It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Bush resigned to a more powerful Iran?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   
This isn't a war on terrorism,its a war letting a country with the ability to have a nuclear device.One who threatens peace in that region.Since Bush might not get involved,this leads Israel with the uncompromising situation what to do.Let then continue at the crossroads with building this device if that what they are doing and be able to back up their threats.Or should they just let it out and take the facilities out.Obama wont take a approach to worry about it.Mccain would be left with the who knows what factor.

www.iht.com...

WASHINGTON: For more than five years now, President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have made it clear that they did not want to leave office with Iran any closer to possessing nuclear weapons than when they took office.

"The nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons," Bush said in February 2006.




posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
This administration has been dragging its feet when it comes to Iran and frankly its looking more and more like they dont have the balls to do anything other than using diplomacy. Looks like Israel is gonna have to do this one by itself.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


how ironic your name is

what you are saying is that you support going to war with a country basically under the exact same pretenses as we went to war with Iraq under? how damn silly headed do you have to be to not understand the implications of those kinds of actions.

we are already bogged down in TWO seperate sovereign nations and now you are advocating going into a 3rd, when our economy is already screwed, and we are on the verge of turning into the next Roman Empire.

if they want nuclear energy, let em have it. IF and WHEN they build nukes, THAT is when you light a fire under the ass and keep the heat turned up till they bow out and hand everything over. you DON'T invade a country for trying (at least from what they so adamantly stand by) to better their own country. this kind of energy is not something that we should keep from everyone else just because it COULD be turned into a weapon

i don't know about you guys, but i am NOT ok with invading another country just because we THINK they have WMD's. how about we wait for confirmation of what we believe before you we get all gung ho again and rush into another war that we simply can't afford right now.

and im sorry, but the smoking gun won't be "a mushroom cloud" at least not over here, they don't have the technology required to launch an ICBM, the best they could do is blast their neighbor which would hurt them as bad as the country they attacked



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I support the war in Iraq and i support AIRSTRIKES on Irans nuclear facilities. Did i say anything about occupation and regime change and sending hundreds of thousands of troops? NO.

I wish ignorant folks would quit comparing a "war" in Iran to the same as the war in Iraq. Two totally different places with 2 totally different agenda's which require 2 totally different strategies.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


really now? so you think we would be able to get away with just blowing up their nuclear facilities and leaving it at that. because we went into Iraq to take Saddam and then we were supposed to get out of there as well.

you apparently have been living under a rock for the last 7 years, and don't seem to understand that things are WAY different then they used to be.

like i said, you can't roll into a country, blow up their nuclear facilities and call it a day and expect that there will be sort of retaliation from the person whom you attacked, preemptively, and whitout and real reason. other than the d-bags in washington are fear mongering and trying to get people worked up, because the next stop in the "Bush World Tour" is Iran

i also find it hillarious that you call me ignorant, people generally resort to half witted child like insults when they can't argue the points of the argument presented to them

they are not as different as you think. i strongly suggest you do some research and try to quit with your bloodlusting. it's going to be the end of the world as we know it. we shouldn't be over there (except for Afghanistan) and this is DAMN sure not the time to be talking about starting a possible NUCLEAR war with a country, whom we KNOW doesn't have nuclear weapons (yet we are going to use that as an excuse to attack them anyhow, because most people seem to forget that the IAEA SAID that they don't have nuclear weapons.) WAKE UP, you are falling for the same damn tricks we all fell for in 2003



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
Really now? so you think we would be able to get away with just blowing up their nuclear facilities and leaving it at that. because we went into Iraq to take Saddam and then we were supposed to get out of there as well.

you apparently have been living under a rock for the last 7 years, and don't seem to understand that things are WAY different then they used to be.

like i said, you can't roll into a country, blow up their nuclear facilities and call it a day and expect that there will be sort of retaliation from the person whom you attacked, preemptively, and whitout and real reason. other than the d-bags in washington are fear mongering and trying to get people worked up, because the next stop in the "Bush World Tour" is Iran

i also find it hillarious that you call me ignorant, people generally resort to half witted child like insults when they can't argue the points of the argument presented to them

they are not as different as you think. i strongly suggest you do some research and try to quit with your bloodlusting. it's going to be the end of the world as we know it. we shouldn't be over there (except for Afghanistan) and this is DAMN sure not the time to be talking about starting a possible NUCLEAR war with a country, whom we KNOW doesn't have nuclear weapons (yet we are going to use that as an excuse to attack them anyhow, because most people seem to forget that the IAEA SAID that they don't have nuclear weapons.) WAKE UP, you are falling for the same damn tricks we all fell for in 2003


How do we start a nuclear war with a country who doesnt have nukes? Iran doesnt have any (yet) right? Also, the Iraq war was started for regime change. Who said we were going in to capture Saddam and call it a day? Is that regime change? No. I'd suggest you dig/think a little further and consider what it entails to remove a leader from a country, dismantle its military and start over and install a whole new government. Its much more than "lets capture Saddam". Sounds easy eh?

As far as IRAN goes, yes we hit their facilities and take out their nuclear infrastructure. What exactly are they going to do? Oh yes, and this time its looking like Europe is involved as well so they (Iran) will take on the US and Europe? Hmmm. Maybe they will try.......




top topics
 
0

log in

join