Sqrl said:
Honestly the "what if"s of what would have happened or even will happen are highly speculative to say the least. I actually stated it as a side point and not a major one, partly for this reason. You could certainly argue that position, but that position admits that we had two problems (Iraq and Iran) that precariously counteracted each other. And if we assume for a moment that this was the case I would ask why we should continue to rely on our enemies to counteract each other? I personally have a hard time believing any strategy that relies on our enemies continuing to act in our benefit is a good one.
|
Why? Because it's retarded to start with the weaker foe. Taking out Iraq first just makes Iran stronger. While taking out Iran first does nothing but make Iran a lot more powerful and important in the region... since the rest of the region hates Iraq.
It's a point anyone with half a brain could see.... even before the war if you were paying any attention to the region. (Which I was.... and which i argued... and honestly I thought we'd never go to war with Iraq because the congress was smarter then that.)
Anyone who's ever played so much as a 3 person RTS game should of known better. You let enemys balance each other out until you are strong enough to take out the big group, instead of the small group.
Furthermore it would of been easier as far as cooperation since Iran is less divided, has a better infrastructure, there was better proof they were trying for nukes even back then and Iran's people were activily seeking a revolution.
In fact, a majority of Iranians looked positive on the US and plenty thought we should help their country.... until the axis of evil speeches, because they took it as bush saying the entire country was evil.
