even if they wanted to is just wrong. Just because I hate Bush and his psychotic administration doesn't mean that I'd be justified in blowing the whole of Washington D.C. off the map, you nazi.
2007-04-06 19:02:27 · answer #7 · answered by kindoveaz 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Is there something left in Iraq you can bomb ?
2007-04-06 19:27:54 · answer #8 · answered by daffy duck 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because then George Bush couldn't get his hands on all that lovely oil, which is the reason for this whole thing anyway, isn't it?
2007-04-06 19:25:52 · answer #9 · answered by monkeyface 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Remember you're not the only country with nukes, and I reckon that's when America gets a surprise, a huge one. It's not gonna change the outcome of the war, people there will just hate you more, and doing by brute force shows zero intellect. You'd be proving the US-haters right 100%.
2007-04-06 18:52:25 · answer #10 · answered by Unicornrider 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
not only is iraq the leading producer of domestic oil, but there are innocent women and children, i wish this war would end soon, there really shouldnt even be a war, and bush is a moron
2007-04-06 18:51:21 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋