"DSK" wrote in message
...
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"?

Saudi Arabia doesn't border our biggest threat from the region: Iran.



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?


Because we weren't in a position to invade Iran. We had troops in the Gulf,
in Kuwait, and in Saudi Arabia at our disposal. 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.



... 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??

We only had troops there in order to invade Iraq if needed. Once we had
Iraq, we didn't need Saudi Arabia.


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.

Neither did Saddam...until we marched into Baghdad.



... 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.