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

iran, or any other middle eastern country that is unstable?

2007-10-06 10:49:54 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events Current Events

sky....so if terrorists came with bombs and started to terrorize US cities one by one...and the number reached things like 9000, hitting maybe 11000..

we just enhance security....yea.
you still think your logic holds in tact?

2007-10-09 17:39:38 · update #1

lets not even talk of a nuclear weapon....geez....IN THE US? world stability is over after that man...US citizens would DEMAND someone be punished out of outrage.

So, yes, your logic holds true when casualties are relatively low to take that attitude.

2007-10-09 17:41:03 · update #2

but the first ones demanding security after an attack will most likely be the same people that are for enhancing security....tree hugging, etc.

I wouldn't be surprised at all.

2007-10-09 17:43:35 · update #3

and by demanding security I mean bombing some countries....like tactical nukes and such.

2007-10-09 17:45:29 · update #4

9 answers

im like this if we have evidence then we should attack . we cant sit back and take a loss like that on our soil

2007-10-06 19:37:10 · answer #1 · answered by dan m 6 · 0 0

That happens to be one of the most ridiculous questions I have read in awhile. Unless you asked it simple to make a sarcastic and sardonic comment on the state of U.S politics, otherwise... look at it this way the US was attacked by a terrorist organization once and it cost us thousands of innocent lives, but instead of doing productive things say... working on security, the US attacked a country filled with innocent people, children and families, yes a few terrorist radicals but mostly innocent souls. So ask yourself what would attacking another innocent nation do but tarnish this great countries reputation even further? Think about it.

2007-10-06 11:37:42 · answer #2 · answered by Skye 2 · 2 0

No, we shouldn't attack any country until we clearly have a definitive line on who the attacker is. We should not attack any unstable country. That's not right. We would need to investigate first. We had evidence the first time.

2007-10-06 15:38:29 · answer #3 · answered by rednine 3 · 0 0

we desire an best pal interior the area, India is genuinely impartial with the U. S.. Pakistan delivers up the Taliban in the event that they wanted to. it is not a terrorist helping state this is only the human beings interior their borders that they could't supply up from attempting to attack the u . s . a .. God Bless the U. S..

2016-11-07 11:15:50 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

We'd have to find the trace linked to a country before attacking, just like we did before.

2007-10-06 11:46:38 · answer #5 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 0 0

War with Iran is a very bad idea. We won't be greeted as liberators.

Let's invade an easy country instead like Grenada.

2007-10-06 11:08:12 · answer #6 · answered by Jon S 3 · 1 1

IF< SAY Cross the bridge when you come to it

2007-10-06 11:08:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

well, America blaims anyone for attacks towards them and brainwashes the world to War, they brainwashed everyone to ruin Iraq and i hope Russia and China will stand up for Iran and start to kick America up the nuts

2007-10-06 10:59:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

if it was Iran that attacks, then yes, otherwise no.

2007-10-06 11:23:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers