Bush accusing Iran of arming insurgents

[kpbuckeye 3]

pwned

 

 

copycat

[What is the deal? 1]

I don't agree. I don't see why we needed to invade Iraq to invade Iran. Our military is stretched to the limit, the majority of the world doesn't support us, our credibility is shot because of Iraq, and I wouldn't say we have a solid presence. If Iran is such a threat, why didn't we just invade them? And why does it seem that the administration is using the same shady/questionable tactics as they did in Iraq to make the case against Iran?

At the time, there was no justifiable reason to invade Iran. There were multiple violations of UN Resolutions on the part of Saddam's Iraq

 

guess if you can't see that, then there isn't anything else I can say

 

This is gonna get bad and we'd be in a much, much better position IF we weren't in Iraq already using valuable troops/supplies.

I couldn't disagree more. The logistical advantages of being on both sides of Iran are tremendous. Not to mention being in-between Syria and Iran so they can't filter weapons/troops through Iraq and into Iran.

 

There are also technolgical and procedural advantages since we weren't experienced in fighting the type of war they do over there...

[jocstrap 8]

I've got it! Clinton didn't do ###### on the terror front while he was in office and look what bushed stepped into - 9/11 - - Bush IS preparing for war against Iran and don't think otherwise. Right as his term is about to end, he will unleash hell and hand it right back to Hillary with a smile and tell her to deal with it. PAYBACK

[wiffleball 4,797]

 

I couldn't disagree more. The logistical advantages of being on both sides of Iran are tremendous. Not to mention being in-between Syria and Iran so they can't filter weapons/troops through Iraq and into Iran.

 

There are also technolgical and procedural advantages since we weren't experienced in fighting the type of war they do over there...

 

 

I imagine it's a bit of a wash. Having 150,000 sitting ducks in fixed, unhardened targets well within Iranian missile and artillery range is a tradeoff against any advantage of having troops so close to Iran. Moreover, we pulled the majority of our tanks, artillery and other components of 'armormed cavalry' out of Iraq once the invasion was complete. We'd need another significant ramp-up time (like we did with Iraq) if we wanted to go the conventional route.

 

Prolly the best thing you can say about us being in Iraq is that it's much easier to insert Special Ops boys across the Iran/Iraq border.

 

Given how thinly we're stretched, I don't see a significant chunk of our boots on the ground in Iraq doing any Iran duty any time soon. I DO however, see our Spec Ops doing the recon and various and sundry things to afford a bombing campaign from carrier & sub-based weps platforms.