I think something will be done, sooner than we think.
2007-09-13 04:24:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
We have Iran surrounded for a reason. It's called containment.
That's how we had Iraq until Sadam made us go in to enforce the UN resolutions. But when containment fails, hopefully there is a noose ready for the Iranian president's neck as well.
He's been involved in terrorism and killing innocent people at least as far back as his involvement in the Iranian hostage crisis in 1980-81.
But I think GW is, according to the lib conspiracists, too busy creating hurricanes and altering the weather patterns and stockpiling his own personal supply of oil to get involved in another unjust conflict.
2007-09-13 11:31:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by Wayne G 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
At least you aptly named your av. I say deal with one foreign nightmare at a time, if we can.
I think we are dealing with Iran and nukes, however. And I would like to point out that the rest of the free world has some obligation here as well. It is not just the job of the US to keep nukes out of Iran.
2007-09-13 11:25:45
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
On whose nickle is he suppose to do this? We just can't go around bombing anybody and everybody. Haven't we learned anything at all from the mess in Iraq? Diplomacy and sanctions had not been given time to work and we go lumbering in there with the shock and awe only to eventually be bogged down in a quagmire we can't find our way out of. Since Iran is much more powerful and more resolved than Iraq I suggest that it would be very foolish to attack them.
2007-09-13 11:27:57
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't have the slightest clue why a man, with your convictions, isn't strapping a bomb to your back and walking into a nuclear facility in Iran to do the job. Have at it.
2007-09-13 11:30:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by LittleLamb 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Iran does not have nuclear weapons--and couldn't deliver one in less than a decade if they do get them.
You have to wonder--what kind of sick animal would want to murder hundereds of thosusands of innocent civilians simply because of a possible threat that might--or might not--exist 10 years from now.
That's not just barbaric--it's insane. Sick, sick, sick.
2007-09-13 11:27:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Israel will likely use a small nuke to end their ability to make WMD.
2007-09-13 11:26:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by The Wraith of God Is Coming © 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
What you did not say is how you would like for him to do that. Bombing? Nuking? Harsh langauge?
2007-09-13 11:25:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by Gravedigger 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
He'll probably follow precedent and sell a bunch of pardons.
2007-09-13 11:44:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You certainly seem to be getting horny over the idea of it.
Have a great wargasm.
2007-09-13 11:25:48
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
What's right in nuking another country?
LAMER!
2007-09-13 11:24:34
·
answer #11
·
answered by Harribo 1
·
1⤊
0⤋