GEORGE BUSH} we must invade iran because they are developing weapons of mass distruction?

Answer 1

Huh? Are you being sarcastic? Is what you wrote even a question?

I'll pretend that you are a liberal trying to pick on Bush. Attacking Iran should not be the first option but it should not be off the table. It's a very heavy threat to wield against Iran and it shouldn't be ruled out even as a negotiating tactic.

Answer 2

OH NO! Not Iraq all over again?

The United States have weapons of mass destruction. Are we the chosen country to only have them? The entire world knows we have the capacity to completely destroy the entire planet. We've accomplished that already in this government. We displayed our might in Japan with the atomic bomb.

No country that develops nuclear powered weapons would dare to use them against the United States or our allies, because we have more than they will ever have and under Bush, probably would decimate an entire country. I will say that if we were attacked by a nuclear bomb, I would not hesitate to support any president that reciprocated with such devastation even though I would see it as inhumane.

Listen to the stupidity of this administration that states if we withdraw from Iraq, that the terrorist will follow us home. That is nonsense. We are an invading force and if we withdraw, the "so called" terrorists will leave us alone. They have stated this on numerous occasions. If we go so far to invade another nation such as Iran, the United States will crumble due to the enormous costs.

Under the Clinton administration, he left us with a $5 trillion dollar surplus. Now we are in debt $9 trillion dollars. That's an expenditure of $14 trillion dollars. What would it cost in not only money but lives of our loved ones if we continue to invade or wage wars on other countries? The United States is not the United Nations and should not make such decisions.

The president had limited powers of waging war according to the constitution, however a republican Congress passed fast legislation to give him such ultimate supreme power; one of a monarch or dictator in fact. That was in direct contrast to the specifics of the Constitution of checks and balances, which state that the Congress must vote on a war agenda, which did not happen.

So, shall we go to war again just because a president says so? No, not at all, as it would be merely one man's opinion. It is clearly unconstitutional. No amendment should override the intent of the forefathers of that document which we are supposed to hold so dear.

We tell countries that they cannot possess the weapons that we indeed posses ourselves. Figure that out. While I do not want Iran, Syria or Korea to have them, it really would only be fair if they did. I know that the United States would never use our massive power unless provoked, however at the same time it is hypocritical to say that other countries should not have the same capabilities, because they may be invaded by their adversaries.

Answer 3

George Bush always apply common sense not only to save USA but all peace lovers of this planet.This people are are not trained the positive way to understand. (again my mascot- the Journal keeping exercise at discovery of the self has been missed See the Reps they do not even understand the foreign policy of their Boss and in a sense maybe more explosive that Osama Bin laden strategies!Misunderstanding the strategies for world peace and forgetting the base ( common sense) itself is the worst thing ( like a sort of missile undisguised- worse than WMD)facing man kind and its MUST be a GLOBAL SHAME that this start from a country like the USA the harbinger of democracy at the world societies - without which there will never be world peace -- all will rest in dreams.What Shakespeare said about if? Forgot!A saying from Macbeth !
Iran should not be invaded but talked to but if it does not understand the simple language of this civilisation through an international platform like the UN -those lovers of peace in Iran must be evacuated and the demons destroyed without pity.The principle applied is this. If the wound cannot be healed then surgery must take over- however painful it could be.!

Answer 4

Fool Me Once.............Iraq....Shame On Me...
Won't Get Fooled Again..............Iran


The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei is warning no military action should be taken against Iran, and that threats of war are premature and counterproductive. On Sunday France warned that it was preparing for a possible war against Iran and the Telegraph of London reported that the Pentagon has developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran.

ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, said there is no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iran.
Mohamed ElBaradei: "I repeat: we have not seen any undeclared facilities operating in Iran, we have not seen any concrete evidence that the Iran program is being weaponized. We have not received any information to that effect. So, I haven't heard any other information, to the contrary. So while we are still concerned about the nature of the Iranian program, we should not... I do not believe, at this stage, that we are facing clear and present danger that requires that we go beyond diplomacy."
ElBaradei also urged the world to remember what happened in Iraq before considering any similar action against Tehran.

A year ago the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency accused the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee of issuing a misleading and erroneous report on Iran's nuclear program. The report claimed Iran had enriched uranium to weapons-grade level when the IAEA had only found small quantities of enrichment at far lower levels.

Answer 5

He never said that and we are doing all we can diplomatically to resolve the problem. If we had been intent on war, we could have hit the Iranians anytime since they occupied our embassy in 1979. According to International law such an act is considered an act of war. Recall no formal peace has been declared and we do not have formal relations with Iran.

Answer 6

You are kidding! Not the tired old WMD shtick again? Who's next, Trinidad and Tobago? ( sorry, forgot they have no oil resources--that I know of, that is) George W. Bush is the ONLY REAL Weapon of Mass Destruction in evidence that I'm aware of. Will be so happy when his lying, smirking little self finally gets escorted off the White House grounds. Of course the mess he is leaving won't be cleaned up in my life time, if ever. PS Does our feckless leader remind any of you of the goofy looking, hay chewing cartoon horse on Hee Haw? Thanks "Double J 54! "

Answer 7

If you are being sarcastic, then the joke may be on you later on how true the possibility of attacking Iran is. Read J R Nyquist "Iran's Games and America's Fate". Go ahead and do it on-line by typing it into your search bar. It is very prudent that it may have to be done sooner then later! But, diplomatic negotiations and the peace process must be brokened downed before doing so.

Answer 8

Boy that has a familiar ring to it!! Where have I heard that before!!huumm!! The bast**d never gives up !! Sorry don't believe they have weapons of MASS destruction in fact I don't believe a word that dictator has to say !! Bush is a war lord of the scary kind!! How many more brave men and women have to die for his causes ????

Answer 9

that's a fabulous question wayne. Very valid too. Its no longer an excuse yet greater of a propaganda that's usually used. In essence excuses are used as a recommendations-set. i actually ask your self how are American nuclear weapons meant to be safer than the Iranian or the Iraqi ones? united states of america ought to stop ruining the planet... it is not in basic terms destroying different countries yet interior the technique it is likewise digging its very own grave. united states of america is heavily immature to apply confrontations and militia could to manage the international. as long as united states of america is enthusiastic approximately being a international chief and it smugly and ignorantly refuses to look previous its very own hobbies, it won't in any respect stop to reason problems to something of the international. unhappy there is not any one to stop united states of america, who can tournament their could. American movements will positively bring about a international conflict... its no longer a query of whether it is going to take place or no longer... its in basic terms a count of time whilst the international will blow up in bits and products. And united states of america will blame it on Islam. i actually desire to work out Obama because of the fact the subsequent American president. If Hillary ever have been given to that place...i'm helpful the dumb ***** will do far worse than Bush. no person interior the international has an answer to truly handle united states of america. Its extremely unhappy. individuals ought to take accountability and reform their government, yet regrettably maximum individuals have self belief their government is interior the marvelous... its extremely unhappy...and the destiny...rather frightening...

Answer 10

We will not invade Iran but we will bomb the hell out of them if they do not stop development of the nukes. If we don't do it then Israel will hit them hard. The Iranian psychopath who is president of Iran said that two nukes should do it to Israel and if there is any kind of retaliation then Iran can absorb it. Wonderful man. Someone should slit his throat.