does the president have the guts to lead us to victory or is he a cut and runner from duty???
2007-10-19 16:33:12 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
CON: Where are we going to borrow that much more money to support a war with Iran, when we are already borrowing money to keep the war going in Iraq?
You know our lenders are going to want their money back sooner or later ...
2007-10-19 16:39:05 · answer #1 · answered by suanniiq 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Given that he's never produced a shred of concrete evidence to inidcate tha Iran is a direct threat to the US we haven't any business going to war there. The same can be said of where we are presently involved Iraq & Afghanistan. America has no business ramming it's ideals down anyone's throat. PEACE!
2007-10-19 17:24:52 · answer #2 · answered by thebigm57 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cons -- accomplishes absolutely nothing, does nothing to make the US safer, drastically over-extends our military (which is already spread too thin), puts the US into a third-regional conflict in the Middle East -- and will probably trigger a general conflict throughout the entire region.
Pros -- makes GWB look tough, and pushes us several steps closes to WW3 and/or Armageddon -- both of which GWB is looking forward to
We have no duty to attack Iran -- we don't even have any legal justification to attack Iran -- other than the US philosophy of might-makes-right imperialism.
But if we do that, we might as well as least be honest -- we're doing it because we've declared ourselves the dominant force in the world, and we unilaterally reserve the right to impose our beliefs and our laws on any other country through force of arms -- if we're going to do it one more time, we might as well admit that's what we're doing.
2007-10-19 16:49:14 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The "pro" is pretty clear.
Iran is a terrorist supporting state, with an openly stated national goal of genocide. And they're building nuclear weapons..
But it's not a problem that will be addressed during Bush's term in office. We still have too much token diplomacy to go through first.
2007-10-19 16:49:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's not something the military is prepared to do at this point. Sitting on their doorstep is enough for now. While there are 160,000 troops across the border, Iran will continue to blow smoke. They'll wait until we're in the middle of a presidential change over, the troops will be in flux, and the US is in chaos before they'll do more than that. Or if they're smart that's what they'll do. Talk about a mad scramble.
2007-10-19 16:38:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
pro's: Riding the world of a future Hitler.
con's: Having to play by the rules of war set forth by the U.N.
I say let them have a nuke. If they threaten us (which you know they will) or they threaten one of our allies (which you know they will) simply nuke ever city, kill every citizen and leave their country completely devastated.
Then remind the rest of the world we still have over 6000 nukes left and ask this all important question............
"do you feel lucky punk? well do ya?"
flame away, but when they get a nuke and use it, well I told you so just won't fit the bill.
2007-10-19 17:15:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not a matter of guts. He has proven he has plenty of backbone.
But is it necessary? I think some strategic air strikes to neutralize his atomic weapons program will be sufficient.
Then if he retaliates against Isrial....the world will be on our side and will help us finish them off as with Kuwait.
.
2007-10-19 16:56:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Pros=0 Cons = more death and struggle for people who will then really want to be terrorists. Our gas prices will go through the roof!
2007-10-19 16:47:04 · answer #8 · answered by Ktcyan 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋