If 3 months from now Bush's advisors tell him that Iran is 2 years away from having nukes, what will Bush do?

Question

Will President George W. Bush allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons?

Answer 1

The Iran nuke claim by the U.S. political elite is illustrating the blatant stupidity of the American people. Iran, of course, couldn't attack anyone without ensuring their own destruction; nor do they have anything at all to gain by attacking anyone.

The U.S. desire to attack Iran is due to imperialism -- just as it is with Afghanistan and Iraq. The issue that the U.S. has with Iran gaining nuclear technology is that it would mean that Iran's destiny will not be one of being raped by the imperialist master.

Answer 2

Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order?
When the relatively moderate Mohammed Khatami was elected president in Iran, American conservatives pointed out that he was just a figurehead. Real power, they said (correctly) especially control of the military and police, was wielded by the unelected "Supreme Leader," Ayatolla Ali Khamenei. Now that Ahmadinejad is president, they claim his finger is on the button. (Oh wait, Iran doesn't have a nuclear button yet and won't for at least three to eight years, according to the CIA, by which point Ahmadinejad may not be president anymore. But these are just facts.)

In a speech last week, Rudy Giuliani said that while the Soviet Union and China could be deterred during the cold war, Iran can't be. The Soviet and Chinese regimes had a "residual rationality," he explained. Stalin and Mao---who casually ordered the deaths of millions of their own people, fomented insurgencies and revolutions, and starved whole regions that opposed them---were rational folk. But not Ahmadinejad, who has done what that compares? One of the bizarre twists of the current Iran hysteria is that conservatives have become surprisingly charitable about two of history's greatest mass murderers.

If I had to choose whom to describe as a madman, North Korea's Kim Jong II or Ahmadinejad, I do not think there is really any contest. A decade ago, Kim Jong II allowed a famine to kill 2 million of his own people, forcing the others to survive by eating grass, while he imported gallons of expensive French wine.

He has sold nuclear technology to other rogue states and threatened his neighbors with test-firings of rockets and missiles. Yet the United States will be participating in international relief efforts to Pyongyang worth billions of dollars.

Last year, the Princeton scholar, Bernard Lewis, a close adviser to Bush and VP Dick Cheney, wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal predicting that on Aug. 22, 2006, President Ahmadinejad was going to end the world. The date, he explained, "is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the Prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque", usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back. This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world" (my emphasis). This would all be funny if it weren't so dangerous.

Answer 3

A dificult question .but had I been Bush i would not worry .Do not ask me why-just think the after effects the Q&A way until you come some where near the auto-extinction of radical islam from the world map.that would be a self engineered disaster.
Forget Bushfor a while and thinkonthis story." there was aman with along beard.he read somewhere that people with long beards hav eshort brains.he said no. I am read and intelligent ,bought sompetrol an dthrew it on his beard ,lita match.Poor chap realised at ICU that the saying was correct.

Answer 4

That's a stark choice. Either he takes out the fascilities (which might require a nuke) or he hopes the next president (whoever she or he might be) is up to the challenge of a nuclear-armed Iran.

Answer 5

Um, Bush is desperate all ideal--his gang is making an attempt desperately to invent some thing that may not there to justify increasing the conflict--their meant "protection of usa" being the only fiction that enables them to hold a number of teheir followers. yet do no longer enable the technical information get interior the way--you ignored some issues. regardless of in case you conced Iran would have a nuke in 3 years (impossible) it may take them years extra to consruct a deliverable weapon. And a transport gadget. a minimum of a decade universal. additionally--do no longer underestimate Iran's defense force--submit to in suggestions the Iran-Iraq conflict. they have assorted attempt against adventure. no longer that we could no longer flatten them, even decrease than modern circumstances. yet its alwasys a nasty theory to underestimate your enemy.

Answer 6

Blast there facilities with tomahawk missiles from our ships once the UN has been unfruitful in there efforts. No troops and they will be set-back in there development of nukes. I believe this will happen unless Iran stops in there efforts.

Answer 7

I think we should send Hillary over there and let Mahmoud have a heart attack when he sees her.

Answer 8

If it was me, I'd hand it off to Hilary and let her deal with it. Then she can show us the big brass balls she claims she has.

Answer 9

probably just try and get the UN to enact economic sanctions. that may work

Answer 10

he will put you in mental facility