Bush says that the US is willing to "confront Iran". So, he wants to lose TWO wars instead of one?

Question

Honestly, what is this guy snorting or smoking?
What happens when his masters at Big Oil tell him that Canada has oil too, will he find some bogus reason to invade that country too?
America, make DAMN sure that you boot this brain dead test monkey out of the white house next year. (and by that I mean don't let him do something that would "force" him to declare a national emergency and suspend elections. )

Answer 1

That is TOTALLY UNTRUE!!!!!!!

Bush already lost 2 wars--Iraq and Afghanistan. He's trying for #3.

I wish you wild-eyed liberals would get your facts straignt! :)

Answer 2

While I am the first to agree that George W. Bush has been a disaster as President, I can see the military advantages in expanding the war into Iran.

At the moment, we have two isolated conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Iran in between. This puts our military in a difficult strategic position, since Iran is arming the jihadists on both fronts, with a central line of supply from bases protected by their presence on Iranian territory. This is very similar to our positions in the Viet Nam and Korean conflicts.

In Viet Nam we eventually violated the borders to attack the Viet Cong who were using neutral states for supply and transit, while in Korea we chose not to. In both cases the decisions were made for practical reasons. Laos and Cambodia were small and vulnerable, but in 1950 any expansion of the war into China might have brought in the Soviets.

So what would the consequences of a war with Iran mean? On the positive side, it would combine two piecemeal campaigns into one larger war. It would clearly define the war as one against fundmentalist Islamic states, which would force our western allies to make a few decisions.

On the down side, it would probably topple the secular government of Pakistan, and bring on a civil war and the expansion of the war clear to the borders with of India and China. I am not sure we want that.

Our allies will bail, as well. Canada will pull out of Afghanistan, as their government is taking a lot of heat over their heavy casualties. The Canadians did not support destabilizing Iraq, and will see being ignored as the war expands into Iraq as a betrayal of trust. The Brits have a new Prime Minister who may be looking for an excuse to rethink his position.

It is hard to imagine George W. Bush not being able to recognize these likelihoods. If he chooses to ignore them, we may be in for World War Three. China has an army in the millions, and we are overextended already.

I am voting Democrat. The can run Elmer the Spotted Pig, but I will still vote for the swine.

Answer 3

dude? what are you smoking? The only bad thing about the war is that we dont have enough troops there to effectivly do their job. If we flooded Iraq and Iran with a million plus like we did in Germany, the war would have been over years ago. The dems are the ones wanting us to loose, so they can point their fingers. But Bush isnt dumb enough to pull out until a dem takes the white house, and then it will be their fault.

Answer 4

The interesting part is that it may just be necessary. Iran is looking rather guilty of causing at least some of the unrest in Iraq and it does seem that it's intentions are to move ahead to develop nuclear arms. Would you sit back and tell them, "You have the fond blessing of the United States?"

[][][] r u randy? [][][]
.

Answer 5

I wish he would declare war on Iran. Would love to see the mighty Yanks not only recieve a bloody red nose, but get their war-mongering asz kicked to such an extent, Vietnam will resemble a lost conker fight.

Only once America recieves black body bags in the 10's of thousands, will the rest of the Muslim/Islamist and oil producing countries feel safe from the yankee empire declaring war on them.

I dare the imbecile to declare war on Iran...He doesn't possess the bollocks to do it. Not because of any fear from the Iranians...but fear from the public consensus of his own people.

Answer 6

Wake up! He(Bush) used the term nuclear holocaust in his threat. Is this what everyone really wants? To endure or die in these types of conditions. This man is without conscience and I have great doubts where his sanity is concerned. I love this country and I love this planet. I love the people. I would hate to see Bush encouraged in ravaging our existence.

Answer 7

Noooooo way,he really wants is to bankrupt this country and let as many americans in uniform dead,as their families will mourn and remember HE is the real cause of executing decider failure.
TRAITOR for History though,this cartoon hero of today's propaganda.

Answer 8

Braindead idiot who took presidency and turned it into a farce. All our lives lay in the hands of this man, that's more worrying than anything Iran could possibly dream of.

Answer 9

No. Democrats are the ones who want to lose.

He wants to prevent them from having and using nukes, or from giving them to someone who would.

I think that's pretty clear.

Maybe Democrats keep looking for "ulterior motives" because the last Democratic president launched a military attack the very day he was going to be impeached, and at practically no other time. They don't get sincerity or principles in their own leaders, so they don't know it when they see it in others.

Answer 10

He wants to be remembered as the first president to preside over total Global extinction.

Answer 11

If we were actully losing a war maybe, but we are not losing any war overseas. It is the war here at home we are losing with our open borders that need to shut down and people deported.