http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1292280,00.html
We need to get these war-mongering morons out of office!
2007-11-10 18:54:09 · 19 answers · asked by Charlene 6 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
You hope he isn't that stupid?
So, if it comes down to it and Iran will not listen to diplomacy or sanctions, should we just let Iran have the nukes. If you say no, then explain to me how you think we will keep Iran from achieving their nuclear goals, without using military force? If you say yes, well then you are terribly naive. The leader of Iran has publicly stated that he would like to remove another country from the face of the map. You might be willing to risk the lives of your loved ones, just so you don't feel guilty about using military force against Iran, but I am not and if we can not convince Iran to halt their nuclear program by other means, I support military force 100%. Besides, he states in the article that diplomacy is going well, better even than most folks might suspect. He wasn't saying that they were considering military force, he was stating that he would not rule it out. There is a big differece between the two.
2007-11-10 21:21:57 · answer #1 · answered by Danny 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My thoughts would be there have been many very corrupt governments across the world Idimi Pol Put different with Col Cadifee (spelt Wong) but he was in charge of a country full of oil. The yanks are desprit for oil as was his friend Tony
2007-11-11 05:19:41 · answer #2 · answered by David M 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
One thing is clear: war is the last resource to resolve international conflict. If every diplomatic failed, war is unavoidable.
Although Iran claimed that their nuclear plan was for peace, i.e. Iran would not make nuke, those nuclear resource is good enough for terrorists or "freedom fighter" to make drity-bombs or poison to kill evey democratic citizens. For this reason, it is good enough to ask Iran to stop their process.
If they don't accept any diplomatic resolution, Western world has to battle and force Iran to stop. This is about self-defence in national sense.
2007-11-11 04:37:42 · answer #3 · answered by giginotgigi 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Oh yes he could be, i thought the same re Iraq,say no more,gladly get rid, in theory that is but what alternative is there ?
2007-11-11 05:56:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I for one, am very glad that he is not an idiot and will not rule out war with Iran. War is sometimes necessary.
2007-11-11 05:07:06 · answer #5 · answered by mamadixie 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I wont recognise him as PM until he holds an election.
He should be more concerned about this country rather than Iran.
2007-11-11 06:39:16 · answer #6 · answered by Agent Zero® 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Without a revolution we have no power to stop these professional war mongerers risking our lives and sending people to their deaths in the name of peace. What tragedy. And we pay for it - and for them to live in relative safety, enormous luxury and privilege. God help us all.
2007-11-11 05:00:21 · answer #7 · answered by jonquilblack 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
zNo. I hadn't seen it.
Yes. I think he is that stupid. After all, Blair backed Bush in Iraq.
By "they", I assume you're meaning Bush and Cheney. They don't listen to the general public because they think they're right. They're not interested in anyone's opinion except the big-money people, who share the same goals and protect each other.
I share your frustration with this administration.
2007-11-11 03:15:51 · answer #8 · answered by E Click 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
No matter what happens Gordon will be sitting comfortably whilst better people are doing the fighting and dying
2007-11-11 10:27:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
We all know that if these people had to send their own family members off to war, there would be no wars. So how come they haven't since they think this is such a worthwhile cause?
2007-11-11 03:09:40 · answer #10 · answered by RoVale 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋