If Bush pushes any harder, and we throw a bomb on Iran, would you be for this move or not? And which presidential candidate do you think will go along with a plan like this as well?
2007-08-28 18:38:16 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Attacking yet another country -- solely because we don't like them -- or solely because they won't take orders from us -- is just plain stupid.
Ignore the fact that the US military is drastically over-extended (according to the Pentagon) or the fact that we cannot even sustain our current troop levels in the countries we're currently fighting in (according to commanders in the field).
We have absolutely nothing to gain by attacking a country that has no yet directly attacked us -- and it would very likely cause a regional escalation in violence that would quite likely bring about WW3.
So, it would accomplish nothing, and it would cause drastic harm to the US -- where's the upside?
2007-08-28 18:48:43 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I dont know that its really preemption considering Iranian soldiers have been fighting our troops in Iraq as well as supplies terrorists with weapons. If anyone was willing to acknowledge the truth, they would realize that Iran declared war against us well over a year or two ago.
And Iran has to be dealt with. Sad that after 30 years we are still paying for Jimmy Carters mistakes.
2007-08-29 05:35:43 · answer #2 · answered by Avatar_defender_of_the_light 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nah the US needs a break from the war just hit them where it hurts .Their pockets.
2007-08-29 01:48:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I won't support that move, and the candidates that would are John McCain, Rudi, and probably probable candidate Fred Thompson. I dunno about Mitt Romney, and none of the democrats would support that.
2007-08-29 01:46:46 · answer #4 · answered by UriK 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
idk what to think anymore
the whole middle east is ******
2007-08-29 01:45:56 · answer #5 · answered by sk692 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋