what do you think of George Bush wanting to use Chemical weapons on Iran?
411930
i haven't heard of that yet, but it would not suprise me. he does everything else that a tyrant or dictator would do. we secretly live in a police state we just don't recognise it.
489001
I will assume that you are aware we have been in the country of Iraq for more than a couple of years and are addressing the current situation regarding Iran.  We will more than likely attack Iran after months (or years) of wrangling around the nuclear power issue.  Iran has always been regarded as more threatening to the U.S.  They took military personnel hostage in the 80's and have been fist raising for years.  I think we need to get the hell out of an already bad situation but strategically it would not be the right move.  The Iranian government is not going to abide by UN sanctions and will continue to be a problem.  They are a terrorist threat and allow Al Qaida and other fanatics sanctuary in their country and hate the US because of their (Iranian) fundamentalist government.  It will be inevitable that we answer their threats with force.  Particularly, with the President that is in office who apparently never understood the phrase, "Sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me".  If he could have been upfront with the nation regarding the real reason behind the war with Iraq, which, in my opinion is we needed a military force based there to go to war with Iran.\nIt is unfortunate that the 9/11 attack has taken such a back seat because of all this maneuvering by our government. We never got Bin Laden's head on a stick and that was what the American public really wanted.  Now, there is a lot of derisive chatter that negates our loss to those terrorists that killed almost 3000 people. We don't run away and lick our wounds, although it might not be such a bad idea right now.  If the government doesn't give a crap about the wants of its citizenry, we need a new government.  Any way you look at it, we pay the price for the wars our government wages and the price gets higher everyday.  The initial move into Afghanistan was something I supported, but it seemed that it was a sideline to George W.'s real agenda.  He wanted Hussein and he had a good excuse to get him playing on the pain of his citizens.  I think he thinks of himself as some great general of the world, unfortunately, he hasn't really won any war.  A war is not won if insurgents and guerillas are still fighting.
803000
Shock and Awe I believe was the promotional for this time round...(hehe-sry). There WERE WMD's, proof of that even goes back to 1980!  I mean, are some people stupid, and just don't know that he gased Kurds...poof, trial and death by hanging now for that eh? (anyway)...AND Saddam Hussien used chemical weapon munitions against Iranian troops.  So- I rest my PROVABLE case there. \nIt may have been better to not invade Iraq, I dunno, but the fact remains, he had WMD's which had to be moved quickly- which some suspect may be in the hands of Syria today.
50971
Again! I think he is an idiot! It was unnecessary for us to go to war with Iraq! Next may be Iran or Syria. Sure hope public opinion will force him to leave the Presidency peacefully!\n\nHe is the worst President in our history!
893921
The answer is complicated one.\nFor some strange reason Bush has been intent on invading IRAQ for quite some time now.\nWhy we are still there when Memos to Tony Blair state clearly that IRAQ is less a threat than IRAN and N.Korea.  But then again Tony Blair isnt Prime Minister now is he.\n\nWith the elction done and republican party not in absolute power as they were I suspect changes are going to be made, where Bush administration will not be able to get away with as much as he use to.\n\nA war on terror against an enemy we cant see, and a government we dont want to fail, at the expense of American lives...doesnt fly when the reason we were to be in IRAQ in first place was to find the Weapons of Destruction that would allow terrorist to attack U.S.  False promise thats been fulfilled with no findings of WMD.  \n\nAs far as Korea and IRAN.  Well N.Korea has begun steps to lead to the 6 Party talks which i dont agree with since N.Korea just teste their bombs, and only now say they are sorry afterthefact they disobeyed the entire world.  now they are sorry.\nWell they should be punished not given MORE money.\nBut then you have to consider they in fact have become a nuclear state.\nIn that, you cant just invade someone with such technological sophistication as they do.\nThey are a military state -- we would suffer massive causualties should war break out with them.\nNot to mention the fact that crazy man would probably be dumb enough to release his bombs on innocent people.\n\nIRAN is an easier target.  Thast why we are bullying them, thats why we can bully them,, because they are not as strong militarily as N.Korea.  \n\nBoth are very dangerous indeed, but if you think its as easy as declaring war -- especially when U.S. is over extended in IRAQ and Afganistan as it is.\n\nWith technology as it is today, Im hoping that keeping an eagles eye n N.Korea will be good enough.  But I personally believe sanctioning them till they hurt and release their weaponry is th only answer.\n\nBut then again I am not in politics
882959
i believe the Iranian President is kinda radical crazy and is pretty much hellbent on controlling other countries in the middle east,Everyone knows he wont be happy till they have nucks,and I believe he will use them, unfortunately for the Iranian people most countries believe that also.He's probably Hitler reincarnate.
388886
He is still screwing with Korea, and there is not much said about that??? And now Iran, Bush is still devolping nucular weapons and you have to wonder why?? He doesn't want anyone else to have them but he is making them! He is a war President in a war we should not be in! We still haven't caught bin laden, whats wrong with that picture. I don't think he really cares lon as he gets what he wants!!!
311108
No, I don't think America should do this. They must learn from their past experiences...(Vietnam, Iraq..). Its the war of OIL. and let me tell you that Iran is not Iraq or Vietnam, and America knows it very well.\nAnd why the hell Americans love to be the global POLICE. They have everything with them(Nuclear weapons), but nobody else could have it. What is this non sense.
385099
We do not consider the proliferation of nuclear technology for WMD's progress.  When Iran is sitting on one of the largest known oil reserves on Earth the idea she would spend enormous resources to build nuclear power plants is not credible.  \n\nYour President's threats to destroy Israel don't reassure us that your intentions are peaceful. For me your comment that God only shines in Iran suggests your religion and/or culture is superior to mine.  Persons who believe their God only shines on them can use that to justify bad things.    \n\nProgress can take place in many areas that don't threaten the existence of life on our planet. Americans and the world would rejoice if an Iranian found a cure for cancer,  or even the common cold, and we would all hold you in our hearts forever. \n\nIt is not Iranian progress we are concerned about, it is survival
1087945
First, Let me ask the intelligent people a question. Why would an oilman that thrives on American Produced oil want to imoprt more oil from the Middle East. It was not for oil. If Bush wanted a profit from Oil Prices, he would have stopped oil from coming from the Middle East, not encouraged oil coming in.\n\nThank you MesquiteGal for this answer to another poster.\n\nNote, this is not my answer, I copied it. Do not vote it best for me.\n\n'Thank God for a president that stood up to the terrorists, and took the war to them, instead of waiting for another 9/11. If Clinton had done his job, there may not have been a 9/11.\n\nCheck out what Clinton and other Democrats said in 1998...\n(Please note the first five entries were made PRIOR to President Bush becoming our president.... and then, we have Hiliary's entry!)\n\n"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." \nPresident Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. \n\n"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." \nPresident Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. \n\n"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." \nMadeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. \n\n"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." \nSandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 \n\n"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." \nLetter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. \n\n"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." \nSen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002'\n\nThank you MesquiteGal for that answer. You did your research and know the facts.
471153
I think Iran is far harder nut to crack than Iraq and it would be biggest Bush's stupidity if he try to attack the country at least now. Besides, Iran can't for now threaten anybody with its uranium-enriching level.
543441
i think that bush only understands about a third of what he says. he's a puppet of dick cheney and karl rove. i think that we've screwed up the middle east enough already. i'm really hoping we can delay things in iran until someone brighter joins his cabinet, or is newly elected.
387302
i do not feel that Iran are looking for allies, their president is getting his people behind him by playing games with america (and the rest of the world) to enhance his hatred for the west. He is a very clever man.
655572
I think they should. W wants to use nukes on Iran. That would be shear insanity. He wanted to use them in Iraq.\n\nThe damage that depleted uranium tipped bullets and projectiles do in Iraq already is atrocious. We should be ashamed.\n\nWe should also take the lead role in destroying all of our nukes. Instead we are making more.
989970
That's easy. If the war in Iraq was over today, Bush would send all the troops to invade Iran. After all WORLD DOMINATION is his goal !!!
951658
Alex, excellent question!! All of you who insist this is Bush's war, please explain the following:\n\n"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. \n\n"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."  President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. \n\n"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." \nMadeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. \n\n"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."  -  Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 \n\n"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." \n    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. \n\n"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."  \nRep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. \n\n"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."  \nMadeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. \n\n"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." \n    Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. \n\n"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." \n    Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. \n\n"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." \n    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. \n\n"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." \n    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. \n\n"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction." \n    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. \n\n"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." \n    Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. \n\n"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."\n    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. \n\n"There is unmistakable evidenc
637928
I have a friend who lives in Iran and he wants USA to bomb and come into his country cause he says his government is awful ( the women gets acid tossed in their face if they don't have their veil on right ) Now that's bad when a person wants his country to be in war. but then again if Bush is still in office we will be going there next.