[quote=briansd1][quote=patb]
Iraq in 2001 was strong enough to resist any iranian invasion.
Heck if the Iranians invaded we would just sell mustard gas,
nerve gas and even nukes to hussein to prevent that. We did it
before, we’d do it again.[/quote]
Very good point patb. Without the invasion of Iraq (Iran’s competitor in the region), Iran wouldn’t be so strong today.
Bush miscalculated. Iraqis did not greet the American “liberators” with parades and flowers. We broke it so now we own it. Too bad for us.
I’m sure that the Bushies would argue that since we are now in Iraq, we are better positioned to prevent an Iranian expansion (prevention and preemption). I personally don’t buy that.
I wonder why Republicans don’t support the big gun approach of shock-and-awe when it comes to prevention and preemption in health care and unwanted pregnancies.
If we can fix Iraq with big weapons, can’t we fix unwanted pregnancies by funding birth control and abortion?[/quote]
Brian: Okay. Given all of that, where do you fall on Obama’s stated position of negotiating with Iran and without preconditions? If you support it, why? If you don’t support it, why?
I’m asking this because I’m genuinely curious. Also, how do you feel about Obama’s position vis-a-vis the North Koreans and Syria? Again, just curious.
