Thought that was directed to Lang.Keebler Elf said:Did you even read the article? Guess not or you'd know that it set a deadline date to resolve the Iraq occupation so that focus could be shifted to Iran for an air strike.
Yes, the US is overextended at the moment. And, yes, the article addressed that issue in making its point.
I used to think attacking Iran was a pipedream. Then I took a look at a map of the Middle East and noted how the US has surrounded Iran with allied nations or US military bases. Would I consider invading with ground troops? Hell no. Would I consider bombing the daylights out of Iran's nuclear program (if I was the US, that is), hell yes.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Iran has not made a habit of invading its neighbors. While it funds (and hides) terrorists most of it's atrocities are self inflicted. They will turn the corner if they don't back down on the Nuke issue, no way the big guy on Pennsylvania avenue will take that without a fight. I think W is wise to work with the EU on this, I think he's handled it perfectly, playing the bad cop to Europe’s good (no one would believe Europe had a set a balls and a backbone anyway).bbking said:I agree, GWB made a statement that said we will try the diplomatic route but everything is on the table. To George that means the big noise makers.
Besides as far as I'm concerned Iran deserves it more than Iraq did.
bbk