Iraqi President:US should stay 'up to three more years'

yeah do you think they would still make cheap shorts for me to buy at BJs?

in hindsight, can't you really say that vietnam was huge mistake, like 50,000 americans bascially died for nothing?

 

A difference between preparation. We are generally controlling a lot of the logistics and operations. That has be in fully capable Iraqii hands, so that they can do atleast a similiar job by themselves.

You answer questions with questions. I'd like you to answer my questions in their limited context, before I answer yours.

Just remember there IF questions.

 

This isn't a question to me, but I do believe we shouldn't have entered Vietnam.

 

I just don't understand the whole if they have a civil war , then whole middle east will have war thing, lebanan had a civil war for like 20 years, Jordan had a cvil war, afganistan has been killing each other since the russians left.

Why would the conflict in Iraq turn into a regional war, these other civil wars didn't?

so what you are asking IF there would be 100% chance of a regional war if we left, do I think we should leave?

Well depends , who is going to fight, Syria against Iran?

I don't know why you would think this will ever happen, are we going to give them gunships and access to our satellite information?

 

Lebanon and Jordan have negligible effects on the region, due to their lack of comparable resources.

Till Saddam's overthrow, the Sunni dominance over the middle east was much more affluent. IF we left immediately, and IF there was a civil war, Iran would have the opportunity and interest to support the Shitte muslims. And since Iran has the tendency to do that in even countries as far away as Lebanon, it's not farfetched that they do that in Iraq. The Saudi's would mostly likely feel threatened by bordering a chaosed state, and would probably seal their border off.

There's no guarantee that any will go over the limit in that situation. Militias might try to spill their way into Saudia Arabia, or perhaps the Saudia's might find it an interest to support a new Saddam Hussein (under their command). Either way, we're talking about choas in a location that can't have chaos.

In anything but the three huge oil countries, it wouldn't mean a thing, but there's powers and interests beyond the common here.

They involve true power (or rather free power), vs competitive western-like power. The paradigm in the whole middle east has been either you got oil, and you live with corrupt officials or you don't and you give into the western values. Jordan especially shows this.

Iran has supreme interests in controlling as much oil as possible, since they seem all too keen on destroying israel; while the Saudi's tend to like the status-quo. The Saudis basically invited us into stop Saddam the first time, and they've been a power broker on choses we make in that region. They want to keep a good thing going, and they don't want anything too dangerous to arise in that region. Nothing good would come-out of Iran having control of Iraq (in any way shape of form). I believe the Saudi's would find it an interest to protect their status-quo.

A possibility....

Generally the view of the Saudi's vs Iranians.

Say the Saudi's eventually enter conflicts with Shittes in Iraq, based on rather infringing interests by Iran (refer to interests^^^). I'm sure the Syrians would enter that conflict as well, IF....certain events went down.

I don't understand the relevence of this question.

 

Ask the French.

 

Maybe syria will detroy Irans nukes so Israel or we don't have to.

I don't know, do think the Iraq army would suddenly have power to start threatening other countries? How would Iraqis make any moves against Saudis? Or any other country for that matter.

Do you think Iran would want to start a proxy war with the Saudis?

Its funny worrying about them fighting each other when there are plenty of people who think we should be attacking Iran.

You know what could a bonus in Iraq's civil war, the Al Queda guys are sunni and foreign, they would probably be first ones to die.

 

I kind-of doubt that. Syria's a lot closer to Iran's goals than America's or others. Perhaps I'm missing something....What makes you think that Syria, which was flooding in (Iranian) weapons to Lebanon, would find a interest to protect Israel?

Depends on how valid their democracy remains. I'm not really thinking Iraq's army would directly threaten the Saudi's, but I do think Iran and the Saudi's might end-up having conflicting interests if we leave immediately.

Your next question could give a hint to possibilities.

Scenario:

I think Iran will do anything to get their weapon, and I think the Saudi's want to keep the status-quo. I think Iran would love for us to leave and have a civil war in Iraq....it would make it harder and harder for us to enter a war against them.

First it would destroy our militaries morale, and they would find future conflicts to be uncertain. Then oil sources would be raised in prices, and America's fiscal outlook could change easily (and completely) if Iran openly embargoed us, and coverted it's oil currency to the euro. Thus inflicted a rather odd interest in Europe to prevent war with Iran, unless 'completely necessary'. Meanwhile, America's currency would plummet, and I don't think our public would have the fortitude to see the threats outside as important as they are, when domestically it would be fucked-up.

The Saudi's don't want to lose their rather comfortable arrangement. They don't want anything to escalate too far in their region, and I'm sure they're weary of Iran's leadership, because they know that the status-quo will die once Iran has a nuke or has excessive power. Things are in place that could eventually lead to a huge conflict. One which we should avoid.

Now, that's just a scenario, but I think it's likely if we leave immediately.

Well, you can say Iraq is strategic. I'm sure the intentions in the adminstration, while definitely are not appealing (to a lot of people), are built on secure positions to attack Iran, if necessary. Giving-up Iraq would have consequences on us economically, morally, and stragetically. We have to leave it in a way were it's less likely to become more than one can handle.

It has to be somewhat an ally, atleast in general status-quo. While not appealing to anyone, it's better than all out conflict.

A conservative friend said that to me,..'as long as there's a way to have a direct fight with these guys, I think it's better that way than to have them all trying to creep their way into America.'

And I think most Americans would agree it would be better for our military to fight these guys, then for them to be in America.

As far as Civil war goes, the benefits are few. Large scale war in areas like that, are not appealing.

 

I don't think they would, you are one that suggested a regional war could happen. Syria is primarily sunni, I assumed when you said regional conflict it would be Sunni against Shiite. Syria and Saudi Arabia are sunni, Iran is shiite. If syria and Iran go to war then maybe syria would take out the possible nukes

Actually as long as troops are occupying Iraq they can't invade Iran, we need to pull out of Iraq to attack Iran.

Really? coming home would destroy the militaries morale? I would think they would be happy to home

yeah but that whole "we have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" is for morons, 19 highjackers and bunch of money is what it took to create 911. How many people do think helped plan it, a couple dozen?

Do you really think those a-list terrorists, the smartest most dangerous ones, are running around in Iraq setting of IEDs? Do you think that our soldiers are actually killing people who would be able to make it thru homeland security and attack us here?

Even with Iraq going there has been many attacks outside of Iraq, so apprently not all the terrorist are engaging us there.

 

Seriously, had our military not been split in half, this wouldn't be an issue. But generally, it will take Iran sometime, so I don't find it that bad.

I wish congress would put it's money in the right place. Kill the heavy (unnessary) projects, and focus on building our forces.

Doing something for nothing is a bigger morale destroyer. I know many soldiers, and they want the job to be done, and done correctly. Even the most injured ones continuely say, don't make their injuries be in vain.

Perhaps the some of the overtly liberal soldiers or those whom join the reserves, want to just leave.

The reserves should be just that,...reserves, not a matter of permanent presence. Often reservist are just in it for the college dough. Full-time soldiers should have not been cut in the 90's. We need a big military to take on any conflict.

I'm glad you're not one of the conspiracy theorist on this site.

Among my friends, and others, we all know it's more complicated than a certain circle of extremists. I'm sure there's a nut being born in America, that's will be willingly to destroy America if they get the chance. I believe there's one in Iraq right now, who is being targetted by our military as we speak.

IED's, especially the ones they are making...aren't simple toys. I don't think they're the best of the best, otherwise they could do more than they do. Although I'm sure some of them are trained soldiers (leftover from Saddam).

Homeland Security is a joke in many ways. Take a look at most of the reports, and how we're graded on security. Now, I'm not going to say congress isn't doing anything, but I'll say that they're not doing enough...many interests are involved as well.

Neither party has the balls or the interest to do everything necessary to secure America. It doesn't have to be infringing, but it has to be throrough and reasonable.

We need to work more heavily with Canada on their ports and national security. We need to set our priorities in immigration laws and vistor visas. We need to stomp down on cities that disobey federal law through budget restrainst. An ocean can deeply inhibit loads of these assholes from coming over. If we work with our locals and the very laws that make visitors overly welcomed, we could make huge strides.

Terrorists of the extreme muslim kind are nearly everywhere. As many reasonable voices in the muslim community there are, we should have them on the potium as much as possible.

We'll either going to reach out to them or we're going lose out on idealogical allies. Must like NK, the best way to destroy an enemy like this (especially), is to get as many friends and foes voicing the same opinion.

 

Trying to take over the Middle East will take a lot of time, a stack of money and many many lives on all sides.

That is the cold hard truth.

Remember the "mission accomplished" nonsense. Think again. It's far from it.

Still, if some dude can get his BK or Subway in the huge permanent base in the Green Zone he'll be fine right? He better get double frys with that shake because it may well be his last.

 

Yep, for that carrier, it was... Context...