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

they seem like more of a threat than iraq, they've actually said stuff about nuclear power or weapons and iraq didnt say anything

2007-11-30 03:51:27 · 20 answers · asked by Andreu 2 in Politics & Government Military

20 answers

We need a military base in the Middle-East. Iraq is the best location

2007-11-30 03:53:51 · answer #1 · answered by Smoot 3 · 3 2

Yeah, all those conflict came in after we went to war against Iraq. This whole war started off as a strike back(just to get our revenge). Bush's intension was to use that as an excuse and conquer Iraq and take control over the oil like his father once tried to do.

2007-11-30 04:11:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

American Military strength: 2,338,213, 9.46 soldiers per 1000 citizens


Iranian military strength: 12,285,600, 181.51 soldiers per 1000 citizens

North K. Military strength: 5,995,000, 259.37 soldiers per 1000 citizens



As you can see, the Iranian military outnumbers the US military by approximately 6-1, the Korean military outnumbers your army by about 3-1.

You can't win with conventional forces, theres simply too many. And if you come out with the nukes, the world will explode.

2007-11-30 08:27:58 · answer #3 · answered by CanadianFundamentalist 6 · 0 0

We're trying to negotiate with North Korea and are making some progress.

I believe Iran will receive a military strike sometime soon.

2007-11-30 03:54:04 · answer #4 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2 1

The Iraq War, also known as the Occupation of Iraq,[38] the Second Gulf War,[39] or Operation Iraqi Freedom,[40] is an ongoing conflict which began on March 20, 2003 with the United States-led invasion of Iraq.

The main rationale for the Iraq Invasion and Occupation offered by U.S. President George W. Bush, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of Spain José María Aznar and their domestic and foreign supporters, was the allegation that Iraq possessed and was actively developing weapons of mass destruction capability (WMD) in violation of their 1991 agreement to unconditionally give them up.[41][42] Leaders and diplomats from countries on the U.N. Security Council that opposed the war made statements that contested this view.[43][44] These weapons, it was argued, posed a threat to the United States, its allies and interests.[45] In the 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush claimed that the U.S. could not wait until the threat from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein became imminent.[46][47] In January 2005, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its WMD programs in 1991 and had no WMD at the time of the invasion; although some misplaced or abandoned remnants of pre-1991 production were found, US Government spokespeople confirmed that these were not the weapons for which the US "went to war". Their report also stated that Saddam intended to resume illicit programs if and when sanctions were lifted.[48] Some U.S. officials cited claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[49] No evidence of any operational or collaborative relationship with al-Qaeda has been found.[50]

The invasion and occupation began on March 20, 2003 when a multinational force, made up largely by the United States and United Kingdom but supported by small contingents from Australia and Poland, invaded Iraq.[51] The invasion soon led to the defeat and flight of Saddam Hussein. The U.S.-led coalition occupied Iraq and attempted to establish a new democratic government, however, it failed to restore order in Iraq. The unrest led to asymmetric warfare with the Iraqi insurgency, civil war between many Sunni and Shia Iraqis and al-Qaeda operations in Iraq.[52][53] Coalition nations have begun to withdraw troops from Iraq as public opinion favoring troop withdrawal increases and as Iraqi forces begin to take responsibility for security.[54][55] The war remains controversial around the world.

2007-11-30 03:54:26 · answer #5 · answered by kwamainef 2 · 0 5

well short anwser for north korea is they are pretty much isolated and starving the people of the republic for their precious nukes, and lil' kim jung eel would never use them because that would be suicide for him and he knows this, iran is pretty much the dominate nation in the middleast and the country is too big for a ground invasion when America is already involved in afghanistan,

2007-11-30 03:59:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Let's see...technially a state of war STILL exists with N. Korea (we never ended that dispute).

And...let's jsut wait and see about Iran.

2007-11-30 08:46:14 · answer #7 · answered by Wayner 7 · 0 0

Because they didnt start talking **** until we were in Iraq.

2007-11-30 04:05:02 · answer #8 · answered by ssc7km 2 · 1 0

Very good question. Did our leader not say something about going after terrorists and countries harboring terrorists right after 9\11?

2007-11-30 04:07:25 · answer #9 · answered by grumpyoldman 7 · 1 1

North Korea and Iran would make Iraq look like a cakewalk....North Korea has like a 1,000,000 man army.

2007-11-30 03:54:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

fedest.com, questions and answers