| Weak Horse | Strong horse |
|---|---|
 |
 |
Posted on 02/27/2017 4:27:15 AM PST by HomerBohn
Iran knows that if they launch, they will be a land of radio active debris in the next 15 minutes with our President at the helm. They light the big match and we will light a bigger one.
Why didn’t President Bush sack that nation instead? It was clearly more dangerous to us and actually committed direct acts of war against us.
And just how can any of Iran’s claims be verified—given the deal Barry gave them?
Yep—if Bush was so itching to go after a bigger fish than just Afghanistan, why not Iran? At least as much involvement and far more dangerous.
I think he thought the casualty rate would have been substantially higher.
Some guy once said “Trust but Verify”...
Name escapes for a moment/ S
A bad rationale—the strategy should have been adapted to mitigate that.
But I fear his leftist detractors may be right, and it may have been a matter of unfinished business for the Bush family.
For a brief shining hour, freeing Iraq from Saddam proliferated the concept of freedom across the Middle East.
Iran was destabilised in a good way: there was an opportunity for the country to be liberated, with just a little help from the US.
But Obama betrayed them and consigned the freedom-fighters to toture, rape and death. Iranian freedom has been a distant dream since then.
But with Trump, who knows?
Afghanistan is on 1 side of Iran, Iraq is on the other. The longer game was to neutralize Iran with a squeeze play, but the rats took the house in 2006, GWB wouldn’t defend himself from the leftist attack dogs, the electorate got swayed and the nomination of McCain made them put Obama in power, we abandoned Iraq, Obama gave the deal to Iran, and here we are.
Low hanging fruit first. Iraq on one side, Afghanistan on the other.
That is true we had them surrounded. We had Iraq, Afgahnistan, Diego Garcia, Bahrain.
Why wouldn’t President Bush defend himself just one time?
| Weak Horse | Strong horse |
|---|---|
|
|
The Bushes were of a NWO mind. They cared not that Hussein was the best friend that Christians and Jews had in the middle east. The plan was to say that Iraq had WMD which they didn’t. The chaos that was created by the Bilderbergers was given to Bush I and Bush II to carry out. It should have been called ‘Operation Middle east chaos.
Merkel and Obama then carried out their assignments.
Beyond our capabilities, frankly. Iran is much larger than Iraq and even with its air force and communications smashed would require a two million man occupation force to pacify.
Reuters is now reporting that Iran is...
///////////////////////////////////////////
Why not just link the reuters story?
...And just how can any of Iran’s claims be verified—given the deal Barry gave them?...
Aren’t they doing their own verification inspections?
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”
Some in high places suggest that keeping Iraq in power would have kept Iran in check. Perhaps. But it is too late for a “should-have” and even then there was the loose cannon aspect of Saddam Hussain and a few other issues which were considered unacceptable (the Kurdish genocide for one).
And then there is the question of mid east oil dependence and our very own EPA restrictions. Idiocy, actually. Decades of incompetent U.S. leadership in high places and the penchant for globalism and the NWO which took the U.S. to the abyss.
I pray that at some point in the near future America will reach a point of realization just how close we came to demise by design from within.
Certainly we’re not doing them. IIRC the pretense to inspections was a blatant sham.
Why pacify them? Just let ‘em kill each other !
Why not just read what was posted and stop nit-picking?
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.