iraq war

T-Bones · September 23, 2006 08:50 PM

ok now where were we??? things have changed with the war while we were gone. what do u guys like to say now???

rtil · September 25, 2006 06:51 PM

i haven't really been paying attention. overall i'd just say that our next president will spend most of his term getting out of iraq and could make a real hero out of himself.

Irishman · September 28, 2006 01:06 AM

I remember a month or so back there was a poll done by the Seattle Times. Over 20% of the respondents advocated pulling out of Iraq immediately and 30-some% saying that the US should pull soon. I found these people's lack of understanding of military tactics and international politics disturbing. Pulling out immediately is the worst thing the US can possibly do. It would further destabilize the region and plung Iraq into chaos and drag the neighboring countries with it. It would be Shiite vs. Sunni vs. Kurd and their neighbors would weigh in as well.

The recent increase in violence in Iraq is a direct result of the interference of Iran. Iran is a primarily Shiite country, so there was a lot of enmity between them and Saddam (who is Sunni). Iran sees this as an opportunity to establish more direct control of the region and is doing that by fostering dissent and violence in Iraq. Iran is supplying a lot of the militias and even providing some limited leadership for some. If the United States leaves, Iran will either invade Iraq or use the militias to establish control and act as a puppet government for Iran. It is Iran's best interests to see the Iraqi democracy fail. If Iraq stabilizes (which won't happen as long as Iran has its hand in things) then Iraq will pose as a competing power in the area and will be much friendlier to western interests. If Iran takes over Iraq then it has a larger portion of the resources in the area (read: oil) and it will be able to exert a more direct pressure on the western world.

So right now the US needs to stay to stabilize Iraq and prevent the area from becoming hostile to everyone and everything. For that to happen the US needs to change its approach. There is no sense of national identity in Iraq like there is here. The religious identity of each person is far more important. The US needs to approach them as religious groups instead of a national whole. Though, that will also be quite difficult considering that each group considers the others heretical (and therefore deserving of poor treatment, if not death). The whole thing is a mess and what the US and the Iraqi people need is time. Though, no one is willing to give it to them.

rtil · September 28, 2006 01:42 AM

long post . . . no crash . we're good

Irishman · September 28, 2006 09:24 PM

Well, my other one was twice as long.

T-Bones · September 29, 2006 11:11 PM

do u guys like the war the way it is or do u think we should pull out

T-Bones · September 30, 2006 09:56 PM

ooooooooooooooook

Irishman · September 30, 2006 11:30 PM

Quote from: T-Bonesdo u guys like the war the way it is or do u think we should pull out

Pulling out now is the dumbest thing the US could possibly do. It would create a power vacuum that Iran will gladly fill. And then we'll have another country actively hostile to the US. If the US can stabilize Iraq it will create a beachhead to affect change in the Middle East.

I thought I'd said as much in my previous post (see first paragraph).

Scotsman · September 30, 2006 11:38 PM

I am with Irishman on this one. I don't know all the details of what our president is doing in there, but at this point we need to finish what we started.

Irishman · October 1, 2006 06:39 AM

Here's a report from Reuters outlining the myriad ways that Iran is screwing things up in Iraq.

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?ty...src=rss/topNews

Here's an excerpt:

"But the official gave far more detail, and said the latest weapons finds -- including explosives bearing factory stamps indicating they come from Iran -- show that the policy of arming Iraqi militia is supported at high levels in Iran and not the work of rogue Iranian operatives."

T-Bones · October 1, 2006 02:32 PM

i have a question. why did we go and invade iraq??? was it because of wepons or was bush just realy pissed off

Irishman · October 1, 2006 05:03 PM

I think it was a combination of Iraq being a target of opportunity and faulty intelligence. Also, Iraq is in a central location in the middle east and having a beachhead there allow for a more direct western influence on the area and allows for a flow of ideas that so far has been nonexistent.

T-Bones · October 1, 2006 07:49 PM

i agree

darkz13 · December 21, 2006 05:51 AM

gaah!!! weres a nuke when u need 1!!!

Dagolith · December 21, 2006 07:26 AM

Quote from: darkoverlordtobegaah!!! weres a nuke when u need 1!!!

well, you have plenty of nukes, but no.... just no, a nuke, thats crazy.... your crazy...

...crazy guy.

darkz13 · December 22, 2006 08:42 AM

but i neeeeeed one

Dagolith · December 22, 2006 08:57 AM

Quote from: darkoverlordtobebut i neeeeeed one

well i guess if you put it that way it makes some more sence.

T-Bones · December 22, 2006 08:38 PM

ask santa that is wat bush wants for christmas, or any other religens that celebraty

T-Bones · December 31, 2006 05:35 PM

u shut up

Scotsman · January 1, 2007 05:53 AM

lets keep the insulting to a minimum and try to keep the discussion going.