PERIOD
PERIOD
Why not?
Because it would most likely result in World War III.Originally Posted by BlueStateConservative
Should we wait for them to attack us, or take care of this before Americans are killed?
That's the neoconservative outlook. That argument could be used against every country.Originally Posted by BlueStateConservative
It makes more sense than the liberal outlook....wait until they attack and react to it.
You do know that according to the U.S. Intelligence Review, Iran is at least 5-10 years away from having a nuclear weapon, correct?Originally Posted by BlueStateConservative
That's of course not what the Bush Administration is saying. Not that I believe a WORD from them considering the lies they spewed to get us into Iraq.
This book says the CIA gave Iran the plans for a bomb. There were reports that AQ Khan gave Iran plans for a bomb.
However, when you take into account that Iran knows full well that both the U.S. and Israel are DYING to bomb them, could you blame them for trying to build a nuclear weapon?
Incidentally, why is it ok for Israel to have Nuclear Weapons that aren't monitored by the IAEA?
Also, you realize, that wanting to bomb Iran has nothing to do with whether or not they have a nuclear weapon. It has to do with the fact that on March 20th, Iran is going to start trading oil in Euros, and not dollars.
That will have a devastating effect on our economy.
That is why Iran is so "dangerous".
Pre-emptive war is no different than what the Nazis did.
Who says they want to attack us and who says they can or will build nukes?Originally Posted by BlueStateConservative
The issue isn't nukes. They may or may not have them as far as we know... if they do, I don't blame them considering we're breathing down their necks.Originally Posted by PhilosophyGenius
What I'm sayin in the Bush Administration is making them look like the most dangerous threat to America in the world when they arnt.