Iran may be biggest threat to Iraq: U.S. general - Page 2

Fear-And-Loathing · #11 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superbadbrutha

Was Iran a threat to Iraq before we got there?

How much control did Iran have in Iraq before we showed up on the scene?

E.Pluribus Unum

None, but this is not the point. Our President acted on intelligence presented, Iraq needed to be neutralised. This is not what I am arguing however, the reasoning is unimportant now. I am arguing that we need to stay until the Iraqi's can counter the Iranian, Turkish and other potential adversaries military and bids to seize Iraqi sovereignty.

Iran will gobble Iraq up if we leave. It's a Machivellian statement, but I think it is very true. Until the Iraqi's can fulfill the power vacuum, I will 100% support our efforts to achieve that goal. We owe it to the Iraqi's. Failure to recognise this will greatly undermine anything we do in the future.

Fear-And-Loathing · #12 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 05:27 AM

Quote:

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

So the Iraqi's know best? That's why they allowed Hussein to come to power, the leftovers from the Nazi occupation during WW2. We should have sorted it out then but we didnt. If you think that we are not responsible for the whole cunundrum in the Middle East, then you are very wrong indeed.

As long as they do the bidding of the US? No. Your are wrong there. You have not read my argument. The US should stay there until the Iraqi's can feel comfortable looking after themselves. This is not indefinite. There are certain parameters that will need to be met and they will as long as we stay.

The US cannot afford to retreat on this one. It's now gotten Hegemonic. We need to show we have the moxy to stick things out, otherwise other nations will prey in on us. I know this very reasoning is very Realist, but if history is an indicator of anything, Realism always prevails.

Oil is very important in this debate. Whoever fills the void of the US after we leave will definitely get Oil as a result. It should be Iraq, but many of you think it should be the other countries.

SenaxFlatulus · #13 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superbadbrutha

Was Iran a threat to Iraq before we got there?

Yes. Iran and Iraq went to war numerous times in the past 30 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by superbadbrutha

How much control did Iran have in Iraq before we showed up on the scene?

Iran is the defacto head of the Shi'ite movement of Islam. They are the leader of that sect of this particular religion since the Ayatolla came back to Iran during the Carter administration. They rule all Shi'ites (directly or by proxy) no matter what nationality. They did this while Saddam was in power, and he was brutal in keeping control over them when he could.

They're still trying to control Iraqi Shi'ites while we're in Iraq, but have begun to lose their degree of influence. DuH has posted recent threads regarding this which can be found in the "Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution" forum.

You should read more.

skeptic-f · #14 (**permalink**) 03-06-2008, 03:05 PM

Just a quick reality check, people. The Shia are the large majority of the Iraqi government we helped set up, and thus Iran has an automatic foot in the door in Iraq, for the reasons Senatus outlined. What's going to happen is that we will declare mission accomplished sooner (Democrat) or later (Republican) and if we are really stupid we'll keep a large base in Iraq.

About one to three years after the troops are gone, the power-sharing arrangement will break down and violence will break out between the Sunnis and the Shia (with both looking over their shoulder at the Kurds). The Saudis and the Gulf States will support the Sunnis while Iran will support the Shia and the ethnic cleansing will be impressive and the atrocities many. We'll be criticized if we interfere and we'll be criticized if we don't interfere, and oil prices will go up again.

Not much to show for all that time, money and American lives invested in Iraq.

superbadbrutha · #15 (**permalink**) 03-08-2008, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenaxFlatulus

Yes. Iran and Iraq went to war numerous times in the past 30 years.

Iran is the defacto head of the Shi'ite movement of Islam. They are the leader of that sect of this particular religion since the Ayatolla came back to Iran during the Carter administration. They rule all Shi'ites (directly or by proxy) no matter what nationality. They did this while Saddam was in power, and he was brutal in keeping control over them when he could.

They're still trying to control Iraqi Shi'ites while we're in Iraq, but have begun to lose their degree of influence. DuH has posted recent threads regarding this which can be found in the "Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution" forum.

You should read more.[/quote]

All that said Iran was not a threat to Iraq until we invaded Iraq and put in the shambles it is in today.

E.Pluribus Unum

superbadbrutha · #16 (**permalink**) 03-08-2008, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fear-And-Loathing

None, but this is not the point. Our President acted on intelligence presented, Iraq needed to be neutralised.

Did he really, or did he act the way he wanted too?

Quote:

This is not what I am arguing however, the reasoning is unimportant now.

NO Quit.

Quote:

I am arguing that we need to stay until the Iraqi's can counter the Iranian, Turkish and other potential adversaries military and bids to seize Iraqi sovereignty.

How long do you think that should be?

Quote:

Iran will gobble Iraq up if we leave. It's a Machivellian statement, but I think it is very true. Until the Iraqi's can fulfill the power vacuum, I will 100% support our efforts to achieve that goal. We owe it to the Iraqi's. Failure to recognise this will greatly undermine anything we do in the future.

How did they survive in the past? Iraq won't be Iraq again until they are forced to stand on their own two feet.

E.Pluribus Unum

Perham · #17 (**permalink**) 03-08-2008, 11:49 AM

it all looks to me like shrek and the village people. come on guys. US is eating iraq's oil.

SenaxFlatulus · #18 (**permalink**) 03-08-2008, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superbadbrutha

All that said Iran was not a threat to Iraq until we invaded Iraq and put in the shambles it is in today.

Not so. Iran and Iraq called a truce a few years before Iraq invaded Kuwait. Iran had been in an 8 year war with Saddam's Iraq and while they had leftover weapons supplied by the U.S. from the previous Shah regime, Saddam had LOTS more firepower recently purchased from Russia, Germany, France, and the U.S. Most notably he used nerve gas in that war against the Iranians, so the Iranians pretty much have an axe to grind with Iraq.

As you might have noticed in recent years, Iran has been trying to get a nuclear program going. Now that Saddam is out of the picture, they know that they can go into Iran much easier now with the added trump card of possession of a nuclear device. (Which is either in their hands now, or getting closer by the day)

They are now the most powerful nation in their region. There's not much that can stop them from expanding, except for the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, the EU, NATO, etc...

f0ca1 · #19 (**permalink**) 03-08-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenaxFlatulus

They are now the most powerful nation in their region. There's not much that can stop them from expanding, except for the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, the EU, NATO, etc...

One could argue that Saudi arabia is just as powerful, if not moreso.
But, we literally hold hands with that despot,for whatever reason.

The majority of foreign fighters in Iraq are from SA, not Iran.

Quote:

The analysis suggests that the bulk of foreign fighters originate from countries with whom the United States is allied – Saudi Arabia, for one – and also offers clues as to how American officials can stem the flow of these terrorists.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0107/p02s01-usmi.html

Moreover, the sectarian strife in Iraq has been described by some as a proxy war between SA and Iran.

This was not happening under the old regime.

While we're all kissy-kiss with the house of Saud, Amadinejad was greeted with full regalia on his visit to Iraq this week.

Is Iran a threat to peace and security in Iraq? Definitely.

Are others just as great a threat? Arguably.

Has our policy toward both nations lead to the situation? Undoubtedly.

SenaxFlatulus · #20 (**permalink**) 03-08-2008, 02:16 PM