[anotherview]

...and we are concentrating soly on Iraq because????

[colorado tanker]

"...and we are concentrating soly on Iraq because????" Because Iraq is once again close to producing nukes and Syria isn't. And Iraq's army poses a threat to Kuwait and Saudi, where Israel can whip Syria in their spare time. Patience, my friend. We'll deal with the Syrians, all in good time.

[mikhailovich]

I bet we can all rest assured there is planning for neighboring butthead nations, should they want some action.

[mhking]

Syria has now become one of the worst terror hosting countries in the world

Israel can shoot through Syria en route to Baghdad...

[Grampa Dave]

I doubt if the Islamakazis in charge in Syria and Iran think that we are only concentrating on Iraq.

Those two countries are very politically unstable. Syria doesn't even have oil to sell for terrorism. They raise fund by selling terrorism to the Opeckers and Saddam.

Iran is very close to a full scale rebellion.

[js1138]

One domino at a time.

[The Vast Right Wing]

What makes you think we are only focusing on Iraq? While it is true that we are focusing on Iraq in public, what makes you believe we aren't doing things in private that will set the stage for action against Syria and Iran?

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Iraq is the first target, but definitely not the least.

[Mixer]

and we are concentrating soly on Iraq because????

Because the syria funding comes from Iraq I am betting. One day it will be revealed that all of al-queda was/is funded by Iraq. That is just my opinion.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Oops, I meant (in #24): Iraq is the first target, but definitely not the last.

[SunStar]

...and we are concentrating soly on Iraq because????

Because in order to go after Syria/Lebanon and Iran, we need Hussein out. Plus, we need Iraq as a staging ground. Understand now?

[Stultis]

...and we are concentrating soly on Iraq because????

One answer is because of the Gulf War and Saddam's failure to live up to the terms of his surrender visa vis WMDs. Actually it seems to me we should be able to go into Iraq on the basis of the Bush doctrine, as Iraq is almost certainly harboring terrorists. Anyway, here is the "real" reason, I suspect:

Of the three main regional states sponsoring terrorism -- Iraq, Iran and Syria -- Iraq's government is the easiest to topple, and is therefore the place to start. Iraq has a narrowly supported autocracy: a single dictator with a very small constiuency sharing interest in his continued rule. This is the easiest type of government to overturn by external action, but very hard to overturn internally because the vital constituency the government depends on for support is so small and is easily controled or paid off.

Iran is the opposite, an autocratic government with (relatively) wide support among the tens of thousands of mullahs who share and benefit from the government's rule. This type of government is easier to topple internally because of the larger constituency that needs to be protected and/or paid off. Protests by prodemocracy orgs have been continuing and intensifying in Iran for a year now, so it makes good sense to wait a bit for this problem to take care of itself through revolution. Further, the liberation of Iraq is likely to provide a stimulus to the revolution in Iran, assuming it has not already occured by then.

Finally, I don't know a great deal about Syria, but the impression I have is that their military is (relatively) more professional and more loyal to the government than Saddam's is. Saddam reportedly controls his military with operatives who are personally loyal to him and who shadow the various unit commanders. IOW he can't trust the loyalty of his own officer corp. If Syria is a tougher nut to crack, it will nevertheless be easier or, alternatively, more responsive to threats or diplomatic pressure, after we have demonstrated our resolve in Iraq.

[finnman69]

BUT BUT BUT, Clinton thinks we can only focus on Saddam. One at a time you know.

[My2Cents]

Watch what happens in Syria once we take out Saddam: they will become the epitome of democracy and justice.

[kinghorse]

Of course. Any unfriendly country is friendly to the people who are challenging the USA. Obvious.

[hflynn]

Anotherview would appear to be the view from your A$$. Iraq is just the highest profile target of the moment. I don't think you or I have any idea of the scope of activities being undertaken by the Bush administration to fight terror as we speak but Bush stated it on November 8th, 2001 when he said

We wage a war to save civilization, itself. We did not seek it, but we must fight it -- and we will prevail.

This is a different war from any our nation has ever faced, a war on many fronts, against terrorists who operate in more than 60 different countries.

[TheBattman]

And we are suppose to be surprised?

[MinorityRepublican]

Bump for a later read.