duh posts an article that shows mahmoud ahmadinejad moves freely thru iraq in a way no western offical could and then posits "If Iran quit Iraq would be even better off then [sic] it already is". that is absurd on its face. the iranian president was a welcomed guest of the puppet government we have propped up at great expense of blood and treasure.
if nothing else proves that the problems remaining in iraq are political and not military in nature then this circumstance, where iraq thumbed its nose at the USA while hosting ahmadinejad, should be proof of it.
those iraqi officials realize that the end game is near; at some near term date US soldiers will no longer be fighting their civil war on their behalf. the shiiteheads recognize that they need to form an alliance with the other shiaa leaders in the region if they are to survive as the dominant power in iraq.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear-And-Loathing
Iran would benefit if we left. It would be able to control the Iraqi government by forming links (which already exist) with the Shia Iraqis. This will then ultimately lead to Iran gaining Iraq's Oil. TUrkey would move into the North, Saudi Arabia might join on the fun. Worse case scenario, but it's floating around I think in a lot of peoples heads on both sides.
So we are filling a power vacuum. We owe it to the Iraqi's to stay there until their country is able to fill the vacuum. If Iran is undermining these efforts, then Iran must be confronted. We need to link Iran directly to the undermining of our efforst in Iraq. Get everyone in on it, get all the major players in on the action and sort it out.
|
as one should see from my comments above i absolutely disagree with everything posted by fear et al. look at the gobbledygook: "... forming links (which already exist)" duh huh? fear et al would have us stay in iraq indefinately to prevent the formation of an alliance which he recognizes already exists. there is NO logic there. from there he makes the leap that the iraqis will turn over their nation's oil to iran. fear et al believes that if we left iraq the other powers in the middle east would converge to sort things out. isn't that something we would want? but instead, like rumsfeld, he thinks we know better than the iraqis what they need. but then he turns around and insists we need to get the other players involved in sorting things out. to try to sort thru his argument it appears he wants the other regional players to involve themselves in iraqi affairs only so long as they do by following the bidding of the US. how absurd