They are getting nukes and send members of their Revolutionary gaurd into Iraq to kill American soldiers. IED's are proven to be from Iran....
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/0...
2007-07-16 04:12:13 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/06/are_iranian_for.php
2007-07-16 04:18:20 · update #1
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/06/are_iranian_for.php
2007-07-16 04:20:05 · update #2
Sorry, the third link actually works. thanks
2007-07-16 04:20:43 · update #3
"They" refers to the USA government both Republicans and Democrats......BTW I am for this tactic....we will take out Iran from within in ths way. Whilst losing the least American soldiers and applying enormous pressure on the extremist government by being both on their western border and eastern borders. The squeeze is on and Iran is borrowing from their social programs that currently support their vastly pro-western unemployed young adult population to enhance their nuclear proliferation program.
2007-07-16 04:25:13 · update #4
DINO....50% of foreign fighters in Iraq may be Saudi this is true. Yet they are not funded by Saudi's...they are funded by their the Saudi's enemies in Iran.
2007-07-16 23:12:21 · update #5
The war has always been about terrorism and radical Islam. At one point we went through Afghanistan, since there was a large cell there.
Iraq was backing many of the terrorist organizations, so into Iraq we went.
Iran and Syria also back many terrorism groups and are filled with some radical Muslims. So we may or may not continue there (since Democrats really don't have the courage to fight a war and finish what needs to get done), but it IS the next logical step. Either diplomatic or through military strength, the idea of terrorism is something that needs to be erradicated.
2007-07-16 04:17:47 · answer #1 · answered by Rob 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋
the answerer Rob had it right. The war was always about terrorism and Iran is sponsoring terrorism. Pres Bush mentioned Iran in the axis of evil portion of the state of the union address in 2002. Keep in mind that Iran is bordered by Iraq on the west and Afghanistan on the east so they are sort of surrounded at this point.
2007-07-16 11:28:15 · answer #2 · answered by Matt M 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because it hasn't.
That is kind of like a side project yes, but I have watched interviews with intelligence officials as far back as the 70s that predicted this would happen as the ME became the major source of oil in the world.
The largest cause of terrorism, is the ideology of people in the middle east, that industrializaed nations, just wish to keep them down and exploit them for their oil resources.
Now I can't really argue with that point, other than the fact they aren't the only people that large multinational corporations wish to exploit; however, radical militant muslims are going about this all wrong.
allow me to explain.
When a large oil company comes into a country wishing to explore for oil, and develop the resources they find, they contract with the government, which tends to be ruled by very few people in these muslim nations.
So it is a very small few that agrees on the contracts, maybe takes a few bribes on top of them, and the people see no benefit whatsover in many cases. this leads to the idea that the oil companies(as representaves of industrialized nations) are ripping them off, when in fact the biggest screwing comes from their own leaders, that they should be angered with.
But how are you going to do anything about a corrupt leader when he to is a muslim, and using your religion to his advantage.
This situation is the same reason Politics and Religion don't mix.
2007-07-16 11:25:13 · answer #3 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because it would be pretty hard to tie 9/11 to Iran, and they have a democracy which makes it a lot harder to draw up plans for drawing public support. But though your hypothesis is plausible, I think others are more likely. We actually just wanted to occupy the region for energy security. We had very few bases there. Now our bases cover a good 60% of the world's proven reserves.
2007-07-16 11:20:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
That is the 10 dollar question isn't it. It seems the US has been stalling in Iraq for quite sometime now and I hear troops asking why are they still there. We keep sending more troops with no signs of meeting any benchmarks. Iran has got so much oil it's ridiculous but don't know or have the resources available to refine it but Daddy Bush knows how to get it done. Welcome to the Peak Oil wars.
2007-07-16 11:20:17 · answer #5 · answered by Enigma 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
America urged and supported Pakistan to fight against Russia when they occupied Afganistan. The Americans stand was that as a neighbor of Afganistan the sovereignty of Pakistan was in danger.
Under the same logic Iranians have the right to do the same with America as did Pakistan with Russia.
American policy was biased either at that time or now. Isn't it?
By the way why America is playing the role of a police man in the world? Isn't it the job of UNO to deal with such matters?
You will have to admit that American warriors are planning to conquer the world and its resources.
2007-07-16 11:47:27 · answer #6 · answered by Mustansar Dar 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Never becasue it never was. Read PNAC to find out why we invaded.
50% of foreign fighters in Iraq come from Saudi Arabia and are financed by Saudi's.
2007-07-16 11:18:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Right after the elections.
2007-07-16 11:15:16 · answer #8 · answered by TheEconomist 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iran would never make nukes.
USA has about 6000 nukes.Russia 3000. Isreal 700 arent they threting us.
2007-07-16 11:20:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You get a silver star for being the first person to suggest that this war was about something other than oil. Congrats!
2007-07-16 11:15:10 · answer #10 · answered by ? 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋