Well, now that the election has happened there’s going to be a Shiite majority, so they’ll have some significant influence over policy.
I think the first thing they’ll do is reestablish relations with Iran.
Will Bush go along with that?
Now they don’t particularly like Iran, but they don’t want to go to war with them so they’ll move toward what was happening already even under Saddam, that is, restoring some sort of friendly relations with Iran.
That’s the last thing the US wants. It has worked very hard to try to isolate Iran.
The next thing that might happen is that a Shiite-controlled, more or less democratic Iraq might stir up feelings in the Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia, which happens to be right nearby and which happen to be where all the oil is. So you might find what in Washington must be the ultimate nightmare—a Shiite region which controls most of the world’s oil and is independent.
So how long do you think our troops will stay?
Come on neocon's, what is your take on this?
"Well, now that the election has happened there’s going to be a Shiite majority, so they’ll have some significant influence over policy.
I think the first thing they’ll do is reestablish relations with Iran.
Will Bush go along with that?" .............................................Any reason to believe he wouldn't? You can speculate all you want but we don't even know the makeup of the new government yet!
We'll still be there at the end of Bush's term, and I mean in a MAJOR way.So how long do you think our troops will stay?
there will be an american presence there for the forseeable future. hopefully us troops are pulled out of most of the cities and security is handed off more and more to the iraqis.
Yeah, probably in the way we're still in Germany; as an allied force with permanent bases.We'll still be there at the end of Bush's term, and I mean in a MAJOR way.
what other countries will we be exporting democracy to and establishing a permanent presence in?
Come on Yonivore, you can do better then that.
I would have expected better responses from you and Neo-Con.
Better than what?
You and your ilk (if not you specifically) were saying there'd be tens of thousands of body bags coming out of Iraq if we invaded; that the election of Sunday would never happen.
You misunderstimated him again. Didn't you?
Respond to my post.
Stop ducking the issue and answer the question.
actually i believe the criticism against the war was based on the notion that it would spawn more terrorism and that it violated some precepts of international law, as well as the potential body count. i mean 1400 killed and thousands more wounded isnt insignificant to me
as for the election man drop that strawman already
I was responding to office handle, not you. Your post asked for a response from neocons, and I'm not one.
But, what do you want to know? Iraq is a free and independent nation, if they decide to formalize relations with Iran I would imagine the President wouldn't have much to say about it other than, we wish you wouldn't.
However, considering they ain't kicking us out of the country now that they're free -- even though the American media tried to instigate that fight -- say alot about how Iraq may view their future international relationships...even with other Shi'ite nations.
But, again, the makeup of elected officials isn't yet known. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
We lost over 5,000 men on the beaches at Normandy in one day to free another region of the world from tyranny.
You're right, it isn't insignificant but the argument should never be about body counts. Argue, instead, over the legitimacy of the military action. If it's legitimate, the price in human costs -- no matter what it might be -- is worth paying. If it's not, one life is an atrocity.
As far as spawning more terrorism; while there may have been an upswing shortly after the President laid out his "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive action and then set about enforcing it, I (and many others) believe it has peaked and the terrorist significance is on the decline.
I mean, they're kidnapping toys now...c'mon.
There's no international law covering this. And, anyone who says there is, is making it up. All the international community can do is 1) prevent us from doing what we are determined to do (fat chance), 2) condemn our actions (blow it out your pie hole), or 3) retaliate ()
actually there is plenty of precedent with respect to the soverignty of nations. i'll agree that in practice the enforcement of such law is pretty much arbitrary or in the hands of the most powerful.
i have no problem disregarding the intrincacies of international law if it is in the national interest, but, again, thats what going into iraq was supposed to be about, not "exporting democracy" or human rights.
if I'm not mistaken, enforcing the international community's standards (in the form of 17 UNSC resolutions) was at the very top of the list of reasons to authorize force in Iraq.
On 1/17/03, Bush specifically tied the invasion of Iraq to a need to disarm that government. He mentioned liberation only as a consequence of that action, not a justification for taking action in the first instance.
I agree. The reasons for attacking Iraq have changed from WMD, links to 9/11, to removal of a dictator, to finally the liberation of Iraq.
we were in bosnia for 10 years.. now we only have a few hundred soldiers left... iraq, i see for at least 3-5 more years...
I don't think they've changed, I think the left is moving the target and reporting on different rationale once the President achieves a goal they harped was unachievable.
I clearly remember this President talking about liberating an oppressed people of Iraq, very early on.
Could it be this war was about more than just one thing and the lefty whiners can't seem to focus on more than one thing at a time?
I do too, perhaps even longer just to keep military forces in that region.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
