Posted on 11/28/2010 5:06:34 PM PST by tobyhill
Saudi King Abdullah has repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran's nuclear program and China directed cyberattacks on the United States, according to a vast cache of U.S. diplomatic cables released on Sunday in an embarrassing leak that undermines U.S. diplomacy.
The more than 250,000 documents, given to five media groups by the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, provide candid, tart views of foreign leaders and sensitive information on terrorism and nuclear proliferation filed by U.S. diplomats, according to The New York Times.
Among the revelations in Britain's Guardian newspaper, which also received an advance look at the documents, King Abdullah is reported to have "frequently exhorted the U.S. to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons program."
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
An argument could be made that, at the time, Hussein's Iraq was a more prominent instigator of terrorism than even Iran. And, moreover, their terror network was worldwide while Iran's was not.
Moreover, from a strategic standpoint, Iraq's location is superior to Iran's. Since we are also in Afghanistan, Iran is now surrounded. Moreover, the Iraqi terrain is far more favorable for military operations.
I've got to believe that the occupation of Iraq was merely Phase I in the Bush strategy and that Iran would've been next.
This Wikileaks thing is really revealing to the American Public, what is fairly well understood by the rest of the world.
We think we have such a good grasp on the truth, and yet everything we see/hear/read in the various media, is censored/filtered/biased beyond belief.
Why don´t the saudis attack Iran? islamists be messin´ each other up....
*I always wondered why Bush went after Iraq instead of Iran which has been the most prominent instigator/aggitator in the region.*
You really had to “wonder”??? There was a small matter of violated cease-fire agreements, repeatedly, over a decade and even that took months and months or arguing with half of our idiot populace and Congress to get the f*cking job done. Yeah, I’m sure attacking Iran for “no apparent reason” would have been an easy sell.
He could have made the same case for Iran. They have multiple proxy armies of terrorists. They are developing nuclear weapons that they can sell, and they were included in the axis-of-evil. They aren’t cooperating with the IAEA, and they have been violating the non-proliferation treaty that they did sign.
They have been at the center of nearly everything that is wrong with the middle east. So yes, I wonder why the golden opportunity to take care of them once and for all wasn’t snapped up.
Apparently you were in a coma at the time that the debate on taking out Saddam took place. It was torturously long and stupid, even though there were far more than enough legal reasons to for the action.
There were no such reasons or rationale for invading Iran, so good luck going back in time and winning *that* argument.
Not saying I disagree with your sentiment or your reasons, just that it would have been impossible to sell.
That said, we have them surrounded now, so fire up the planes and get it done.
What exactly is your issue with my point of view that you find necessary to insult? You feel anyone who is of a differeing opinion deserves to be insulted, or is it that perhaps you are simply a disagreeable person to begin with?
It doesn’t matter to me whether you agree with my hypotheticals, I have nothing to gain or lose. I visit this board to engage in the exchange of ideas. If you do not like mine, you are certainly free to leave them on the table, just as I shall leave yours.
Good day.
*What exactly is your issue with my point of view that you find necessary to insult? *
Your “point of view” was akin to saying “If grandma had balls she’d be grandpa”. Any sort of military action against Iran was impossible in the wake of 9/11. It’s a waste of breath, time & brain power to even contemplate. FFS, the liberals in Congress were against bombing *Afghanistan* by November of 2001!
Actually, libs seem to only be okay with bombing Iraq when a Dem is POTUS. They also don’t seem to mind bombing white christian countries, either.
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.