Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienQ
Because Iraq was weak.
Iran was going to topple Iraq.
It was also possible a Nuclear arms race would develop between Iraq and Iran.
One of them countries will not have nukes now and hopefully with the next presidency neither of them will have an arm's race or war.
If you pay attention to history Iran and Iraq were at war constantly.
Saudi's needed a cushion, Saudi's are America's "friend" therefore it made perfect sense at the time to take out Iraq. Iraq has the largest oil reserves in the world it would make little sense to put it in the hands of Iranians or have it sit there as Iraq continued defending itself from Iranian invasion and Iranian funded terrorism.
Pretty simple if you ask me.
PS: Some of you people are the dumbest mother fuckers in the world and really have no business in things you have no idea about. I do not claim to know it all here but the above is one of my guesses.
|
Actually, your analysis is perhaps one of the dumbest fucking things I've ever read in defense of the war. It shows a complete understanding of the region, the political makeup, and war strategy.
In your theory, we didn't want Iran to take over Iraq, so we invaded Iraq? So since we don't want China taking over Taiwan, do you believe we should go in and blow up Taiwan? It makes no fucking sense whatsoever.
Not to mention that Iran wouldn't have been able to take over Iraq. There were no-fly zones throughout the country that would have seen any Iranian plane shot down immediately. Saudi Arabia would have vehemently helped Iraqis in this battle and have just as strong a military as Iran (we basically built their military). We would have also not allowed it to happen and crippled the country both militarily but economically. Much of Europe had large financial interests in Iraq and would have seen that it wouldn't happen either. It would be mass suicide for the Iranians to even conceive the plan in this era.