Posted on 01/27/2006 8:00:41 AM PST by robowombat
Iran did and still does pose a more serious threat, if only because they are ruled by fundamentalist, fanatical, suicidal **it heads, throwbacks from the dark-ages. Both countries, of course, represented threats - as do other countries further down the road.
But it would have been a disaster to take Iran while Iraq was still ruled by Saddam. Iran is the bigger prize, and I am glad that we are blessed with leadership (in the USA) that knows the right way to get things done - to take the pieces in the optimal order, so to speak. Iran is marked for liberation.
Ross, you are a chucklebutt.
I recently read a quote from Machievelli that (of course) I can't remember exactly. To paraphrase it though, it goes something like this:
'War is inevitable. It cannot be avoided. It can only be postponed, usually to the benefit of your adversary.'
I hope that's somewhere close to right.
"57% now. I would like to know what the percentage would be after the shooting starts? I believe that only 35% of Americans are true Patriots! I would guess that we would have no more than 45% of the American people backing our forces once the bombs start to fall."
I think the "American people" in these kind of surveys are in favor of remote control warfare. Missles, smart bombs and live, color, 30 second video clips of bridges and tanks blowing up. That's it. If it's over in 30 days or less, hooorah. On day 31 they want to know the "exit strategy".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.