re: Yes, I did read it...
Are you saying their was no relationship with Saddam and Zarqawi?
Are you saying that you can show there was one? The CIA disagrees:
A CIA report has found no conclusive evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein harbored Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which the Bush administration asserted before the invasion of Iraq.
“There’s no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi,†a U.S. official said on Tuesday about the CIA findings.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6189795/
But keep the faith...
Well, first off Iran is much bigger country and more population: Iraq pop: 26,074,906 And Iran pop: 68,017,860. So in very, very rough terms you *might* need twice the amount of troops to occupy.
Oh this is rich... Let me get this straight... In the war on Terrorism; when faced with a choice between a large difficult country to take over with a known WMD program and SERIOUS ties to terrorism, and small weak country with no serious ties to terrorism and NO WMD's we will always attack and occupy the smaller country... just because its easier...
WOW!!! What a strategy!!!! You are a regular right wing Bowser...
Iran hasn't invaded a country [such as Kuwait] that subsequently resulted in America being required to use a army to drive them out of the country and therafter signing a cease fire agreement that Iraq failed to follow. Iran isn't *yet* under sanctions by members of UN, nor had dozens of Security resolutions demanding it comply. But it could argued that Iran seems to be in a hurry to get into this kind of situation.
So what?! I thought this was a war on terrorism! No, no, sorry I thought it was a war over WMD's.... on BOTH counts Iran wins over Iraq...
Do you THINK before you spout crap in defense of this administration's actions?