I know I'm going to take flak for this, but from the beginning I wished President Bush had gone after Iran first.
I'm aware of all the arguments and rationale, but that's just the way I felt.
the problem with that is we had to get rid of the nrighborhood bully first, because Saddam's actions are unpredicatble. He could have inserted himself into that situation in a variety of ways.
Iraq is a base from which operations can be launched against Iran and Syria.
Sorry, you can't have a different opinion...whaddya think this is, a free country?
Oh wait, this is a free country.
No flak, just a comment from the strategic viewpoint - far easier to invade Iran from the Iraqi desert than to orchestrate amphibious landing from the gulf with all the french Exocet and Chinese Silkworm anti-ship missiles Iranians have.
But if it comes to that, the gloves will come off. We only saw a couple weeks of air bombardment last time. This time the bombs will rain until the mullah's don't have but two rocks to call a building.
Iran was a bit different then and also the invasion into Iraqn back then would have had to come from Afghanistan or by sea.
Now we have more options for which to move troops by.....
Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf....
One thing to consider is that we now have airbases in Iraq close to the border of Iran. Our chance for success in a war with Iran has improved considerably by having land based planes and logistics (bombs) in such close proximity... and not to mention ground forces, if needed.
You may be right, but people seem to forget what it was like when Saddam was in there. He was totally asking for it, and he didn't think we'd call his bluff. He was wrong. Now the Iranians think we won't call their bluff because of the fifth column demorats, and our obligations on either side of them. They are wrong too.
I think this whole war has been about Iran.We have encircled that country now. We did not attack Germany first in WWII. First we fought and beat the French in North Africa.
...."Iran first....."
I agree 100%. I've allways felt that way and could never understand Bush's obsession with Iraq while Iran was sitting there much more dangerous than Sadaam.
"I know I'm going to take flak for this, but from the beginning I wished President Bush had gone after Iran first.
I'm aware of all the arguments and rationale, but that's just the way I felt."
You are absolute right. In my humble opion the best order to deal with the axis of evil would have been:
North Korea - Iran - Iraq
After all it was Kim Jong-Il who was incredibly successful with only pretending to have a nuclear warhead (if he really had one, he would have done the same as India and Pakistan, test it first and then admit it afterwards), who encouraged Adolfinejad.
But that would have been a hugely unpopular campaign to sell that to the American public.
I think the idea was that enough countries were still PO'ed at Iraq to make that war easier---Kuwait let us stage, the Saudis quietly looked the other way, Jordan and Egypt didn't interfere; the eastern Euros, Sp., Italians, Brits, all helped. If we had done Iran first, we may have been doing it 100% alone, and when you are talking staging and logistics, that ain't pretty.
It was inevitable that they both had to be taken out. It was only a question of which first. And, if you believe as I do, that Bush firmly believed that Saddam had WMD, Iraq was the honestly perceived more immediate threat. It was a good call under the circumstances. Look at it this way. We now have a nucleus of battle-hardened troops, but how is the nation's backbone?