Bush Warns Iran After UN Finds Arms-Grade Uranium http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030925/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_uranium_dc_10 The White House said earlier Iran had "one last chance" to comply with nuclear safeguards and threatened to take the dispute to the U.N. Security Council if Tehran refused.
What exactly would we invade them with? Scout Troop 14? Unless of course, we moved troops out of Iraq in order to take on Iran. Then we could hold on to Baghdad, installing a leader handchosen by the US, while slowly allowing the rest of the country to be controlled by a faction of warlords, many of whom will be sympathetic to the previous regime. The citizens of Iraq won't like it, but how do you stop rogue warlords without any significant police or military presence to stem the tide of violence? Heck, in a couple of months you'd be hardpressed to even find a story about Iraq in a newspaper. Nah, that could never happen.
I was going to try and post something witty, but this has gone so far it just makes me think of how stupid we all are. So now, did we invade Iraq to show the other members of the Axis that we mean business and they better fall in line, or did we do it so they would speed up their weapons programs because they know they're next? Either way does really give a good reason does it.
Re: Re: Here we go again... Beautiful. But it won't happen until August '04 Gulf War II attack of Ayotolla will top the box office just in time for November returns.
Unlike Iraq, Iran is a cause for serious concern. Ayatollahs with nukes is not a pretty picture. Unfortunately, we're now paying a price for Bush's exaggerations and misguided focus on Iraq.
They shouldn't have those programs period. Blaming us for the increased speed of their developent is just plain stupid. Besides, it's not like the Iranians started up said programs after we destroyed the taliban. The Iranians have yearned for nuclear weapons since the days of the shah. this is nothing new, so they must be held accountable. We arn't going to do anything serious against Iran. That theocracy will fall soon enough. Recent student protests show that maybe the Islamic Revolution wasn't the greatest idea after all.
That makes sense. Let's invade the country that has no WMDs, harbors no terrorists, and is not a threat to our national interests. But let's not do anything serious to the country partly controlled by Islamic fundamentalists who are on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon.
Hey, I'm down if you're down. Here we come Tehran. And after wer're finished with you, on to Riyahd. And then Cairo. And then Khartoum. And then Tripoli. And then Algiers. Then we'll loop back and hit Beirut and Damascus, and Ramallah.
By the time you're done with that, it'll be time for Afghanistan II. And after that, you can swing back to the ol' continent to straighten out Old Europe.
Dude, you really ought to stick with your swiss german becuase your english skills are below average. i said "here we come tehran, and when we're finshed with you, (implying the Iranians)..... Besides, you didn't even take the time to try to understand my post.
for the 1001st time... I AM AMERICAN - there is nothing wrong with my english, perhaps should have replaced the word YOU with THEM - i wouldn't cast dispersions on other people's english because the only thing impressive about you is your bloodlust
Tough talk from Naperville. Hit the goddamned Foward Edge of Battle, fish-boy! Let's see you hump, just one day...its far too easy to talk *#*#*#*# from the superb-urbs...
Re: Re: Here we go again... So in your opinion, we went to war with a country over something that was not a serious concern? What will we do with those countries that are a serious concern -- rescind their driving privileges? Make them drink red wine with fish?
Iran just saw watched us destroy their neighbor for having WMDs- even though their neighbor didn't have WMDs. What the hell do you think they're going to do.
The recent foreign policy of the United States has been based on the following concepts: -- If you covet weapons of mass destruction, you are subject to invasion and dethronement by US troops (see: Iraq). -- However, if you actually develop or purchase those weapons, you will receive economic aid (see: North Korea). Therefore, for a country that has had a WMD program, it would be totally rational to speed it up and develop some nasty weapons so that they can move from the "invasion-prone" category to "aid-receiving" category.
I think it would. Bringing back the draft means only one thing, the troops from the reserve had been worn out. That means the situration in Iraq had further deteriorated. More americans got killed in a war that shouldn't have been fought in the very first place.
i hate to burst your guys bubble, but even the evil Rumsfeld said he doesn't want the draft back. If one of your public enemies says that, then you have nothing to worry about.