On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:31:07 -0400, NOYB wrote:


-------------------------------------------------------- So al-Qaeda
approached Saddam, and Saddam rebuffed them...

What's this? It sounds like a tacit acknowledgment that there was no al
Qaeda-Saddam ties. Hmmm, no WMD, no connection to 9/11, but he was a bad
man well worth the loss of 800 American lives and $200 billion.

but Iran approached al-Qaeda
and al-Qaeda rebuffed Iran so as not to offend their supporters in Saudi
Arabia?!?!?


Like I said almost three years ago... Iraq is first on our list because
it provides a geographically strategic location to next invade Iran
and/or Syria. With troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran is surrounded.
That's why Iran has been stirring up so much trouble in Iraq. A
US-friendly government in Iraq that allows us to station troops there is
bad news for the mullahs.

Straight out of the New American Century papers, although they claimed
that democracy would soon break out all over the area. I'm still waiting.
I would agree with you that, perhaps, Iran posed more of a threat to us
than Iraq. But it also has a burgeoning democratic movement that just
might survive the mullahs given time. I would also suggest, given the
Iraq mess, invading Iran, or Syria for that matter, will be a very hard
sell. The only ones who will buy it are the truly rabid. Iran has a
500,000 strong military that hasn't been starved by sanctions. In case
you haven't noticed, our military has it's hands full. Or, perhaps, you
were thinking we should institute a draft and have a full mobilization.