I don't think leaving Iraq would result in a totalitarian regime. I think it would end in 3 seperate nations. Probably the way it should be. Unfortunately there will be a lot of violence leading up to that point.
Assuming that 3 separate nations would be the end result, I think we can assume that 2 of those nations would be land-locked. The 1 nation that isn't land-locked would certainly use its water access to manipulate politics with its land-locked neighbors- this is especially so when considering the possibility that those nations would be divided by their kurdish, sunni, or shiite affiliation.
Meanwhile, each of those 3 countries would be forming its own alliances with other arab nations. As soon as war for control of water access erupts, the entire middle east will be at war.
We need to deploy more troops. We're half-assing it at the moment...and obviously have not learned the lessons of Viet Nam.
You can't fight a war from Capitol Hill. Our soldiers need politics like they need an extra hole in the head. It's polititians that are getting our men and women killed...with their total incompetence and lack of appreciation for what it takes to engage and defeat an enemy.
We need to deploy more troops. We're half-assing it at the moment...and obviously have not learned the lessons of Viet Nam.
You can't fight a war from Capitol Hill. Our soldiers need politics like they need an extra hole in the head. It's polititians that are getting our men and women killed...with their total incompetence and lack of appreciation for what it takes to engage and defeat an enemy.
In the case of Israel and Palestine, when did a foreign occupation attempting to "clamp" the situation ever happen? You don't really know if it would work or not.
Not to mention, the civil war that would happen in Iraq would happen on death toll scale far exceeding that existing between Palestine and Israel. And the end result would most certainly mean the installation of a totalitarian regime just as bad, if not worse, than Saddam.
I think you are underestimating how bad it would really get over there. You can't just back off and let it run its course. We might very well be looking at genocide. Do you think the US should back off and let genocide run its course?
...
Then you know what? We need fucking asshole Bush to go back on that Aircraft Carrier and say, "Uh... I was mistaken. Combat operations have NOT ceased and we are back in a War phase".
Then, our guys are soldiers again, not fucking Iraqi policemen. They go out on combat patrols and and conduct combat operations.
We need to send in enough forces to secure the borders, Iraqi oil assets and highways. Whether these forces are American or NATO, I don't care... as long as they are competent.
When the place is safe, then infrastructure projects can commence. Hire Iraqis to do the work and drive the trucks, not asshole civilians from Tennessee. Put the fucking Iraqi men to work so they won't be running around killing people.
Make the fucking Iraqi politicians do their fucking jobs. If they want to divide the place into 3 pieces... let them draw the lines so 10 years from now they aren't coming back and blaming us.
We need to fix all the shit we destroyed and then some. We need to pay for the shit... just like you need to pay for all the damages if you drove your truck through the local Target store.
Then, we need to leave. If genocide occurs after that... that shit is on them, not us.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Then you know what? We need fucking asshole Bush to go back on that Aircraft Carrier and say, "Uh... I was mistaken. Combat operations have NOT ceased and we are back in a War phase".
Then, our guys are soldiers again, not fucking Iraqi policemen. They go out on combat patrols and and conduct combat operations.
We need to send in enough forces to secure the borders, Iraqi oil assets and highways. Whether these forces are American or NATO, I don't care... as long as they are competent.
When the place is safe, then infrastructure projects can commence. Hire Iraqis to do the work and drive the trucks, not asshole civilians from Tennessee. Put the fucking Iraqi men to work so they won't be running around killing people.
Make the fucking Iraqi politicians do their fucking jobs. If they want to divide the place into 3 pieces... let them draw the lines so 10 years from now they aren't coming back and blaming us.
We need to fix all the shit we destroyed and then some. We need to pay for the shit... just like you need to pay for all the damages if you drove your truck through the local Target store.
Then, we need to leave. If genocide occurs after that... that shit is on them, not us.
Yea, everyone needs a fence to keep everyone else out.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I don't agree. Iran could be a stabalizing force in the region if we'd stop dicking with them, and ask them for assistance. There's too much bad blood with this administration to ever make progress with Iran, but they should have a seat at the table. they're a neighboring country for christ sake.
Same with Syria. American foreign policy is inherently, and apparently permanently flawed in this region. Regardless of religion or nationality, the people of this region are arab first. On that principle alone, they have a common bond that is never questioned...even in light of the difficulties in the Mudlim world between different sects.
If you involve Iran and Syria...get them to participate in the ownership of the success of Iraq...which is critical to the stability of the ENTIRE region...then you might have a shot.
I promise you, Iran and Syria have no interest in a destabilized Iraq. It threatens their own countries too much...but America has to stop treating them like red-headed step children and get them to the table.
Then why did the U.S. just spend 800 million on a new American embassy in baghdad ? And why is it planning on setting up at least 4 new permanent military bases in iraq ?
the odds of that building being blown up,...
and i can't even get a pell grant b/c the gov't says you have to use your parent's income taxes until you are 24, regardless if you are independent.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
Regardless of religion or nationality, the people of this region are arab first. On that principle alone, they have a common bond that is never questioned...even in light of the difficulties in the Mudlim world between different sects.
Yeah, the middle east would be a happy, peace-loving example of true togetherness were it not for those meddling westerners. It's not like the current president of Syriaa had to massacre approximately 20,000 of his "fellow arab" civilians in a single week to bring order to his own country.
And it's not like the Iranians and the Iraqis weren't at war throughout the 1980's, causing over a million casualties in total.
And what about the countless palestinian refugees who are still being denied citizenship by their "fellow arabs"?
And do you realize where a majority of these insurgents in Iraq are coming from? They're coming from Syria. This is common knowledge. Many are coming from Iran too, but Syria has just as much interest in seeing Iraq destabilized as Syria. Neither of those countries want to see a democracy there.
common bond that is never questioned...lol. Not to mention, Iranians aren't even arab. They're persian.
If you involve Iran and Syria...get them to participate in the ownership of the success of Iraq...which is critical to the stability of the ENTIRE region...then you might have a shot.
I promise you, Iran and Syria have no interest in a destabilized Iraq. It threatens their own countries too much...but America has to stop treating them like red-headed step children and get them to the table.
Yeah, it's always big, bad america's fault. Let's leave it up to the Iranians and Syrians to make the middle east a stable and peace-loving region...lmao. I'm not even going to bother sitting here and typing out why this statement couldn't be more delusional. If you are so certain as to why Iran and Syria are interested in seeing Iraq stabilized (other than through totalitarian rule through an extremist government) then please feel free to divulge those reasons.
If you cannot see that America has more or less single handedly created the mess we're in, I have nothing to discuss with you.
BTW, we've murdered tens of thousands of people trying to bring "peace" to Iraq. We're no better than Hussein in that regard.
Feel free to insult me some more though.
You weren't being insulted. But, hey, whatever excuse you need to not have to substantiate any of your claims with actual facts is fine by me. The statistic you provided above has little to do with the claims you were making. "Just as bad as Hussein." I thought Saddam was Arab? So, where's that "common bond".
I don't mind it when people want to slag the US. In fact, I welcome it. But, if that's what you're going to do, at least be ready to provide supporting details that are consistent with your arguments.
Here are your arguments:
Iraqis, Iranians, and Syrians are all arabs whose common bonds have been recognized without question
Syria and Iran have everything to gain from seeing a stabilized Iraq
You said that my statements were delusional, and were otherwise passive aggressive with your explanations and alleged knowledge. Well, here's some information that should help you understand that I am not alone in my logic. I welcome you to provide similar factual details to back up your assertions.
Only 51% of Iranians are Persian.
As far as whether or not my statement that Iran would benefit from a stabilized Iraq meets your standard of reality...by all means, don't believe me. However, you might want to read this neat little article from USA Today with Mohammad Khatami
"I think that the heads of states of brother Syria and Iran should revise their positions for the interest of Iraq. At the very least, they should support the multinational force."
Jalal Talibani: "We've supported the Iraqi government from the start. We will support the political process in Iraq."
Talibani is the former president and also a moderate, which makes his views very much different from that of the current president. Regardless, he gives no specific reason in that article as to why Iran would like to see Iraq stabilized. On top of that, he denies that Iran has been giving weapons to the shiites. This would make him a liar as the following article indicates. So, the above link does not support your stance.
The only thing ahemedinajad says in regards to iraq in that interview is that iran has supported the iraqi government. Of course, this can be proven to be a complete falsehood as you and I both know that Iran is supporting the shiite insurgency in iraq, thuse making the stabilization more difficult.
He also goes on to say that he supports democracy, yet the iranian gov is not a democracy. The iranian president cannot make decisions without approval from khamenei, who is elected only by people who have islamic jurispredence. Additionally, we all know about the human rights violations that occur with in Iran. So, in other words, Ahmedinejad does not support democracy. So, here is another link that does not support your opinion.
"I think that the heads of states of brother Syria and Iran should revise their positions for the interest of Iraq. At the very least, they should support the multinational force."
Maybe you weren't aware of this.....Iyad Allawi is the Iraqi president. So, there he is calling for Syria and Iran to "revise their positions". So, amazingly enough, you just proved my point for me by posting that article as well as that quote from it.
That article is about how Syria is supporting the insurgency. So, again, you are only supporting the stance that Syria is not interested in Iraq's stabilization.
That is a statement from Syria's deputy foreign minister on Syria's supposed efforts to support Iraq. However, thanks to the article you just posted, Syria's deputy foreign minister was apparently lying through her teeth when she made those comments. That is according to what you've been posting...
As far as the statements that I made, I just want to make sure you really need links to support those details. Here's what I was talking about in those posts:
The Hama massacre
The iran-iraq war
the refusal of citizenship to palestinian refugees by arab nations
the syrian and iranian support of the iraqi insurgency
This is like common knowledge stuff. I just spent long time reading through articles that actually contradict your point of view. Were you just hoping I would be intimidated by all the words and not bother reading them?
I really don't want to waste time supporting what is common knowledge...c'mon, you want evidence of the iran-iraq war? ...just makes me wonder how much you really know what is going on over there in the middle east. If you really need proof of those events, I'll post them.
its amazing to me that someone would believe Iran and Syria can be a "stabalizing force" in Iraq. they are both swore enemies of America as well as brutal islamic extremist governments. why would they want anything to do with a free democratic Iraq? Iran is the one sending in death squads to fuck shit up right now.
The invasion is obviously an unmitigated disaster. However I think it would be irresponsible at best to leave the country in the state it is in. The quote from Clinton on the first post is quite revealing.
The wind is blowing cold
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
Everyone knows that Iraq was doing America's bidding when they engaged Iran in war. Of course Iran and Syria have no interest in working with an American puppet regime in Iraq, which is why it will never happen.
However, if we withdraw, and allow the people of Iraq to have their own theocratic government (after the civil war that we have created), I am certain that Iran and Syria will have an interest in the success of Iraq. Neither country can afford an unstable border nation...Iran especially.
At the same time, neither will tolerate an American puppet regime on their border. So we're right back to where we started. The US capitalizing on ethnic tensions, buying coup's, installing puppet regimes, and undermining any chances for peace in the Middle East, all in the name of oil.
Take the US out of Iraq, let the civil war decide who will lead the country, and then work with the neighboring nations to rebuild a stable nation with no strings attached. That is the only way forward that will result in any benefit for America. Any other plan will result in more death.
I have seen no proof that Iran or Syria are supporting the insurgency. The only proof I see of support for the insurgency comes from America's insistance on creating turmoil in this region. People will take up arms and fight because nobody wants America there. Besides, if Iran and Syria ARE supporting the insurgency, then good for them...just as we supported Iraq by providing chemical weapons for the war with Iran...just as we supported Afghanistan with their war against the USSR...which devastated that country. It's karma if you ask me.
Your point about the Palestinians was not missed...t's just not relevant to this discussion. The Plaestinians deserve their own nation, and that's not Iraq, Iran, or Syria. It's not up to those nations to provide a country for Palestinians, it's up to the UN to correct their mistakes, and allow for a Palestinian state just as they allowed the creation of Israel.
good for them? wow so you support them killing american troops. that is what the insurgency is doing, is it not?
and people wonder why I use the term "america haters".
I don't believe in American might makes right. We have no business being in Iraq. We had no justification to invade. Iran and Syria...IF they are supporting the resistance, are doing nothing that America hasn't done for decades to forward its own agenda.
I'm sorry that American's are getting caught in the middle of it, but that's how it goes. Turnabout is fair play. Someone should help Iraq drive out the invading force.
Why don't we invade Darfour and put down the evil going on there? I'll tell you why. They have less than nothing, and are of no use to America. I guess that makes it right?
I'm not an America hater, and I'm definitely not a blind loyalist. To accept what we're doing in Iraq, you have to be a blind loyalist, and you get what you deserve if that's the case.
I don't believe in American might makes right. We have no business being in Iraq. We had no justification to invade. Iran and Syria...IF they are supporting the resistance, are doing nothing that America hasn't done for decades to forward its own agenda.
I'm sorry that American's are getting caught in the middle of it, but that's how it goes. Turnabout is fair play. Someone should help Iraq drive out the invading force.
Why don't we invade Darfour and put down the evil going on there? I'll tell you why. They have less than nothing, and are of no use to America. I guess that makes it right?
I'm not an America hater, and I'm definitely not a blind loyalist. To accept what we're doing in Iraq, you have to be a blind loyalist, and you get what you deserve if that's the case.
I guess we have a difference of opinion on who the enemy is.
Comments
Assuming that 3 separate nations would be the end result, I think we can assume that 2 of those nations would be land-locked. The 1 nation that isn't land-locked would certainly use its water access to manipulate politics with its land-locked neighbors- this is especially so when considering the possibility that those nations would be divided by their kurdish, sunni, or shiite affiliation.
Meanwhile, each of those 3 countries would be forming its own alliances with other arab nations. As soon as war for control of water access erupts, the entire middle east will be at war.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
You can't fight a war from Capitol Hill. Our soldiers need politics like they need an extra hole in the head. It's polititians that are getting our men and women killed...with their total incompetence and lack of appreciation for what it takes to engage and defeat an enemy.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
agreed. we need to seal the border with Iran also
Then you know what? We need fucking asshole Bush to go back on that Aircraft Carrier and say, "Uh... I was mistaken. Combat operations have NOT ceased and we are back in a War phase".
Then, our guys are soldiers again, not fucking Iraqi policemen. They go out on combat patrols and and conduct combat operations.
We need to send in enough forces to secure the borders, Iraqi oil assets and highways. Whether these forces are American or NATO, I don't care... as long as they are competent.
When the place is safe, then infrastructure projects can commence. Hire Iraqis to do the work and drive the trucks, not asshole civilians from Tennessee. Put the fucking Iraqi men to work so they won't be running around killing people.
Make the fucking Iraqi politicians do their fucking jobs. If they want to divide the place into 3 pieces... let them draw the lines so 10 years from now they aren't coming back and blaming us.
We need to fix all the shit we destroyed and then some. We need to pay for the shit... just like you need to pay for all the damages if you drove your truck through the local Target store.
Then, we need to leave. If genocide occurs after that... that shit is on them, not us.
Hail, Hail!!!
You know who did a great job of that? Saddam Hussein. Maybe we could sub-contract border security to him.
Hail, Hail!!!
egg zacked lee
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
by getting one of these babies..
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/27/saudi.fence.ap/index.html?section=cnn_world
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
he's kinda tied up at the moment
Yea, everyone needs a fence to keep everyone else out.
I don't agree. Iran could be a stabalizing force in the region if we'd stop dicking with them, and ask them for assistance. There's too much bad blood with this administration to ever make progress with Iran, but they should have a seat at the table. they're a neighboring country for christ sake.
Same with Syria. American foreign policy is inherently, and apparently permanently flawed in this region. Regardless of religion or nationality, the people of this region are arab first. On that principle alone, they have a common bond that is never questioned...even in light of the difficulties in the Mudlim world between different sects.
If you involve Iran and Syria...get them to participate in the ownership of the success of Iraq...which is critical to the stability of the ENTIRE region...then you might have a shot.
I promise you, Iran and Syria have no interest in a destabilized Iraq. It threatens their own countries too much...but America has to stop treating them like red-headed step children and get them to the table.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
the odds of that building being blown up,...
and i can't even get a pell grant b/c the gov't says you have to use your parent's income taxes until you are 24, regardless if you are independent.
~Ron Burgundy
Yeah, the middle east would be a happy, peace-loving example of true togetherness were it not for those meddling westerners. It's not like the current president of Syriaa had to massacre approximately 20,000 of his "fellow arab" civilians in a single week to bring order to his own country.
And it's not like the Iranians and the Iraqis weren't at war throughout the 1980's, causing over a million casualties in total.
And what about the countless palestinian refugees who are still being denied citizenship by their "fellow arabs"?
And do you realize where a majority of these insurgents in Iraq are coming from? They're coming from Syria. This is common knowledge. Many are coming from Iran too, but Syria has just as much interest in seeing Iraq destabilized as Syria. Neither of those countries want to see a democracy there.
common bond that is never questioned...lol. Not to mention, Iranians aren't even arab. They're persian.
Yeah, it's always big, bad america's fault. Let's leave it up to the Iranians and Syrians to make the middle east a stable and peace-loving region...lmao. I'm not even going to bother sitting here and typing out why this statement couldn't be more delusional. If you are so certain as to why Iran and Syria are interested in seeing Iraq stabilized (other than through totalitarian rule through an extremist government) then please feel free to divulge those reasons.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
If you cannot see that America has more or less single handedly created the mess we're in, I have nothing to discuss with you.
BTW, we've murdered tens of thousands of people trying to bring "peace" to Iraq. We're no better than Hussein in that regard.
Feel free to insult me some more though.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
You weren't being insulted. But, hey, whatever excuse you need to not have to substantiate any of your claims with actual facts is fine by me. The statistic you provided above has little to do with the claims you were making. "Just as bad as Hussein." I thought Saddam was Arab? So, where's that "common bond".
I don't mind it when people want to slag the US. In fact, I welcome it. But, if that's what you're going to do, at least be ready to provide supporting details that are consistent with your arguments.
Here are your arguments:
Iraqis, Iranians, and Syrians are all arabs whose common bonds have been recognized without question
Syria and Iran have everything to gain from seeing a stabilized Iraq
good luck.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Only 51% of Iranians are Persian.
As far as whether or not my statement that Iran would benefit from a stabilized Iraq meets your standard of reality...by all means, don't believe me. However, you might want to read this neat little article from USA Today with Mohammad Khatami
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-09-04-khatami-us-iran_x.htm
Jalal Talibani: "We've supported the Iraqi government from the start. We will support the political process in Iraq."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14973253/site/newsweek/
Here's another article that substantiates my assertion.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/738/re10.htm
Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's own words...
"I think that the heads of states of brother Syria and Iran should revise their positions for the interest of Iraq. At the very least, they should support the multinational force."
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/Joshua.M.Landis-1/syriablog/2004/07/what-is-syria-doing-in-iraq.htm
More on Syria's support of Iraq, and it's interest in its stability
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/050722/2005072218.html
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
It's time we leave.
Only 3% are arab. Persian is still the official language of Iran.
Talibani is the former president and also a moderate, which makes his views very much different from that of the current president. Regardless, he gives no specific reason in that article as to why Iran would like to see Iraq stabilized. On top of that, he denies that Iran has been giving weapons to the shiites. This would make him a liar as the following article indicates. So, the above link does not support your stance.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/28/iraq.iran/index.html
The only thing ahemedinajad says in regards to iraq in that interview is that iran has supported the iraqi government. Of course, this can be proven to be a complete falsehood as you and I both know that Iran is supporting the shiite insurgency in iraq, thuse making the stabilization more difficult.
He also goes on to say that he supports democracy, yet the iranian gov is not a democracy. The iranian president cannot make decisions without approval from khamenei, who is elected only by people who have islamic jurispredence. Additionally, we all know about the human rights violations that occur with in Iran. So, in other words, Ahmedinejad does not support democracy. So, here is another link that does not support your opinion.
Maybe you weren't aware of this.....Iyad Allawi is the Iraqi president. So, there he is calling for Syria and Iran to "revise their positions". So, amazingly enough, you just proved my point for me by posting that article as well as that quote from it.
That article is about how Syria is supporting the insurgency. So, again, you are only supporting the stance that Syria is not interested in Iraq's stabilization.
That is a statement from Syria's deputy foreign minister on Syria's supposed efforts to support Iraq. However, thanks to the article you just posted, Syria's deputy foreign minister was apparently lying through her teeth when she made those comments. That is according to what you've been posting...
As far as the statements that I made, I just want to make sure you really need links to support those details. Here's what I was talking about in those posts:
The Hama massacre
The iran-iraq war
the refusal of citizenship to palestinian refugees by arab nations
the syrian and iranian support of the iraqi insurgency
This is like common knowledge stuff. I just spent long time reading through articles that actually contradict your point of view. Were you just hoping I would be intimidated by all the words and not bother reading them?
I really don't want to waste time supporting what is common knowledge...c'mon, you want evidence of the iran-iraq war? ...just makes me wonder how much you really know what is going on over there in the middle east. If you really need proof of those events, I'll post them.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
sponger, great points, thanks for takin this one.
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
However, if we withdraw, and allow the people of Iraq to have their own theocratic government (after the civil war that we have created), I am certain that Iran and Syria will have an interest in the success of Iraq. Neither country can afford an unstable border nation...Iran especially.
At the same time, neither will tolerate an American puppet regime on their border. So we're right back to where we started. The US capitalizing on ethnic tensions, buying coup's, installing puppet regimes, and undermining any chances for peace in the Middle East, all in the name of oil.
Take the US out of Iraq, let the civil war decide who will lead the country, and then work with the neighboring nations to rebuild a stable nation with no strings attached. That is the only way forward that will result in any benefit for America. Any other plan will result in more death.
I have seen no proof that Iran or Syria are supporting the insurgency. The only proof I see of support for the insurgency comes from America's insistance on creating turmoil in this region. People will take up arms and fight because nobody wants America there. Besides, if Iran and Syria ARE supporting the insurgency, then good for them...just as we supported Iraq by providing chemical weapons for the war with Iran...just as we supported Afghanistan with their war against the USSR...which devastated that country. It's karma if you ask me.
Your point about the Palestinians was not missed...t's just not relevant to this discussion. The Plaestinians deserve their own nation, and that's not Iraq, Iran, or Syria. It's not up to those nations to provide a country for Palestinians, it's up to the UN to correct their mistakes, and allow for a Palestinian state just as they allowed the creation of Israel.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
good for them? wow so you support them killing american troops. that is what the insurgency is doing, is it not?
and people wonder why I use the term "america haters".
I don't believe in American might makes right. We have no business being in Iraq. We had no justification to invade. Iran and Syria...IF they are supporting the resistance, are doing nothing that America hasn't done for decades to forward its own agenda.
I'm sorry that American's are getting caught in the middle of it, but that's how it goes. Turnabout is fair play. Someone should help Iraq drive out the invading force.
Why don't we invade Darfour and put down the evil going on there? I'll tell you why. They have less than nothing, and are of no use to America. I guess that makes it right?
I'm not an America hater, and I'm definitely not a blind loyalist. To accept what we're doing in Iraq, you have to be a blind loyalist, and you get what you deserve if that's the case.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
I guess we have a difference of opinion on who the enemy is.