Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jibaholic
Iraq was going to end out a satellite of Iran as soon as we took out Saddam.

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.

1,937 posted on 11/26/2006 7:53:38 PM PST by melancholy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1862 | View Replies ]


To: melancholy
"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.

Now that we are in the middle of a ten year nation-building exercise in Iraq, it will be tough for Bush to tell the nation that we need to launch a new invasion into Iran. The will is not there. But if did a Bush-I job on Iraq (read: inspect the WMD sites by force, but leave Saddam in power), our troops would be home now and Iran would be an easy sell.

2,019 posted on 11/27/2006 6:52:15 AM PST by Jibaholic (Whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1937 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson