What a delightful naivete your "question" displays.
You ask "why does Bush want war against Iran", yet you offer no evidence at all about anybody wanting war against anybody.
Why is your question so silly?
2007-07-05 04:12:50
·
answer #1
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The reason Bush wants war with Iran? For the same reason he wanted war with Iraq.
It's a three-letter word, is liquid, and provides fuel for the world, as well as huge profits for the big corporations.
It also has its roots in Biblical lore, and is definitely of interest to "End Time" Christians like Bush, who approve a Crusade through the Middle East and believe the Second Coming is on its way, once Israel has reclaimed all Biblical lands.
2007-07-03 22:44:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by Me, Too 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
We need to get a few things straight here. First, Bush and Blair DO represent the American people. That is why they were ELECTED to their respective positions. Ahmadinjad was not. He took control of Iran.
It is because Iran is a dictatorship that presents a problem to the western civilizations. That dictatorship does not believe that western civilizations have a right to be alive. They want us dead and have said so on many occassions. Now think if they get a nuke, what do you think they are going to do with it? Simply look at what they have said over and over again; they will destroy those infidels in Israel.
And your source, an Arab propaganda machine? Please.
2007-06-27 13:41:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by Michael H 5
·
4⤊
0⤋
The iraqi's have blown up the oil pipelines so not as much oil is there, Since we are in the middle east and next door to the iranians who pipelines are sound we must find a way to invade them so they won't surpass us in the selling of oil? we must disrupt their economy, this is the only reason President Bush would want to go to war!
2007-07-05 10:37:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by msprings462007 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think you are right about Ahmadinjad not representing the Iranian people. No more than GWB representing the American people. I would not be surprise if American agents were not behind some of the disturbances cited in the article, it has happened before, yes, it has happened before.
The Iranian people like the American people, basically.
2007-07-03 20:37:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by johnfarber2000 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
I am not going to agree that all of the Iranian people like the United States. We know that they are supporting the violence in Iraq. Yes, a good majority do not like their government, and they might like the United States. But I ask you, Who controls the military? The answer is Ahmadinjad and that is a problem.
2007-06-27 12:43:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by ColoradoBrew 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
Bush doesn't want to go to war with them...open your eyes. They are obtaining nukes plain and simple. The IAEA will attest to this. This is against the UN's sanctions on them. They don't care. So instead of making a country who has oil but does not have the means to refine it. Saudi, US, and the British are the only ones capable of refining oil into fuel. Cheney Talked to Saudi if you remember and asked them to not supply to Iran, thus putting an economic hurt on the country. The Iranian people are very close to Americans. It's not the people we aim to hurt its their rogue government. It appears as if it is working if the people are rising up against their own government.Good work Bush Administration. Now if they would just secure our borders.
2007-06-27 12:48:37
·
answer #7
·
answered by mbush40 6
·
4⤊
2⤋
But if Ahmadinjad stays in power we will have no choice. Ask the 8 British soldiers killed by Iranian Guard troops in Iraq.
2007-06-27 12:46:30
·
answer #8
·
answered by Cookies Anyone? 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
Their rioting over gas rationing has absolutely nothing to do with the US. We do not control how much gas is produced. OPEC does but maybe secretly Nixon really is not dead and he is causing the problem. Only Moore knows the truth!!
2007-07-02 22:52:22
·
answer #9
·
answered by TAT 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Good point! But since Bush used up all of his presidential power in Iraq, I don't think we have to be concerned about him making any decisions more important than pardons or seating at Rose Garden parties. Can you say "lame duck"?
2007-07-04 15:42:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by Steve W 3
·
0⤊
0⤋