English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

16 answers

because apparently the oil and natural gas in Iraq isn't enough for Haliburton.

2007-10-04 05:07:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6 3

Scott Ritter,the ex-Marine officer and former UN weapons
inspector who said during the build up to the Iraq
invasion that Iraq DID NOT have weapons of mass
destruction, should be listened to now.
Ritter was slandered and threatened for expressing
this opinion.

He was 100% right.

Ritter was warning Americans as early as 2002 that
Bush & Co. were going to invade Iraq. At the time,
people thought the very idea was crazy.

He was 100% right.

Now Ritter says that the signs are clear:

Bush & Co. will attack Iran before Bush's time
is up unless they are stopped.

Some facts:

1. Bush already has authorization to order
an attack on Iran without asking for approval
from Congress. Blanket war powers have already
been granted him and unless taken away, he can
use them any time on any country.

2. Iran - like Iraq - has no nuclear
weapons program.

Nuclear ENERGY program? Yes, but that is far
from having a nuclear weapons program.

In fact, UN inspectors have concluded
after extensive study and investigation
there are no nukes in Iran - but this simple
fact is NOT being reported by the US new media.

Instead the US news media is manufacturing claims
that the President of Iran has threatened Israel
with annihilation and is supplying Iraqi insurgents
with weapons (both false claims.)

3. An attack on Iran will not be without
consequences to the US.

Iran has three times the population of Iraq and
unlike Iraq which was militarily shattered after
Gulf War I and over ten years of sanctions and US
bombing, Iran has a fully capable conventionally
armed military.

In 2006, Hamas - military students of Iran - defeated
a full bore attack by Israel in Southern Lebanon.

Iran can easily shut down the Straits of Hormuz
and stop the flow of oil out of the Middle East.
Oil has recently been as high as $80 per barrel.
A Middle East shutdown could skyrocket the price
to $250 per barrel or more,

Great for Bush's friends in the oil industry.

Disastrous for the US economy.

Remember, Bush & Co. have mastered the art of
profiting from catastrophe. Think 9/11, Iraq
and New Orleans. Each one of these evens has
been a massive financial windfall for the
Bush family and their allies.

2007-10-04 12:15:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

If Iran gets the bomb then we will have wished we had gone to war. It is interesting that Bush invaded Iraq which he knew had no weapons of mass destruction but has not yet attacked Iran which he knows does have weapons of mass destructions.

The real question is with the US almost bankrupt, the US military over extended and tied down and the National Guard in taters, do we actually have the manpower to defend the homeland and attack Iran if necessary? After all the lies that the Bush administration has told, would any of our allies believe him if he claimed that we needed to invade yet another country. Bush is talking big, but his stick is a a bit small.

Besides, if we take Iranian oil off the market, the US economy will slow to a crawl. Of course, ExxonMobile will make a lot of money from high gas prices, so it might be worth it.

2007-10-04 12:39:36 · answer #3 · answered by buffytou 6 · 0 2

The reason for those that going to war with Iran is perhaps:

1. They think it is the best way to waste some life.
2. They think it is a good way to go to hell.
3. They think it is how to end the world.
4. They love and passionate with war.
5. If there no war, then they think they life will be bore.
6. It is a cheap way to get media attraction, by making war, they got people attention. (some kind of they do not get love, they desperate for love, so they going for war)

So that what would be the best reasons for them to going war with Iran.

2007-10-04 12:20:16 · answer #4 · answered by Amiene Rev 3 · 1 2

War is peace ! Now , the united states of america is like the fictional country that george orwell explain about that in 1984 !
Oceania ! and for this kind of govenement the war in more important than even oil ! The USA is the only country that used nuclear weapon against it`s enemy during a war ! And for this kind of system the main reason of going on war with another country like iran is the WAR !

2007-10-04 12:26:34 · answer #5 · answered by Third eye 2 · 1 2

No reason whatsoever.

Bush believes that Iran is a threat to the world and our national security.

But we all know that this the SAME REASONS given when we invaded Iraq on a lie.

Does WMDs ring a bell? Saddam having nuclear weapons?

Mmm...

Seems as though Bush wants a repeat of "Shock and Awe".

But we can't afford another war. We certainly can't risk more lives of our military and that of civilians--just to satisfy the blood lust of 2 Cold War hacks whom have never seen combat outside of a college frat house.

2007-10-04 12:09:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

There are none. Bush is using the same tactics and rhetoric as he did for the illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq. It is my hope that We the People will not stand for this. It will be a far worse fiasco than we have now..

2007-10-04 12:43:40 · answer #7 · answered by gone 7 · 1 0

There is less reason to go to war with Iran than there was to go to war with Iraq.

2007-10-04 12:08:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4 2

We still have our grudges from 1979, when Iran would not let us control them anymore...

2007-10-04 12:11:40 · answer #9 · answered by outcrop 5 · 2 1

To keep Iran from supplying a nuke to terrorists who might then use it on Israel, a European city, or even a U.S. city.

Now, if your question is whether we should sacrifice soldiers' lives to safeguard New Yorkers, I cannot answer that. Frankly, I tend to value the lives of our soldiers more.

2007-10-04 12:09:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 5

fedest.com, questions and answers