Thank you, that is the first reasonable argument I've seen from the non-cowardly and non-liberal crowd ;) Iraq was going to end out a satellite of Iran as soon as we took out Saddam. It is shiite majority, and post-invasion it will be weaker. Unless we actualy take out Iran while we are at. Ironically, that might work better for nation building, because the Iranian youth are secularized.
2- Wrong target, Commander Bond, you should think of bombing Iran to get rid of their nuclear industry, Syria will fold thus preventing a Lebanese civil war and ending support to Hizballah, and definitely stop Iran from fooling around in Iraq.
I do support a Bush-I type job on Iran - don't overthrow the regime, but destroy much of the military and set their nuclear program back to square one. One of the downsides of Iraq is that this makes it much tougher to do this politically. The question is what would that do to your pro-life Senators?
True, if we allow it. We absolutely shouldn't.
It is shiite majority, and post-invasion it will be weaker.
True again, but what you don't know is that the majority of Shiite Arabs HATE the Shiite Persians. Ayatollah al Sistani has a following in Iran, no wonder Sadr wants to kill him to take over for his masters in Iran. Again, we shouldn't let that happen.
..... don't overthrow the regime, but destroy much of the military and set their nuclear program back to square one.
Overthrowing the regime may be collateral from bombing Iran and that would be excellent.
One of the downsides of Iraq is that this makes it much tougher to do this politically.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.