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

2007-12-04 15:19:02 · 6 answers · asked by NONAME 1 in Politics & Government Politics

What actions would those be, Oh Wisass?

2007-12-04 15:25:38 · update #1

6 answers

No Iran's actions are! There is also nothing fictional about their weapons!

2007-12-04 15:25:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 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 & 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? What planet are we on?
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, 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. Hmm. Stalin and Mao--who casually ordered the deaths of millions of their own people, formented insurgencies and revolutions, and starved whole regions that opposed them--were rational folk. But no 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.
Last year, the Princeton scholar, Bernard Lewis, a close adviser to Bush and VPresident Cheny, 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 apocalytic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world" (my emphasis). This would all be funny if it weren't so dangerous.

2007-12-05 01:31:31 · answer #2 · answered by Liza 7 · 0 0

Nope, Bush can't attack Iran without Congressional approval. I suppose technically he can actually via the Patriot Act. So Bush and his cowboy reckless my way or the highway attitude are bringing us closer to WW 3 were one to happen.

2007-12-04 23:28:48 · answer #3 · answered by Stephanie is awesome!! 7 · 0 3

Maybe Iran only halted thier nuclear program because all they had left to do was find a way to enrich uranium on a large scale.

2007-12-04 23:25:28 · answer #4 · answered by jd4640 4 · 1 2

According to the President now...They don,t have nuclear weapons....It,s o.k. for us to have them ...But by god if someone else has them they are a threat to everyone else!!!!I think nobody should have them even us!!!!!

2007-12-04 23:24:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

No Bush AND Israel ARE....f.p

2007-12-04 23:23:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers