2007-09-25 09:44:31 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Bush has been planning this for awhile. That is what Iraq was about, in between Iraq and Afghanistan is Iran. He plans to make them fight a two front war.
2007-09-25 09:49:31 · answer #1 · answered by scott A 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Hopefully it will not come to that but I also think that Iran will not stop with the support of terrorist groups and trying to get nuclear weapons. I think that it will come to a war but that it will be against more then the U.S.; most of the European Union agrees tat Iran is out of line and will back up military action. If the U.N. cannot do anything or chooses to ignore it then it is not doing the job it was founded to do and this would be a glaring example of it's failure. I hope not but think it probably will happen but not in the immediate future but wit 2 to 3 years, 5 at the most...after that they will have some nuclear weapons and then it does get dangerous.
2007-09-25 09:56:32 · answer #2 · answered by GunnyC 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
President Bush needs to bomb Iran now to destroy it's capability to acquire nuclear weapons.
To say we're attacking Iran for no valid reason is to have closed eyes and ears for many months and pretending that Iran is just a peaceful nation, the flower of humanity. Even the French, who for years have been aiding the Iranians, have finally gotten the message that Iran is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons and have stated it's unacceptable - and at the UN to boot! Why Liberal Loon apologists can't see the same thing is bewildering to me.
In reality we've been in a proxy and covert war with Iran for many, many, years. It was Iranians who are implicated in Lebanon as far back as the Marine Barracks bombing. Today they proxy through the Syrians and Hammas in Lebanon. And taking our embassy in Iran under that loser Jimmy Carter's presidency is an act of war - except if you want to close your eyes. Further Iran has stated publicly and officially that Israel is to be destroyed, a nation we have promised to defend. A nuclear armed Iran would make Israels destruction considerably more likely.
2007-09-25 10:18:02 · answer #3 · answered by Michael M 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The sooner the better. Iran has been at war against the USA since 1979 and we have not fought back to stop their islamofascist aggression. Now we are in a World War being fought by islamofascists against the civilized world, and unless we get serious about stopping this Iranian led islamofascist threat we will lose our freedoms.
Wake up and smell the jihad !
2007-09-25 11:13:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Think, Iran/Contra Affair.
Iraq has become more than we could chew. If the Shiite/Sunni got together, imagine the doodle we would be in now. We would be in the middle.
Now imagine Iran asking Iraq lets get together and get it over with. We can settle later, as always.
Where would we be allowed to nuke or make a terminal assualt?
2007-09-25 18:11:16 · answer #5 · answered by Mephisto 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Never say never ! It's an option that hasn't been taken off the table, by the president of the US.
It seems that Ahmadinejad went to the UN in New York with a big chip on his arrogant shoulder, daring anyone to knock it off. He may get his wish sooner than he had planned. I can't see George Bush leaving office with the Iran problem unresolved. As of this writing, he has fifteen months to get it resolved.
2007-09-25 10:09:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It looks like some of the European powers are finally getting it about Iran. Ima-dinna-jacket didn't win any new friends this week at the UN and pissed off a couple of new ones. Unless he does something really stupid, the political and economic pressures will still be 2-3 of years in the growing. Longer if we get a weak foreign policy President (like Jimmy Carter).
2007-09-25 09:54:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If Bush doesn't declare war on Iran within the next year -- then it's not going to happen until and unless Iran actually attacks the US or another ally directly -- which is also unlikely to happen.
So, never say never. But Bush could decide to attack for no valid reason -- where most other leaders would require at least some other justification in the form of direct hostile action by Iran first.
2007-09-25 09:48:39 · answer #8 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋
It seems France is really worried about being attacked or having to retaliate about something.
Just because Iran says he doesn't want war, doesn't mean crap. We know he lies, we've caught him too many times.
But I believe he'll use Syria to implement it.
You people that always blame Bush crack me up.
2007-09-25 10:10:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Only if Iran attacks Israel, and that will bring nuclear war.
2007-09-25 09:52:57 · answer #10 · answered by ed 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋