Originally Posted by justabubba

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.



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