Iraq........again

[Timeline]

Is it me or are our troops never going to get out of that hell hole.
Yes the elections are planned for the new year, but now we have the americans planning a new offensive against the 'rebel' city of Fallujah, the polish pulling out in December and our own troops being moved from the relevant safety of Basra to the volatile north of Baghdad and beyond to support the yanks under american command. Now i know it has been catergorically denied that our troops would be sent to Fallujah, but who's to say that it won't happen in a couple of months time when the american army lose control of the situation and the insurgants rise up against them.

Good point, but personally I think pulling troops out of Iraq prematurely would be an injustice to those that have allready lost their life.

Either they shouldn't have gone in in the first place, or not be pulled out till the end.

[Timeline]

I'm not saying pull them out, just probably stating the obvious that once again our boys have to clean up the alliances mistakes. Personally I think it was the right thing to do to go to war, but since Baghdad fell to the alliance it has all gone t*ts up for both the brits and yanks.

[Sunday8pm]

This is what happens when your job description entails that work abroad comes and goes but when it arrives expect a long stint.

I mean it's not like you don't know your signing your life away when you join the Army.

[Summanus]

I think it's funny how Fox News has shifted it's intro to Iraq news from "War In Iraq" to lumping it as a part of the "War on Terror", which is inherently 'good'

The shit the yanks have pulled was never going to work. When occupying a country, you either have to properly conquer it, crushing all resistance and tolerating nothing, or not occupy it at all

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Mystic

I'm not saying pull them out, just probably stating the obvious that once again our boys have to clean up the alliances mistakes.

What alliance?

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Summanus

When occupying a country, you either have to properly conquer it, crushing all resistance and tolerating nothing, or not occupy it at all

Deportation works as well.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Deportation works as well.

Example please

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by Mystic

I'm not saying pull them out, just probably stating the obvious that once again our boys have to clean up the alliances mistakes. Personally I think it was the right thing to do to go to war, but since Baghdad fell to the alliance it has all gone t*ts up for both the brits and yanks.

I believe Iraq used to be part of mesopotamia, I believe 'our boys' created Iraq in the first place. I believe we tried to install a puppet monarchy so we could command some control of the abundant but at the time not easily tappable resources that they possesed. I believe this whole heapa shit that's getting screwed up worse by the day, that we ignored until others acted on it, was started by us and it snowballed from there.

Your point caller?

(UK does do this whole if I don't think about it, it isn't a problem shit till one of their buddies starts doing something about it cause it finally got on their nerves too much)

[skiddy]

Originally Posted by Leshy

What alliance?

Elysium, who have now started advertising in a rock bar in town.

[Sandsnake]

Lets put this into proper perspective: We've all been hanging out in the former Yugoslavia, which is relatively a utopia, for how long?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by skiddy

Elysium, who have now started advertising in a rock bar in town.

In pink lettering as well, if memory serves.

Oh, and there is never really going to be a 'pull-out' in Iraq. Once the Iraqi state has sufficently consolidated it's position that it has a properly functioning security and police service, then troop numbers will be brought down, but certainly The US is always going to have a continuous troop prescence there, although I would imagine that The UK will not.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Summanus

Example please

Assyria, ~1000-630BC.

[Mr_Blob]

The US will always have troops in Iraq as they do in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Saudi and Kuwait. However if you look into the reasons why they have troops in all these countries and the circumanstances in how they came to be there you'll see that they're needed there (or at least were until the cold war ended). If the US withdraws entirely from Iraq, even if Iraq has its own stable defence force Iran will invade. They'll invade on the basis of saying conditions in Iraq are crap for our fellow shia's and were going in there to make things better for them. They'll also convieniently expand their islamic state. The worst possible outcome for the world would be if the US brought all its troops home and left countries to bear their own defence costs.

[wu_trax]

iran will never invade. that makes no sence for them. they'd have the whole world against them, just like saddam when he invaded kuwait, so they wont, especially if you consider that they dont have much to gain. if there are really 'fair and free' elections in iraq, they could easily (inoffically) support one candidate, set up their own puppet goverment and more or less take over the whole country without any blood.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Mr_Blob

The US will always have troops in Iraq as they do in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Saudi and Kuwait. However if you look into the reasons why they have troops in all these countries and the circumanstances in how they came to be there you'll see that they're needed there (or at least were until the cold war ended). If the US withdraws entirely from Iraq, even if Iraq has its own stable defence force Iran will invade. They'll invade on the basis of saying conditions in Iraq are crap for our fellow shia's and were going in there to make things better for them. They'll also convieniently expand their islamic state. The worst possible outcome for the world would be if the US brought all its troops home and left countries to bear their own defence costs.

kinda like how the world collapsed into a communist anarchy after the US pulled out of Nam,
eh Comrade?

[Mr_Blob]

They'd have the whole world against them and what would the world do about it? Without the US doing anything the world would do nothing about it. They might moan about how its not right and it shouldnt be allowed but as for sending a coalition to force them out, would they do that? I dont think we'll see the Frech, German, Russian and Chinese coalition of good will for righting the worlds wrongs anytime soon.

Iran would gain oil. Something it needs for its energy production. Something it doesnt have enough of at the moment and thats why they're justifying why they need a nuclear program. Iran will develop nuclear weapons as soon as they get the chance, then they'll take the attitude of we've got nukes, stay out of our way or we'll use them. They're a fundamentalist state, do you think they'd care about the possibility of mutual destruction if they used their nukes? They'd take the view they're dying as martyrs.

If Iran did invade Iraq they wouldnt be restricted in terms of keeping law and order such as the US is at the moment. They could have their sharia law imposed and anyone who disobeyed could be shot. The world wouldnt create an uproar about it as thats what they expect from such people. Imagine if the US took on the policy of shooting anyone that was in their way. The TV's of the world would simeltaneously explode from the outraged news coverage. Iran is the biggest threat to the middle east and if the US leaves now there'd be no one there to stop them from doing what they like.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Mr_Blob

Iran would gain oil. Something it needs for its energy production. Something it doesnt have enough of at the moment and thats why they're justifying why they need a nuclear program.

Iran doesn't have enough oil?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Mr_Blob

They'd have the whole world against them and what would the world do about it? Without the US doing anything the world would do nothing about it. They might moan about how its not right and it shouldnt be allowed but as for sending a coalition to force them out, would they do that? I dont think we'll see the Frech, German, Russian and Chinese coalition of good will for righting the worlds wrongs anytime soon.

Iran would gain oil. Something it needs for its energy production. Something it doesnt have enough of at the moment and thats why they're justifying why they need a nuclear program. Iran will develop nuclear weapons as soon as they get the chance, then they'll take the attitude of we've got nukes, stay out of our way or we'll use them. They're a fundamentalist state, do you think they'd care about the possibility of mutual destruction if they used their nukes? They'd take the view they're dying as martyrs.

If Iran did invade Iraq they wouldnt be restricted in terms of keeping law and order such as the US is at the moment. They could have their sharia law imposed and anyone who disobeyed could be shot. The world wouldnt create an uproar about it as thats what they expect from such people. Imagine if the US took on the policy of shooting anyone that was in their way. The TV's of the world would simeltaneously explode from the outraged news coverage. Iran is the biggest threat to the middle east and if the US leaves now there'd be no one there to stop them from doing what they like.

they gain nothing. they can get a lot of influence over iraq without an invasion. in fact, if the american crussaders go on like they do right now theyll get the whole country for free !

Imagine if the US took on the policy of shooting anyone that was in their way

this is great, i have to emphasis this sentence. what the hell do you think they do right now? they dont give a shit about international law or the un, they just shoot everyone they dont like. who stops the us from doing what they like?
the iran is the biggest chance for peace in the middle east, if only we let them clean up their own mess and reform on their own, while staying independent of too much western influence.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Mr_Blob

If the US withdraws entirely from Iraq, even if Iraq has its own stable defence force Iran will invade.

You do realise that the Iranian leadership would have to be brain-dead to do this, as it would mean both international and American condemnation of such an action, followed by a swift invasion and toppling of the Iranian government?

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

Lets put this into proper perspective: We've all been hanging out in the former Yugoslavia, which is relatively a utopia, for how long?

Is that the way you want Iraq to go? Split into different countries depending on the ethnicity of the region?
I'm sure Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc would love that and wouldn't attack them...

It is the best idea though.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

You do realise that the Iranian leadership would have to be brain-dead to do this, as it would mean both international and American condemnation of such an action, followed by a swift invasion and toppling of the Iranian government?

Ah, so maybe the US will withdraw. Tempting Iran into invading then using this as an excuse to knock off another of the axis of evul.

There's no real point debating this until after the US elections.
Bush will never withdraw but Kerry might...
Can't really see it happening at all within the next few years though.

[madman2k30]

cmon if the US withdraw from Iraq they know they wont get the precious oil that they went in to iraq for! basically they went into iraq to conquer it not to reduce the risk of terrorism bush wont give up till he conquered the entire middle east oil reserve

[Phang]

Originally Posted by madman2k30

cmon if the US withdraw from Iraq they know they wont get the precious oil that they went in to iraq for! basically they went into iraq to conquer it not to reduce the risk of terrorism bush wont give up till he conquered the entire middle east oil reserve

oh shit it's you again.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Ste

Ah, so maybe the US will withdraw. Tempting Iran into invading then using this as an excuse to knock off another of the axis of evul.

It doesn't matter whether American troops are there in large numbers or not. Whilst the Iraqi government is an ally of America and is supposedly making democratic progress, Iran will not invade. It would be a death sentence to do such a thing.

When it comes to cold, hard diplomatic logic, the Iranian government is neither stupid nor fanatical.

[Ste]

I wasn't really being serious...
However if Iran develop some nice big weapons they may be seriously tempted.

[Mr_Blob]

Iran doesn't have enough oil?

Apparantly not. Thats why they want to build a nuclear power plant. For increasing their power generation capacity, but not for making nuclear weapons with.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Ste

However if Iran develop some nice big weapons they may be seriously tempted.

What, if Iran somehow manages to produce a handful of primitive nukes, then the top echelons of the Iranian government are suddenly going to say:

"Hey, you know, making Baghdad into a crater and bringing down the entire might of the international system upon us might be fun! "

"Sounds neat!"

"Let's do it already!"

*Roars of approval*

[Timeline]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

"Hey, you know, making Baghdad into a crater and bringing down the entire might of the international system upon us might be fun! "

"Sounds neat!"

"Let's do it already!"

*Roars of approval*

That actually sounds like the american and british pre war consultations

[Mr_Blob]

You do realise that the Iranian leadership would have to be brain-dead to do this, as it would mean both international and American condemnation of such an action, followed by a swift invasion and toppling of the Iranian government?

You seem to be missing my point. If the US pulls out of Iraq they wont go back. It would be like them going back to Vietnam in 1977. It just wouldnt happen. (Not because the military or inteligence services didnt want to, its all to do with public opinion). It'd be political suicide.
Now, without the possiblitiy of US intervention there would be no country in the world who would intervene to stop Iran from taking over Iraq. Due to reasons such as doesnt affect me directly (yet), dont care, cant be bothered dealing with crazy forieners.

[Mr_Blob]

What, if Iran somehow manages to produce a handful of primitive nukes, then the top echelons of the Iranian government are suddenly going to say:

"Hey, you know, making Baghdad into a crater and bringing down the entire might of the international system upon us might be fun! "

They wouldnt nuke baghdad, they'd threaten to use their nukes against europe or isreal if they intervened to stop their invasion. They have medium range missiles that would be in range of striking europe from western iraq.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Mr_Blob

You seem to be missing my point. If the US pulls out of Iraq they wont go back. It would be like them going back to Vietnam in 1977. It just wouldnt happen. (Not because the military or inteligence services didnt want to, its all to do with public opinion). It'd be political suicide.

This is true, however it was not the point I was addressing.

Originally Posted by Mr_Blob

Now, without the possiblitiy of US intervention there would be no country in the world who would intervene to stop Iran from taking over Iraq. Due to reasons such as doesnt affect me directly (yet), dont care, cant be bothered dealing with crazy forieners.

Nonsense. It would be Kuwait all over again. No-one under the present system abides an international agressor, particularly in such a sensitive area as that around Iran-Iraq. (And this is true just as much of the actual Middle Eastern states as much as it is of those in Europe, etc.)

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Mr_Blob

They wouldnt nuke baghdad, they'd threaten to use their nukes against europe or isreal if they intervened to stop their invasion.

Actually, it would never get anywhere near that, as The US would threaten to use overwhelming force against Iran should it's even detect a hint that Iran was planing something agressive.

Anyway, it's not going to happen, so it's pretty pointless discussing it.

[Mr_Blob]

cmon if the US withdraw from Iraq they know they wont get the precious oil that they went in to iraq for! basically they went into iraq to conquer it not to reduce the risk of terrorism bush wont give up till he conquered the entire middle east oil reserve

If they've gone in there to conquer for oil, why are they buying the oil from the iraqi's? The US could just take it without paying for it. If they've gone in there to conquer why didnt they level every village they went through and kill everyone they saw like the Nazi's did in WW2 Russia. Who in the world would stand up to them and say stop it or else?

[Ste]

So they're paying the Iraqi's, who are paying the american firms.
The firms give money to the government (donations, salaries etc)
So they're paying themselves for the oil.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Mr_Blob

If they've gone in there to conquer for oil, why are they buying the oil from the iraqi's? The US could just take it without paying for it. If they've gone in there to conquer why didnt they level every village they went through and kill everyone they saw like the Nazi's did in WW2 Russia. Who in the world would stand up to them and say stop it or else?

I don't agree with his opinion, but why does the act of looting inherently have to lack any subtetly whatsoever? The Nazis were so awful at looting precisely because they lacked all subtlety.

[Mr_Blob]

Anyway, it's not going to happen, so it's pretty pointless discussing it.

You're right, it is pointless. I disagree though, something like that will happen. Why? Nostrodamus! Im just trying to make all the pieces fit into what he's predicted. The prediction being an army of one million from persia sweeping bloody war through the middle east and europe all the way to france. Yada yada, all that..... hopefully that doesnt happen, it'd make a bit of a mess. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Mr_Blob

You're right, it is pointless. I disagree though, something like that will happen. Why? Nostrodamus! Im just trying to make all the pieces fit into what he's predicted. The prediction being an army of one million from persia sweeping bloody war through the middle east and europe all the way to france. Yada yada, all that..... hopefully that doesnt happen, it'd make a bit of a mess. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

You're basing your political outlook on the predictions of a man who lived centuries ago, and in any case is so wildy enigmatic that most of what he said could mean anything or bugger-all, and frequently does?

[Mr_Blob]

So they're paying the Iraqi's, who are paying the american firms.
The firms give money to the government (donations, salaries etc)
So they're paying themselves for the oil.

They spend more money on the oil then they pay out in salaries and donations.

[Mr_Blob]

You're basing your political outlook on the predictions of a man who lived centuries
ago, and in any case is so wildy enigmatic that most of what he said could mean anything or bugger-all, and frequently does?

Not really....... i just thought this would be a laugh to say to see what reaction i'd get. :-) What ive said i see as sound analysis of the situation at hand. We're all disadvantaged however because we all have to base our opinions on the infomation we get from the media. A terrible source really.....

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Ste

I wasn't really being serious...
However if Iran develop some nice big weapons they may be seriously tempted.

if you refer to their nuke-program, do you think they would have build them if bush wouldnt be on his crusade against the worlds evil?
nuclear weapons seem to be the only insurance against him you can get today (see north korea).

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

When it comes to cold, hard diplomatic logic, the Iranian government is neither stupid nor fanatical.

I think you can find a number of examples in just the past 100 years of stupid and fanatical governments, particularily as power becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer individuals.

Nonsense. It would be Kuwait all over again. No-one under the present system abides an international agressor, particularly in such a sensitive area as that around Iran-Iraq. (And this is true just as much of the actual Middle Eastern states as much as it is of those in Europe, etc.)

I'm sure many states would join such a coalition headed by the US, but without the US who's going to sign up to do the heavy lifting in a land war in Asia?

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

if you refer to their nuke-program, do you think they would have build them if bush wouldnt be on his crusade against the worlds evil?
nuclear weapons seem to be the only insurance against him you can get today (see north korea).

Since both North Korea and Iran began their nuclear programs before Bush was elected we shouldn't overlook their sinister powers of prescience.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I think you can find a number of examples in just the past 100 years of stupid and fanatical governments, particularily as power becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer individuals.

This has no relevance to my statement. I was speaking regarding specifically the Iranian government in foreign affairs. (Particularly on this issue.)

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I'm sure many states would join such a coalition headed by the US, but without the US who's going to sign up to do the heavy lifting in a land war in Asia?

I was working on the assumption that the US would neccesarily be opposed to it. (Which is would be.)

[Ste]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

if you refer to their nuke-program, do you think they would have build them if bush wouldnt be on his crusade against the worlds evil?
nuclear weapons seem to be the only insurance against him you can get today (see north korea).

They would probably have anyway, Iran especially as unless pressure is put on Israel to disarm, nearby countries feel threatened (rightly or wrongly).
I think if Bush had prioritised better then more pressure would have been put on Iran etc to halt the production rather than giving them extra reason to build them.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Since both North Korea and Iran began their nuclear programs before Bush was elected we shouldn't overlook their sinister powers of prescience.

iran started much later. the construction of that reactor they are trying to finish now was started before the revolution, but nothing happened there for quite a while, until bush gave his brilliant his axis of evil-speech

[StaticX]

I can't see Iran aining a nuclear capability any time soon, especially if Buch is re-elected. The first sniff of a rumour that Iran is close to finishing a nuke then a coalition army based in Iraq will be ready to go in and stop them.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by StaticX

I can't see Iran aining a nuclear capability any time soon, especially if Buch is re-elected. The first sniff of a rumour that Iran is close to finishing a nuke then a coalition army based in Iraq will be ready to go in and stop them.

Sniff
Of course there are enough troops in Iraq to win a battle in Iran
They have got themselves bogged down in Iraq. There's no way they could raise the amount of troops, support and morale needed for a foray into Iran.

[StaticX]

Originally Posted by Ste

Sniff
Of course there are enough troops in Iraq to win a battle in Iran
They have got themselves bogged down in Iraq. There's no way they could raise the amount of troops, support and morale needed for a foray into Iran.

note how I said 'a' rather than 'the' which implies that I wasn't refering to the soldiers who are alredy there. A lot can happen in 4 years. As for international support, Iran is the greater threat when compared to Iraq.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

iran started much later. the construction of that reactor they are trying to finish now was started before the revolution, but nothing happened there for quite a while, until bush gave his brilliant his axis of evil-speech

Iran began construction on their heavy water facility at Arak in 1996 and their enrichment facility at Natanz sometime in 2000. Bush's axis of evil speech was in 2002.