Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (79520)	9/18/2006 10:49:01 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

It is clear, and not just to me, that Iraq was a major sponsor of terrorism. But even if I were to grant your statement, and accept that "they were no Iran but they had more than just a minor involvement with terrorism", why, then, didn't we invade Iran instead? Why put all our forces on the ground in Iraq when there were bigger fish to fry in the same neighborhood? 1 - Iran had a less aggressive history in terms of military attacks against other nations. 2 - Iran didn't violate a cease fire agreement from a war that we were involved in. 3 - Iran is bigger and while we could defeat its military without too much difficulty if we had enough time and good bases to project power from, it would be harder to control any insurgency. 4 - If you where going to invade Iran it would be easier to do so from Iraq. 2 and 3 are the most important.