Why havent we bombed Iran to dust?

ToolManJobber

The fact is, the American military is stretched thin with current deployments. Any additional activity needs careful planning and new resources. Iran has no fear of a U.S. attack because they know it's not going to happen this year. Next year there will be, probably, a Democrat in the White House. There will be bungling and ridiculous decisions made and our country will suffer even more for a few years as a result. Incidentally, all the problems will be blamed on the current Presidency regardless of whatever inane legislation comes of it. It's a no win situation. The government will continue to bungle along and raise our taxes to pay for the errors and it's business as usual for the Military/Industrial complex. Billions are wasted on small weapons that need to strike thousands of times for people to pay attention. It's time the United States flex some muscle and promise delivery of massive Nuclear intervention in some of these countries who continue to fight us. Iran could be silenced in a single strike. 44 Million dead Iranis makes a broad statement to the world. Who would retaliate? Why? It's a win,win. China could be next.

Pepper

I think its time to stop trying to solve every political issue we face with military force.

coragryph

Because we are just as guilty of "meddling" in Iraq.

We're giving weapons to militia groups too.

And Iran has not attacked us.

~~~~~~~~~~~
EDIT: You do realize, I hope, that almost all explosives being used by insurgents throughout history have been "improvised" -- it's not like they have factories. So, of course the people fighting against the al-Maliki govt are using improvised explosives.

As for Saudi Arabia, check the intelligence reports being issued by the US military and intelligence services.

And don't for that Iran hates Al Qaeda -- so, attacking them removes Al Qaeda's biggest opposition in the region.

keeprockin

That the same intelligence that said there were WMD in Iraq?
The coalition can't sort Iraq,that's all we need,starting on Iran as well.

Vaughn

That's not enough evidence to declare war on someone. Heck, just last week WE provided the insurgents with just under 200,000 weapons, through incompetent record keeping. Should we bomb ourselves?

Jennifer P

Not everyone over there is to blame. What if a southern Baptist bombed a major world building? Would we blow up all of the southern states? Countless innocent people would die for soemthing they had nothing to do with. It's no different than over there. If we can't win this by playing by the rules than we aren't the super power we claim to be. Anyone can win by blowing **** up. We are classier than that. We are Americans.

Ghias and Beagles

I understand your frustrations, but we are our own worst enemy. Who supplied Afghanistan with the weapons to fight the Russians and those same weapons are now being used against us. We or I should say our politicians never look beyond today and we have done this time and time again supplying supporting and training the very people we later have to fight.

andy t

THAT'S IT! SHOWING USA'S TRUE COLOURS IF THEY DISAGREE WITH YOU - BLAST EM TO BITS! A LOOK AT HIROSHIMA - AND YOU CALL YOURSELVES CIVILISED!
BLOOD THIRSTY BULLIES IS MORE ACCURATE

iwasnotanazipolka

The way we have conquered Iraq?

Actually, three prime reasons:
1. Iran will fight back and unless your butt is out there on the line, don't talk of war.
2. There are millions of innocent civilians in Iran. Our military has a conscience and perhaps they don't want to live with mass murder, even if you do.
3. Our military is stretched very thin. We don't have the manpower to follow up an initial assault.

satar032

Oil! The only reason, is OIL!

Sky

Nothing to say about the Saudis supporting the Sunni insurgency, huh?

Iran has as much stake in this war as the Saudis do. So both countries have taken sides: Saudis to the Sunnis, Iran to the Shiites.

And here you are, wanting to bomb another country into the dust because you're getting your butts kicked in Iraq! (lol)

So sorry if that's happening, but this is what you *wanted* all along, right?

A weak and defenseless country to take over--little resistence to start off with--and believing it will be a "cakewalk"...?

I have a few words for you on this: "You broke it, you bought it."

Airdale

Just like with the US, if the borders were secured, outsiders wouldn't even be an issue. The fighting is a smoke screen while oil is moved out the back.

Hey, back in the 80s when Iraq was fighting Iran, the US provided Saddam with weapons to fight Iran.....kinda like poetic justice, huh? Yes, we are on the receiving end of the killing, but if we had minded our on business back then........

With all the high tech surveilence equipment at the disposal of the military, why is it not being deployed along the borders of Iraq? Nice, big signs in multiple languages along the borders would do the trick. Something like.....DEATH FROM ABOVE TO ALL THAT DO NOT CROSS THE BORDER AT CHECK POINTS. At that point, when a sensor goes off, send a locked and loaded Predator to investigate. Women and/or children, monitor them. All others, mark their deaths with a residual grease spot in the shifting sands.

chicken

We don't need to bomb Iran to dust... or Iraq. What we need to do is get out of Iraq and don't go back in.

cierra g

well that would be wrong as hard as it might be to believe there are still innocent people living in that country who do not deserve to get bombed.

mpho the decoder

cause we aint dumb

Gary F

Letâ€™s see â€” so far Bush has invaded two of the militarily weakest counties in all of human history, and he has lost both times. It would take Iran less than a week to mine the Gulf and block all oil shipments.

And our military is exhausted. In fact, a number of our senior ranking Generals have let it be known that they will retire rather than execute an order from the White House to invade Iran

Half of the foreign insurgents entering Iraq each month come from Saudi Arabia. They receive assistance from the Saudi government. And, oh yeah, what was the nationality of most of the 9/11 hijackers?

cosmicwindwalker

we sold arms to iran until they refused to buy them - so like what do you think the real problem is.

also the arms dealers said under oath they would sell them to them again if they would buy.

so you like bombing things to dust? i sure hope you are serving your country over seas - i would hate to think you were safe and here when others are fighting for their lives.

bushonlysubmale

Not as many as Saudi Terrorists have, but that does not matter, they are our allies and this is President Bush's War of Terror. Most of the foreign terrorists are Saudi, but a few thousand soldier sacrificed for them is nothing to me or our President Bush.

I say we attack Iran for our President Bush's Legacy. No elections, no regime change!

Lets sell more weapons to our friends in Saudi Arabia, guys!

You need proof the Saudis have been attacking our troops in Iraq? You don't know that the majority of foreign terrorists are Saudi or that the majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi? Look it up, reet.

Yeah. Stay in school.

Victory Soldier

Because we have become a bunch of politically correct, French-acting wimps!

Moonrise

oli would rise to 200 $ . the dollar will fall. the whole budget would be spent on war. then what? it will be another trap for the americans like iraq. fighters will go to lose their lives or humanity. iran may aim at israel . who can foretell the results. iraq put an end to bush's political career. who else is willing to gamble his career?the whole world is suspicious of americans. you had better make a call to the opposite effect. WHY HASNT AMERICA PULLED OUT OF IRAQ YET ?

Ranger473

It's already nothing but dust.

Michael Moore

Do you mean back to dust or are they already dust ?

LAVADOG

patience, patience grass hopper

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: