NOBBY wrote:
Because the surrounding countries were not as geographically strategically
important. Look at a map and you'll understand.

I understand that Iraq has oil. Looking at a map, it appears there are
lots of better choices for strategic location... including Saudi Arabia,
which we have removed troops from in deference to fundamentalism
Moslem's wishes. Is this how Bush/Cheney are "winning"?

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?


... Iran is surrounded on
three side now by US troops. Syria is surrounded on two sides. Saudi
Arabia is surrounded on three sides.

We already had troops in Saudi. I guess it makes more sense to pull them
out so you can threaten to invade later??

BTW you seem to be laboring under the illusion that there is some
credible threat that we might invade another Middle East country. The
rulers of these countries don't seem to share that illusion.


... 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??

So many little inconsistencies & illogical points... NOBBY you really
know how to pick 'em.

DSK