GGniner Wrote:Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:[quote="RebelKev"]You ever notice that Iran is surrounded?
Are you saying that the strategy has always been to surround Iran, or at least that it has been part of the strategy? Mind If I split this into a new thread?
I've always thought this, Iraq is in the perfect strategic location to project change and fight terror in the middle east. I think the terrorist flocking there to cause problems validates that. Before the war, the State Departments official "State sponsors of Terror" were Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Syria, Al-Qaeda is Sunni Terrorism and the two we've gone into were by in large sunni terrorist., while Iran/Syria are big Shia terror sponsors(hezzbollah).
Iraq has had alot of unintended consequences, but war is never perfect however one observation that I wonder sometimes if it wasn't intentional is the fact we have Shia radicals(al-sadr's thugs) killing Sunni radicals, presumably many would be terrorist? Of course there is plenty of collateral damage within that, but atleast its on their hands and not US hands?
The strategy page has had some interesting stuff on this and related strategy.
[quote]
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/...70125.aspx
Bringing democracy to Iraq has forced the Islamic world to confront the terrorism monster they have created. Before Saddam was taken down, the Gulf Arabs depended on Saddam, as loathsome as he was, to keep Iran busy. Since 1979, Shia radicals have been running Iran, and supporting Islamic terrorism. But most Islamic terrorists are Sunnis who, as a matter of pride and principle, despise Shias, and Iranians. But with Saddam gone, the Iranians have gotten more ambitious.