Is George Bush responsible for the nuclear ambitions of Iraq and North Korea?
He made up reasons (WMD) to attack Iraq?
It seems to me that the way to prevent George Bush from attacking a country is for it to actually have weapons of mass destruction.
N. Korea has nukes...Bush is not attacking them. Iran either is close to having them or already has them...Bush is not attacking them either.
What kind of message is this sending to rogue nations and terrorist groups? Get nukes, and Bush will leave you alone!!
Agree or Disagree??
Anonymous2006-10-09T05:48:45Z
Favorite Answer
... don't forget Pakistan... Osama is there, it's a HUGE base of terror, and it's a military dictatorship (just like saddam) but we run to IRAQ THAT HAS NO REAL TERROR LINKS TO fight the war on terror...
Bush and Republicans won't fight a nuclear country, no matter how many terrorists they support... that much is clear... they can't even handle a few insurgents...
it's a horrible example that we're setting with those countries...
Iraq does not have Nukes, I think you meant Iran, Bush is not responsible for Iran and North Korea, but the Presidents before YES!
Bush is cleaning up the mess that the previous presidents were doing, so he gets all the blame.
Iraq have OIL, Bush administration went to Iraq for OIL, they can not attack North Korea, cause they will not have any Return On Investment (war is an investment).
Bush admin will leave your country alone if they do not see any R.O.I. once they see, they will attack and invade your country.
the countries that Bush has gone after havent had ties with any of the "superpowers" of the world so they were not a problem to attack.
N.Korea has nukes true and it also has some backing from china and russia which make it harder to do something against militarily.
Iran has alot of oil that fuels our economy and the prices would skyrocket if we did and thus go against public oppinion worse than Iraq has due to the media making it out to be bad when its not at all since we have only lost around 3k troops. tell me when the U.S. lost that few troops in a war elsewhere in our history. Also the Iranians are backed by Russia and china as well if unofficially and thus prove problems to act against until recently with sanctions coming.
and to say that if u get nukes we wont touch you is funny and not true since we the U.S. will go in and stop someone if it is acting wrongly even if they have nukes. and if the rogue state fires its 2-5 nukes on us we have a lot more we can fire back to annihilate them with
They never found proof that Iraq had weapons; they cited a lot of evidence which was later discovered to be fabricated. Generals who 'admitted' to the program were found out to be lying, they had simply been paid off by the US gov. to lie deliberately.
This whole 'we have nukes' thing is fighting talk; they don't have enough money to feed themselves, let alone obtain the capacity to build nuclear missiles. But it's a dangerous gamble. I think if the generals in the US mil. want war, they'll go in anyway and get another easy ride from the conservative press..
I don't think Iraq has nuclear ambitions. Iran certainly does.
Korea has been on going for 50 years now. The Yanks were too confident that they could win just like they did in Germany and Japan but it was different.