"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Southern Iran controls routes west into Afghanistan and the Straits of
Hormuz where so much of the world's oil is shipped thru. Why not plant a
strategic base there?
NOYB wrote:
Because we weren't in a position to invade Iran.
We weren't in a position to invade Iraq either. That's why it took a few
months of maneuvering, and buttering up other countries to allow us to
position troops & equipment on the border.
And guess what? We're *still* not in a position to invade Iran.
... We thought we had troops available in Turkey, but the *******s
squelched that plan at the last minute...which allowed a lot of weapons
and people to flow back and forth to and from Syria at the start of the
war.
You know, PO'ing the Turks is one of the stupidest things the Bush/Cheney
Administration has done. Turkey has a strong army, they're fierce
fighters, they have a lot of experience combatting terrorism, they have a
strongly secular government, and they have been strongly pro-West and
especially pro-US for decades. They could (and should IMHO) be among our
staunchest allies in the Middle East.
Turkey was agraid that allowing US troops to pass from Turkish soil into
Iraq would cause a terrorist backlash within their own borders. It was
fear, not failed diplomacy, that caused the Turks to withdraw their support.
Instead, we anger them to curry favor with the Kurds, who hate us and are
going to remain more friendly towards Al-Queda no matter what we do.
Better do some more research there, because you've just made a profoundly
dumb and inaccurate statement. *Most* Kurds are Shafiite Sunnis, and were
battling al Zarqawi's fundamentalist Ansar al-Islam group right before, and
early on in the March 2003 US invasion.
Smart move, huh? If Bush was playing chess, he might as well have thrown
away his rooks at the start.
... We can hit terror cells in any country in the region as long as we
have troops in Iraq.
So, why haven't we? If there are "terrorist" and/or insurgents coming
into Iraq, then they must exist in these other countries. Why have we not
cut them off at the source??
We've squeezed Syria pretty hard...even so far as getting into border
squirmishes with Saddam-sympathizing Syrian troops.
Really? Is that a fact? When?
Yes. The first one was in June of '03, when we hit a convoy on the
Syria-Iraq border and engaged in a firefight with Syrian border guards. We
ended up detaining 5 of them.
Just a few days ago, US troops fired on Syrian troops again:
Syrian troops 'fired on by US forces'
From correspondents in Damascus, Syria
July 22, 2005
SYRIA said today its border troops had been fired on by US and Iraqi forces
and accused Washington, London and Baghdad of lack of cooperation in
preventing insurgents infiltrating into Iraq.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E31477,00.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you wonder why *your* news sources don't report on these things?
Don't worry though. I'll be happy to pass along the truth from my sources
so that you can keep up to speed on things.
The only thing we've done to Syria is get them angry enough to stop
cooperating on counter-terrorist investigations. Another smart strategic
move... like throwing away a knight or two.
I guess next time Bin Laden and/or his friends call 'check' you'll be
cheering about how we're winning. Better start talking about the economy
again!
DSK