Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by asap, Apr 26, 2007.
You mean, if they are attacked, Iran will attack back? Unbelievable.
Sounds a little old-fashioned to me what with all of these pre-emptive strikes going on nowadays.
I don't think they got the memo: if they are attacked they should just sit there and take it.
What do you want them to say? Will take it and look the other way, of course they will make such statements.
Plus, they know there is no way we will attack them. It would put a terrible strain on our already stretched resources and I'm not sure Bush would get the approval at this time.
but isn't fighting back (against Israel) when attacked by Israel anti-semetic?
do they really want to risk being called that?
Bush does not require any approval to conduct military action.
Plenty of stealth bombers are sitting around not being used. Not every military action requires ground troops.
Maybe that was a response to senator McCain's comment in his presidential campaign.
Nope, you're right it does not require ground troops. But it does require $$$. Did you forget about the deficit? Each of those bombs cost more than a whole bunch of troops.
The bombs are already made. Bush does not need an act of congress to drop bombs.
He needs an act of congress to replace the dropped bombs with new ones. Do you think anyone in congress is going to vote against replenishing the military (leaving us vulnerable to attack)? The dems walk a very fine line playing with military appropriations and they know it.
What do you think will happen after the bombs fall?
Separate names with a comma.