please
2007-09-07 15:31:28 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Our job is basically finished. We are waiting for the Iraqi government to get it together at this point.
2007-09-07 15:34:57 · answer #1 · answered by booman17 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am against invading Iran at large because it will involved deaths of innocent civilians and again, young US soldiers, but the fundamentalist Islamic regime headed by Khamenie and Ahmadenijad should be overthrown and Iran's nuclear facilities should be wiped out. Iran, as a whole is threat to America, and all non-islamic nations. It has to be contained now by force rather than we, that lives in a free world regret it later.
2007-09-07 22:49:20 · answer #2 · answered by PHILCHN 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, let's attack another country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Attacking Iran will trigger WW3. China and Russia are dependent on Iran for oil. If anyone knows history they know that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because we stuck our nose in their oil supply. Or where they just jealous of our freedoms? lol. Airstrikes against Iran will be just as bad as invading because it will leave the country in shambles and choas with no government (as bad as their government is now this will be total anarchy ) and turn the pro-American people of Iran to Islamic Fundamentalism.
I say we refocus on the people who actually did attack us. Heck, Iranians aren't even Arabs, they're Persians. This administration sees anyone from the middle east as the "enemy." But gave bin laden a free pass and still buddies up to our "friends" the Saudis. Also, Pakistan is NOT an ally. They are providing as much safe haven to Al-Qaeda/Taliban as Afghanistan was/is.
2007-09-07 22:52:20 · answer #3 · answered by trumph 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
how could Iran be a threat to US security?
on the other hand dont u think that the US is threat to Iran national security?
anyway we r stuck in Iraq for now
2007-09-08 09:12:38 · answer #4 · answered by aminhhmt 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No the US armed forces is in a shambles.
And Iran is not a threat to US national security and it's going to be damned hard for Bush to prove that it is this time around.
2007-09-07 22:34:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
We would never invade Iran, but plans are in the works for a 3 or so day blitz to completely incapacitate their military.
2007-09-07 22:34:18 · answer #6 · answered by Serpico7 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How bout we avoid Iran and get Bin Laden first? After that, we can think about the Saudi's.. I'll probably be on board with that.. Iran though?? Seriously?? Why follow a mistake with the SAME mistake??
2007-09-07 22:42:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What about Afghanistan? We didn't "finish the job" there before invading Iraq.
2007-09-08 02:13:06 · answer #8 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What exactly is the "job" we are to finish?
First it was to "liberate" the people.
Now it is because there is al-queda there.
Plus, if we leave the terrorists will have control of the oil.
Or could it be that we are still there because we are trying to save face?
Yes, please lets learn the lessons of Iraq before we invade any other soverign country.
2007-09-07 22:35:36 · answer #9 · answered by Sean H 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think we have adequate air and naval power but I'm not sure if we could have adequate ground forces.
2007-09-07 22:39:43 · answer #10 · answered by Petey V3.3 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋