Quote:
Quote by: grandpa  The implication here is this:
"We need to do a better job of identifying such nutjobs in Iraq and at the same
time make it harder for them to get their hands on weapons."
But notice how this logic is not being applied regarding the US and its allies who often engage in outrageous behavior in Iraq. That would obviously involve looking in a mirror.
It makes me wonder if there's a law that all leading politicians must be incredibly hypocritical.
Grandpa h. |
I think America is being a bit miss-informed (again).
The Iragi government said that Iran is not viewed as a threat, the extremists funded by Iran are mostly interested in getting the American pesence out of Irag before we build miltary bases there.
The Irag government has said that they can act as a 3rd party to broker peace between Iran and the USA.
The citizens of Irag who currently do not like USA occupation forces have found a friend in Iran because the same thing could happen to Iran which happened in Irag, creating a bonding effect between Iran and Irag.
Radical elements in Israel also represent a potential threat to Iran and their nuclear energy program, and we fund and back Israel, and so to promote the idea that Iran is a theat to Iraq would justify us to attack Iran under the pretence of calming down the extremist citizens in Irag, to end the war. But the truth is that it would expand the war.