Iraq war v. possible Iran attack

[funflower]

If we (or our Israeli friends) engage in a "surgical strike" to end Iran's nuke program, doesn't this give the lie to the idea that we "had" to invade and occupy Iraq to prevent them from acquiring WMD?

[rpannier]

1. No

Cuz they'll just claim Iran was a threat to the US (We have troops in Iraq) and therefore would eventually be a threat to the US at a future date.
They'll just continue dancing and singing their little tune until they're held accountable for this debacle.

[funflower]

2. What I meant was if we can eliminate the Iranian "threat" with airstrikes

why did we "need" to put 150K troops on the ground in Iraq to deal with that supposed danger?

[rpannier]

5. I understood

I was just in a particularly flippant move this morning (Korean Time) and I was going for the flippant-annoying approach.
Sory bout that.

[Lerkfish]

7. because the entire plan was to annex Iraq, NOT eliminate them as a threat

hence the massive troops.

[Erika]

3. Who in their right mind believes W, Condi, and Rummy?

Besides, Bush has pretty well exhausted, killed, and maimed our kids and scared those who would volunteer for the "military" with the message he's sent to them.

[enid602]

4. Iraq

Unfortunately, we gave Iran carte blanche (to increase their sphere of influence to include Iraq) once we deposed Saddam. Saddam, though despicable was the only counter to Shi'ite dominance in this area. Too bad we didn't think about that before stirring up the pot.

Basing foreign policy on a realistic evaluation of balance of power (and the political consequences of one's acts, especially with regard to the balance of power) is called realpolitik. Our policy has been formulated solely on political, idealogical and religious bases; a recipe for disaster.

[adigal]

6. I spoke to a wingnut Saturday night

who fully supports an attack on Iran. He said that they will hit us with a nuclear bomb if we don't attack them.

[Lerkfish]

8. see? propaganda works.

the bastards.