Iraq Civil War ?
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
The fear I had with this war was based on the idea that Sadam was a stablizing force in the region. What replaces him, could be worse. This was a theory shared by Powell and many others at one time. Hopefully we can stabilize the country and bring stability to the region. In the end, what do we get out of it? How many more terrorists are aligning themselives against the US now that we invaded Iraq? These are huge questions with huge implications down the road. I really hope our government thought this through.
Why do you think Bush senior, Colin Powell and **** Cheney kept Saddam in power back in 1991??? Here's a hint, it wasn't because he was a sweet guy back then ....It was a given that Iraq country would come apart.
All you have to do is look what happened in Yugoslavia, where the Muslims, Croatians and Serbs took the opportunity to start slaughtering each other as soon as the govt fell ....
When we leave, the Shiite(s) will hit the fan ....
Ted
All you have to do is look what happened in Yugoslavia, where the Muslims, Croatians and Serbs took the opportunity to start slaughtering each other as soon as the govt fell ....
When we leave, the Shiite(s) will hit the fan ....
Ted
If a democratic government becomes established in Iraq it will be a great day for the Middle East. If a radical Islamic state is established (perhaps with the help of Iran's Mullahs) it could be worse then when Saddam was in office.
What a mess the Middle East is. Seems to me that people should have a natural desire for greater freedom. There are evil forces in the Middle East that will prevent that greater freedom at any cost.
What a mess the Middle East is. Seems to me that people should have a natural desire for greater freedom. There are evil forces in the Middle East that will prevent that greater freedom at any cost.
There is one of the largest reserves of wealth and power (oil!!!) on the planet up for grabs. Stand back and watch the bloodbath.
The oil will prevent a massive booodbath. Eventually other countries will figure out that if they don't send help the largest oil reserves would go up in flames. If we left today you would be able to see the oil fires from Jupiter.
So, I'm wondering what happens if we manage to hold fair and honest elections and an Islamic party wins. Do we say okay and take off? Do we declare the election a fraud ?
We say "O.K." and leave. Our work will be done. At this point we'll have enough spies in there to tell what's happening. (Unless Kerry Guts the CIA again
Well the dumbest villiage idiot around has known it for about 3 years. When did Kerry figure it out. Last year??quote:
Originally posted by buster:
Actually, Kerry wanted more human intelligence.We need to start thinking "long term" so we don't have to have these things come back and bite us in the rear end.
I find it really disturbing that Kerry has voted against almost every major weapons system we are using today and using it well! I think he was right to some extent on our over-use of technology for intelligence, but he is to much of a dove when it comes to high tech weaponry.
Propflux01
$100 Site Donor 2025
typical democrat.....IMHO, of course!
Well, if it does blow up into full civil war,( which I fully expect) I guess it will be the US & Brits to take the brunt. We can't walk away. The UN does not have the will/spine to take on an unstable situation ( with army? under who's command). And our Euro friends(?) France and Germany? It would be domestic political suicide for them. That leaves Russia? That will be fun. Since the Brits were there during the 1920's, 30's and 40's they can give us some pointers on keeping three different groups of people that dispise each other from killing themselves.
it will only be a civil war if the arab foriegners and al queda confederated radicals have there way.
however the equation does get interesting
on one hand syria and iran and the house of saud (all parties trying to appease there domestic radicals and get a personal chance to screw the united states for other motives) have arguably turned a blind eye from fully locking down there borders.
iran has a good pull in reigning in the iraqi shiite leadership.
furthermore, it would not be in syria, irans, or saudi arabia's interest that iraq erupt into a bloodbath.
to much oil and for Iran a reliogous stake as well
By the way guys.
You speak of the British to highly in this matter. If it were up to them they would partition in Iraq, then evacuate to the fleet to watch the bloodbath with fish & chips in hand.
Britain did this to India-Pakistan (and look at the situation today)..that partition caused the biggest human exodus in history. Along with some 2-million people murdered.
Northern Ireland too...South Africa...Israel-Palestine...and all of these are still ugly situations.
As i argue it the United States and our willing allies on the ground are the only thing that stand against civil war.
Kerry's talk of instantaneous withdrawal from Iraq is either out right stupidity or just a lie to get him in office.
Germany and France choose not to help and therefore have ruled themselves irrelevant. No matter what the "multilateral solution" is they have made up there mind not to help under any circumstance.
Well maybe if we offer them a HUGE OIL opportunity-carrot that view may change fast.
however the equation does get interesting
on one hand syria and iran and the house of saud (all parties trying to appease there domestic radicals and get a personal chance to screw the united states for other motives) have arguably turned a blind eye from fully locking down there borders.
iran has a good pull in reigning in the iraqi shiite leadership.
furthermore, it would not be in syria, irans, or saudi arabia's interest that iraq erupt into a bloodbath.
to much oil and for Iran a reliogous stake as well
By the way guys.
You speak of the British to highly in this matter. If it were up to them they would partition in Iraq, then evacuate to the fleet to watch the bloodbath with fish & chips in hand.
Britain did this to India-Pakistan (and look at the situation today)..that partition caused the biggest human exodus in history. Along with some 2-million people murdered.
Northern Ireland too...South Africa...Israel-Palestine...and all of these are still ugly situations.
As i argue it the United States and our willing allies on the ground are the only thing that stand against civil war.
Kerry's talk of instantaneous withdrawal from Iraq is either out right stupidity or just a lie to get him in office.
Germany and France choose not to help and therefore have ruled themselves irrelevant. No matter what the "multilateral solution" is they have made up there mind not to help under any circumstance.
Well maybe if we offer them a HUGE OIL opportunity-carrot that view may change fast.
The mess was started by Sadam in 1990 when Sadam Hussein invaded and annexed Kuwait. Surprising you forgot about that.
Al,
If you read the transcripts of what was said to Saddam, just prior to his invasion of Kuwait, by Ambassador Gillespie, we gave the clear impression that we weren't going to interfere. I actually think someone in the first Bush adminstration decided Saddam was a growing threat and we goaded him into attacking Kuwait, so that we'd have an excuse to take him down a few notches.In retrospect, I think that was a good idea. Of course, both the US and the Europeans spent most of the previous ten years supporting and arming Iraq. In retrospect that wasn't such a smart idea ....
Our real concern was always that Saddam would sieze the hugh Saudi oil fields and then we would be in quite a mess. I was a captain in the active duty, Air Force reserves during Gulf War I, so I had more than a passing interest in this situation.
Ted
If you read the transcripts of what was said to Saddam, just prior to his invasion of Kuwait, by Ambassador Gillespie, we gave the clear impression that we weren't going to interfere. I actually think someone in the first Bush adminstration decided Saddam was a growing threat and we goaded him into attacking Kuwait, so that we'd have an excuse to take him down a few notches.In retrospect, I think that was a good idea. Of course, both the US and the Europeans spent most of the previous ten years supporting and arming Iraq. In retrospect that wasn't such a smart idea ....
Our real concern was always that Saddam would sieze the hugh Saudi oil fields and then we would be in quite a mess. I was a captain in the active duty, Air Force reserves during Gulf War I, so I had more than a passing interest in this situation.
Ted
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Not totally true. The MAIN reason for the unrest in the middle east is because of the white man. Yes, the British at the end of WWII dismantled what remained of the Ottoman Empire as a penalty for its aliance with Germany. They created just about the worse setup for stability that there could be. They seperated like peoples ...mixed unlike peoples.
The Kurds ...some occupy Turkey ..the rest are in Northern Iraq ..while ****e, Kurd, and Sunni are forced to live under one banner.
This, I believe, was designed this way, by the British, so to never allow the Arab world to unite and potentially support a future enemy. Forever hobbling them to a future of corruption and unrest with all the little monarchs and fifedoms that they created.
They wanted it to be this way. Same thing happened in India. They artificially allowed Muslim and Hindu to occupy the same ground in peace with their colonial rule. Remove the colonial rule and what do you have??? People who want nothing to do with each other smack dab in each other's midst. As someone else mentioned ..this is the same sort of thing that happened in the Balkins.
When you whine about unrest in the ME ...blame a good bit of it on western man.
Al, not forgetting that at all.quote:
Originally posted by Al:
The mess was started by Sadam in 1990 when Sadam Hussein invaded and annexed Kuwait. Surprising you forgot about that.
I was referring to THIS mess, where a sovereign country was attacked by a group of three countries against the wishes of the U.N. and the majority of the world, on the basis of their posession of WMD, and the immediate threat that the nation posed.
- Status
