How's it going? According to a recent op-ed by Michael O’Hanlon and Ken Pollack in the New York Times, signs are positive: A War We Might Just Win. Pollack and O'Hanlon argue that the insurgency has been if not defeated, at least suppressed, that the Iraqi people have turned en masse against the Sunni militias in particular, and that Iraqi army is finally becoming an effective, independent force.
Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.
So, I was just watching Washington Week, and it turns out that that's not ture. What's down is the number of individual murders (like a guy found bound and shot), but the overall number of civilian fatalities have actually gone up.
How's it going? According to a recent op-ed by Michael O’Hanlon and Ken Pollack in the New York Times, signs are positive: A War We Might Just Win. Pollack and O'Hanlon argue that the insurgency has been if not defeated, at least suppressed, that the Iraqi people have turned en masse against the Sunni militias in particular, and that Iraqi army is finally becoming an effective, independent force.
Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.
So, I was just watching Washington Week, and it turns out that that's not ture. What's down is the number of individual murders (like a guy found bound and shot), but the overall number of civilian fatalities have actually gone up.
Whoops!
So, fewer murders, more explosions.
The insurgents are finally learning from us that if you want to really get things done, you're better off ignoring the trail of blood that you leave behind.
Well, one thing for sure is that life here sucks for the Iraqi people.
I've always been curious as to what exactly the Iraqi government does with it's time. All of the repairs and sevices that I've seen the people recieve have come out of our pockets.
I've always kinda had a theory on what would happen if we pulled out. The way I see it, Iran comes in to 'help' the people by finishing off the current government and all of AQ cries out in joy. Then the Iran army starts to get attacked with IED's by the Mujahadeen and the Mahdi Army's. Of coarse they retaliate, except with less restraint than us, cause it's not like they follow the Laws of War now is it? And then it just goes back and forth like we are doing now. And then AQ gets involved again as well, because they want a beautiful untopia based on 7th century Islamic law where free thinking is a capital crime. VIVA LA REVOLUTION.
Fuck I hate this place.
This is all speculation, but I don't think a post-coalition Iraq would be invaded by Iran, not outright at least. More likely, they'd attempt to bolster the cause of sympathetic Shi'a politicians like al-Sadr and the militias that back them. If a radical Shi'a cleric like al-Sadr came to power in Iraq, al-Qaeda would have the most to fear. Im sure they could resolve the security question by using brutal force against the Sunni and Kurdish minority.
One potential dilemma that the U.S. might face is: if, after pulling out, a radical Islamist Government does attain power and attempt to crush Kurdish/Sunni resistance, perhaps by forced expulsion or even genocide, how would the U.S respond?
Once we leave I think Al Qaeda's main reason to be there will disappear. Their chance of influences the Iraqi's is pretty slim. Their goals simply don't match with the local militias and the Iraqi's don't want outside meddlers.
Once we leave I think Al Qaeda's main reason to be there will disappear. Their chance of influences the Iraqi's is pretty slim. Their goals simply don't match with the local militias and the Iraqi's don't want outside meddlers.
It depends on which Al Qaeda you are talking about. The posers who just call themselves AQ will surely stop, but what about the radicals who want to create a unified 7th century muslim state in order to wipe all infidels from the face of the Earth? They are the ones that will bug whoever has power when the US leaves.
Mild Confusion on
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Once we leave I think Al Qaeda's main reason to be there will disappear. Their chance of influences the Iraqi's is pretty slim. Their goals simply don't match with the local militias and the Iraqi's don't want outside meddlers.
It depends on which Al Qaeda you are talking about. The posers who just call themselves AQ will surely stop, but what about the radicals who want to create a unified 7th century muslim state in order to wipe all infidels from the face of the Earth? They are the ones that will bug whoever has power when the US leaves.
What sort of numbers of these people actually exist, though? My impression has always sort of been that the bulk of the insurgency were indigenous Iraqis who didn't necessarily have any sort of crazy religious doctrine and were motivated more by nationalism.
saggio on
3DS: 0232-9436-6893
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
One potential dilemma that the U.S. might face is: if, after pulling out, a radical Islamist Government does attain power and attempt to crush Kurdish/Sunni resistance, perhaps by forced expulsion or even genocide, how would the U.S respond?
At this point unfortunately the public seems so jaded with the Iraqis that even if a genocide occured they'd prolly shrug their shoulders and say "fuck em! they're ungrateful and deserve it!" Typical American ignorance and arrogance that will come back to haunt us again and again.....God I just get SO FUCKING PISSED at this whole situation and my supposed "countrymen" who don't give a rats flying ass about anything but Britney Speares type horseshit and can't be bothered with knowing about or understanding the war that WE started or how the fuck things got so fucked up in the first place! Or better yet the slow creeping fascism that is spreading its taint across my homeland that has most people uncocerned or ignorant to the possbility of it even occuring. Not to mention our fearless "leaders" are either gutless or corrupt to the core.
You know honestly, it might be good if the US plunges in to Chaos. So we can get a taste of the despair we've heaped upon everyone else and see exactly how good we had it while simultanesouly taking it all for granted. Cynical? Yea. Pessimistic? Probablly. Misogynistic? Maybe. But I'm just so sick and fucking tired of our stupid bullshit! We have been destroying our country! Osama just needed to be the catalyst and we did everything else for him...*sigh*
Once we leave I think Al Qaeda's main reason to be there will disappear. Their chance of influences the Iraqi's is pretty slim. Their goals simply don't match with the local militias and the Iraqi's don't want outside meddlers.
It depends on which Al Qaeda you are talking about. The posers who just call themselves AQ will surely stop, but what about the radicals who want to create a unified 7th century muslim state in order to wipe all infidels from the face of the Earth? They are the ones that will bug whoever has power when the US leaves.
What sort of numbers of these people actually exist, though? My impression has always sort of been that the bulk of the insurgency were indigenous Iraqis who didn't necessarily have any sort of crazy religious doctrine and were motivated more by nationalism.
It's true that the religious nuts are few and far between, but they are still there. I've ran into what I call 'True Al Qaeda' here. For the most part they were either cell leaders or financers, but like I mentioned earlier, we got a very high ranking one last month (wish I could find the news article, it was on CNN). I've also 'ran' into a few suicide bombers.
But, the remainder and majority are either people that are poor and will plant bombs for money or the young punks that think it's cool to shoot at a HMMWV which are more like gang members who think doing that build street cred.
So even if Iran or someone takes over, they still have to deal with AQ, the poor, and street punks.
Mild Confusion on
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Yeah, there is no way Iran would invade if the US left, they simply dont have the manpower for something like that. Plus they know they would be opposed by the likes of Saudi Arabia and Israel (not like the Saudis and Israelis would be getting along, but they both hate Iran). More importantly though, Iran has no need to do that. I can just continue to send resources to the people it supports in Iraq, whoever they are. The majority of Iraq is Shia, just like Iran, and a Shia run theocracy would please both a lot of Iraqis and Iran (assuming they would be able to maintain security, which is totally up in the air).
Yeah, there is no way Iran would invade if the US left, they simply dont have the manpower for something like that. Plus they know they would be opposed by the likes of Saudi Arabia and Israel (not like the Saudis and Israelis would be getting along, but they both hate Iran). More importantly though, Iran has no need to do that. I can just continue to send resources to the people it supports in Iraq, whoever they are. The majority of Iraq is Shia, just like Iran, and a Shia run theocracy would please both a lot of Iraqis and Iran (assuming they would be able to maintain security, which is totally up in the air).
True but I don't think it's unimaginable that when(not if) we leave Iran and Saudi Arabia start to play power games behind the scenes to manipulate the Iraq government to their advantage.
That simply means that whatever we're getting out of our arrangement is worth more to us than outwardly preventing whatever actions their terrorist fringe can take against us. And if 9/11 is any indication, the benefits must be considerable. So although it's true that even now we fund the very groups with which we claim to be at war, it's reasonable to assume that the alternative would have had repercussions even less desirable. Or else why would we tolerate it?
Depends on what those benefits are I suppose. I really don't know what we get from Saudi Arabia, but I am pretty sure that it would be a big mistake for the US to completely cut off all ties to the middle east. Same thing with contries like Yemen and Eygpt.
Mild Confusion on
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Once we leave I think Al Qaeda's main reason to be there will disappear. Their chance of influences the Iraqi's is pretty slim. Their goals simply don't match with the local militias and the Iraqi's don't want outside meddlers.
It depends on which Al Qaeda you are talking about. The posers who just call themselves AQ will surely stop, but what about the radicals who want to create a unified 7th century muslim state in order to wipe all infidels from the face of the Earth? They are the ones that will bug whoever has power when the US leaves.
What sort of numbers of these people actually exist, though? My impression has always sort of been that the bulk of the insurgency were indigenous Iraqis who didn't necessarily have any sort of crazy religious doctrine and were motivated more by nationalism.
It's true that the religious nuts are few and far between, but they are still there. I've ran into what I call 'True Al Qaeda' here. For the most part they were either cell leaders or financers, but like I mentioned earlier, we got a very high ranking one last month (wish I could find the news article, it was on CNN). I've also 'ran' into a few suicide bombers.
But, the remainder and majority are either people that are poor and will plant bombs for money or the young punks that think it's cool to shoot at a HMMWV which are more like gang members who think doing that build street cred.
So even if Iran or someone takes over, they still have to deal with AQ, the poor, and street punks.
Also, Moqtada Al Sadr is opposed to Iranian control, so he'd be fighting them too for as long as his power held.
Essentially, they'd have no allies.
As an addition, the Saudi-Israeli alliance is more likely then you think. I remember that when Israel invaded Lebanon the Saudi's condemned Hezbollah but didn't condemn Israel until they were put under pressure. The leadership clearly understands that they might need to combine forces with the Israeli's some day.
As an addition, the Saudi-Israeli alliance is more likely then you think. I remember that when Israel invaded Lebanon the Saudi's condemned Hezbollah but didn't condemn Israel until they were put under pressure. The leadership clearly understands that they might need to combine forces with the Israeli's some day.
It's very unlikely; what would Israel provide for Saudi Arabia? An easy way to piss a very large number of people off?
To ask a somewhat related question: the US eventually withdraws from Iraq in an occupying sense (but I'm guessing maintains a heavy detachment around their embassy as Australia does at the moment) - what happens to Afghanistan?
To ask a somewhat related question: the US eventually withdraws from Iraq in an occupying sense (but I'm guessing maintains a heavy detachment around their embassy as Australia does at the moment) - what happens to Afghanistan?
What's Afghanistan? o_O
Seriously, though, who the fuck knows? We should have had three times the troop level in Afghanistan that we had in Iraq (more people, more land, and Osama bin Laden was somewhere near there) this whole fucking time.
And the very economic infrastructures whose icons their terrorist cells target are made stronger for it. So they get funding for their little holy war and we get a thriving economy with which to consolidate our influence. Sounds like symbiosis to me.
I should have clarified, I know we get oil from the Saudies, I meant what else is there? I know we give them money for weapons too.
After the eventual Iraq pullout, we will still be in Afghanistan.
We do not give the Saudis money for weapons.
They buy their weapons from us. We make quite a profit.
What was that crap in the news about the US giving Saudi Arabia and Isreal around 30 billion dollars over ten years? It was something like that.
We already give Israel $2.4 billion a year. Now we're going to give them 3.0 billion a year. Israel traditionaly didn't want us to sell any weapons systems to the Saudis or the Egyptians, but Iran is becoming a bigger threat. So now we'll sell $20 billion worth of weapons to them.
It's very unlikely; what would Israel provide for Saudi Arabia? An easy way to piss a very large number of people off?
If you're going to get involved in a war it might be a good idea to have the worlds most advanced military on your side.
Not the people as much as the technology.
It's very unlikely; what would Israel provide for Saudi Arabia? An easy way to piss a very large number of people off?
If you're going to get involved in a war it might be a good idea to have the worlds most advanced military on your side.
Not the people as much as the technology.
Why didn't they do it when the Iraqi army was standing at their borders? Why was Saddam trying to get this advanced military involved? Because wars always have political goals, and the political costs of having Israel on your side are extraordinarily high. And a war in Iraq will not be Israel's kind of war. It's going to be a nasty low-tech war, not a bomb 'em from high affair, and air power will be worth less than what it already does. It'd much more valuable to have Hezbollah training your fighters than an ally with some F-16s and a lot of baggage on your side.
No, Saudi Arabia didn't they speak out as soon as the Lebanon war started, because they don't like Hezbollah. They don't like what Hezbollah represents; the Shia resurgence in the middle east, and actors going against the status-quo. But it's all about Saudi Arabia's status as the 'leader of the Muslim world'; how could that go up with them tag-teaming with Israel against another Arab/Muslim faction? It wouldn't.
It's very unlikely; what would Israel provide for Saudi Arabia? An easy way to piss a very large number of people off?
If you're going to get involved in a war it might be a good idea to have the worlds most advanced military on your side.
Not the people as much as the technology.
Why didn't they do it when the Iraqi army was standing at their borders? Why was Saddam trying to get this advanced military involved? Because wars always have political goals, and the political costs of having Israel on your side are extraordinarily high. And a war in Iraq will not be Israel's kind of war. It's going to be a nasty low-tech war, not a bomb 'em from high affair, and air power will be worth less than what it already does. It'd much more valuable to have Hezbollah training your fighters than an ally with some F-16s and a lot of baggage on your side.
No, Saudi Arabia didn't they speak out as soon as the Lebanon war started, because they don't like Hezbollah. They don't like what Hezbollah represents; the Shia resurgence in the middle east, and actors going against the status-quo. But it's all about Saudi Arabia's status as the 'leader of the Muslim world'; how could that go up with them tag-teaming with Israel against another Arab/Muslim faction? It wouldn't.
In conclusion, your are the wrongest person ever.
The tech isn't just a bunch of F-16's, its also some of the best anti-terrorist technology and training on the face of the planet. Israel has been snooping around keeping track of the PLO for about a decade now. They put a rocket into Arafat's compound while he was sitting in the next room. Saudi Arabia isn't going to officially ally itself with Israel, it could just turn the other cheek when Israel invades Iran or takes out Al-Sadr. Or they could just have tremendous luck in catching Shia insurgents, being at the right place at the right time to take everyone out.
Also, who do they have left to piss off? The populace already is divided into Wahhabists who won't like them no matter what they do and loyalists who will stay loyal no matter what. The middle east is divided into countries who's leadership would love them for taking out the upstarts and generally kicking terrorist butt (Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan) and the countries that they are going to shadowbox with whether they have Israeli help or not (Syria, Iran)
So no, an Israeli alliance doesn't mean that Netanyahu is hugging the crown prince, but Israel has quite a bit to offer in covert ops and if this is a war that you need to win (Iranian victory=more terrorism=eventual toppling of the Saudi government by Wahabists with Iranian help who will turn Saudi Arabia and the world into a nightmare
It's very unlikely; what would Israel provide for Saudi Arabia? An easy way to piss a very large number of people off?
If you're going to get involved in a war it might be a good idea to have the worlds most advanced military on your side.
Not the people as much as the technology.
Why didn't they do it when the Iraqi army was standing at their borders? Why was Saddam trying to get this advanced military involved? Because wars always have political goals, and the political costs of having Israel on your side are extraordinarily high. And a war in Iraq will not be Israel's kind of war. It's going to be a nasty low-tech war, not a bomb 'em from high affair, and air power will be worth less than what it already does. It'd much more valuable to have Hezbollah training your fighters than an ally with some F-16s and a lot of baggage on your side.
No, Saudi Arabia didn't they speak out as soon as the Lebanon war started, because they don't like Hezbollah. They don't like what Hezbollah represents; the Shia resurgence in the middle east, and actors going against the status-quo. But it's all about Saudi Arabia's status as the 'leader of the Muslim world'; how could that go up with them tag-teaming with Israel against another Arab/Muslim faction? It wouldn't.
In conclusion, your are the wrongest person ever.
The tech isn't just a bunch of F-16's, its also some of the best anti-terrorist technology and training on the face of the planet. Israel has been snooping around keeping track of the PLO for about a decade now. They put a rocket into Arafat's compound while he was sitting in the next room. Saudi Arabia isn't going to officially ally itself with Israel, it could just turn the other cheek when Israel invades Iran or takes out Al-Sadr. Or they could just have tremendous luck in catching Shia insurgents, being at the right place at the right time to take everyone out.
How high are you, right now? How in the world could Israel invade Iran?
And I very much doubt Israel has many human assets in Iraq. It's easy to keep track of everyone in a tiny strip of land right next to you.
Also, who do they have left to piss off? The populace already is divided into Wahhabists who won't like them no matter what they do and loyalists who will stay loyal no matter what. The middle east is divided into countries who's leadership would love them for taking out the upstarts and generally kicking terrorist butt (Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan) and the countries that they are going to shadowbox with whether they have Israeli help or not (Syria, Iran)
Who does Saudi Arabia have to piss off? Saudi Arabia has a pretty good reqputation in the Arab world. It's been tarnished a bit by their inaction in Palestine and Lebanon, but there's a lot of prestige that comes with being the home of the holy places, and then spend many billions in charity in the Muslim world. Maybe you're getting its image in America confused for its image in the Middle East.
How high are you, right now? How in the world could Israel invade Iran?
And I very much doubt Israel has many human assets in Iraq. It's easy to keep track of everyone in a tiny strip of land right next to you.
Sorry, shouldn't have used invade. Something like blowing up the Iranian nuclear program.
And Israel isn't in Iraq to a large extent because they want the same thing that the US does right now. If the US leaves then Israel wants to keep the country out of Iran's hands, because they are the most likely to take over the majority of Iraq and Israel hates Iran more anyway, considering they're the new terrorist donor state on the block.
Also, Saudi leadership seems to be miles away from the Saudi people. Saudi leadership seems to be a bunch of greedy cunts who want to stay in power so they can tap their oil, same as any oil state. The Saudi people, rich and poor, are a pool of potential terrorists and terrorist donors. This could also just be kept a secret, and the Israeli's are pretty good at making sure a secret doesn't get told.
How high are you, right now? How in the world could Israel invade Iran?
And I very much doubt Israel has many human assets in Iraq. It's easy to keep track of everyone in a tiny strip of land right next to you.
Sorry, shouldn't have used invade. Something like blowing up the Iranian nuclear program.
And Israel isn't in Iraq to a large extent because they want the same thing that the US does right now. If the US leaves then Israel wants to keep the country out of Iran's hands, because they are the most likely to take over the majority of Iraq and Israel hates Iran more anyway, considering they're the new terrorist donor state on the block.
Also, Saudi leadership seems to be miles away from the Saudi people. Saudi leadership seems to be a bunch of greedy cunts who want to stay in power so they can tap their oil, same as any oil state. The Saudi people, rich and poor, are a pool of potential terrorists and terrorist donors. This could also just be kept a secret, and the Israeli's are pretty good at making sure a secret doesn't get told.
Saudi Arabia can't do much but watch if Israel decides to bomb Iran, and if Israel does they might be a happy about it, but not too much. It isn't actually bad for Iran to get bombed by Israel; Israel won't be able to destroy their program, just temporarily set it back, and it puts them in a better political situation, both domestically and regionally. Saudi Arabia wouldn't shed a tear if Iran got bombed, but they wouldn't want it to happen.
And Israel can't do much about Iran's influence in Iran, because again, it's political. You can't bomb history out of people. The question is how much influence it'll have, and again, that's mostly political, and I doubt Israel could help with the bit of it that's not. How impressive was their Intelligence Gathering Machine of Doom the last time they needed something that wasn't in the Gaza strip? The little foray into Lebanon was a big success, wasn't it? Involving Israel has too much risk, and a reward that based mostly on a lot of hype. Iran and its allies have more than rocks.
And the Saudi leadership is greedy, but also care about their stability and their position of leadership, and both are quite good at the moment.
I should have clarified, I know we get oil from the Saudies, I meant what else is there? I know we give them money for weapons too.
After the eventual Iraq pullout, we will still be in Afghanistan.
We do not give the Saudis money for weapons.
They buy their weapons from us. We make quite a profit.
What was that crap in the news about the US giving Saudi Arabia and Isreal around 30 billion dollars over ten years? It was something like that.
We already give Israel $2.4 billion a year. Now we're going to give them 3.0 billion a year. Israel traditionaly didn't want us to sell any weapons systems to the Saudis or the Egyptians, but Iran is becoming a bigger threat. So now we'll sell $20 billion worth of weapons to them.
Actually the US gives about 6 billion a year to Israel. Some of it in the form of cash, some in the form of weapons.
Israel had no issues selling weapons to Iran, and buying oil in return, twenty odd years ago.
If the US invades Iran, Israel will be right there. Same thing if it goes the other way. Isreal decides it's time to deal with them, the US will back Israel up.
I personally want to be in the invading force, but that's just me.
I'm still not sure if there will be a political way out of this mess with Iran. Sure, they say that they have no interest in making nuclear weapons (yeah right) but they sure as hell have stated many times that they would love to remove Israel from the face of the Earth.
Guess time will tell.
Mild Confusion on
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
If the US invades Iran, Israel will be right there. Same thing if it goes the other way. Isreal decides it's time to deal with them, the US will back Israel up.
I personally want to be in the invading force, but that's just me.
Well, Iraq and Lebanon were such cakewalks that it stands to reason that someone would want to try the whole thing again on a bigger and more populous country. All the success of the of the two on a grand scale. It would be truly epic.
If the US invades Iran, Israel will be right there. Same thing if it goes the other way. Isreal decides it's time to deal with them, the US will back Israel up.
I personally want to be in the invading force, but that's just me.
I'm still not sure if there will be a political way out of this mess with Iran. Sure, they say that they have no interest in making nuclear weapons (yeah right) but they sure as hell have stated many times that they would love to remove Israel from the face of the Earth.
Guess time will tell.
If I were Iran, I'd be going for nuclear weapons, too.
Dubya named three countries in the Axis of Evil: one of them was jumping up and down, shouting "I've got nuclear weapons! I've got nuclear weapons!" Another, we knew for a fact did not have nuclear weapons. Which one did we invade?
That really gives Iran a huge incentive to avoid nuclear technology, doesn't it?
Israel in Iraq or Iran reminds me a lot of the beginning of the pre-Iraq war talk. Surely, if we ignore all history and politics of the region, this endeavor might not be a disaster. Surely.
Posts
So, I was just watching Washington Week, and it turns out that that's not ture. What's down is the number of individual murders (like a guy found bound and shot), but the overall number of civilian fatalities have actually gone up.
Whoops!
So, fewer murders, more explosions.
The insurgents are finally learning from us that if you want to really get things done, you're better off ignoring the trail of blood that you leave behind.
What the hell are you talking about Pic?
I mean its not like they've done it before or anything.
(I'm pretty dismissive of the SURRRRRGE as too little, too late.)
This is all speculation, but I don't think a post-coalition Iraq would be invaded by Iran, not outright at least. More likely, they'd attempt to bolster the cause of sympathetic Shi'a politicians like al-Sadr and the militias that back them. If a radical Shi'a cleric like al-Sadr came to power in Iraq, al-Qaeda would have the most to fear. Im sure they could resolve the security question by using brutal force against the Sunni and Kurdish minority.
One potential dilemma that the U.S. might face is: if, after pulling out, a radical Islamist Government does attain power and attempt to crush Kurdish/Sunni resistance, perhaps by forced expulsion or even genocide, how would the U.S respond?
It depends on which Al Qaeda you are talking about. The posers who just call themselves AQ will surely stop, but what about the radicals who want to create a unified 7th century muslim state in order to wipe all infidels from the face of the Earth? They are the ones that will bug whoever has power when the US leaves.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
What sort of numbers of these people actually exist, though? My impression has always sort of been that the bulk of the insurgency were indigenous Iraqis who didn't necessarily have any sort of crazy religious doctrine and were motivated more by nationalism.
At this point unfortunately the public seems so jaded with the Iraqis that even if a genocide occured they'd prolly shrug their shoulders and say "fuck em! they're ungrateful and deserve it!" Typical American ignorance and arrogance that will come back to haunt us again and again.....God I just get SO FUCKING PISSED at this whole situation and my supposed "countrymen" who don't give a rats flying ass about anything but Britney Speares type horseshit and can't be bothered with knowing about or understanding the war that WE started or how the fuck things got so fucked up in the first place! Or better yet the slow creeping fascism that is spreading its taint across my homeland that has most people uncocerned or ignorant to the possbility of it even occuring. Not to mention our fearless "leaders" are either gutless or corrupt to the core.
You know honestly, it might be good if the US plunges in to Chaos. So we can get a taste of the despair we've heaped upon everyone else and see exactly how good we had it while simultanesouly taking it all for granted. Cynical? Yea. Pessimistic? Probablly. Misogynistic? Maybe. But I'm just so sick and fucking tired of our stupid bullshit! We have been destroying our country! Osama just needed to be the catalyst and we did everything else for him...*sigh*
It's true that the religious nuts are few and far between, but they are still there. I've ran into what I call 'True Al Qaeda' here. For the most part they were either cell leaders or financers, but like I mentioned earlier, we got a very high ranking one last month (wish I could find the news article, it was on CNN). I've also 'ran' into a few suicide bombers.
But, the remainder and majority are either people that are poor and will plant bombs for money or the young punks that think it's cool to shoot at a HMMWV which are more like gang members who think doing that build street cred.
So even if Iran or someone takes over, they still have to deal with AQ, the poor, and street punks.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
True but I don't think it's unimaginable that when(not if) we leave Iran and Saudi Arabia start to play power games behind the scenes to manipulate the Iraq government to their advantage.
Or are we in their pocket?
If they were in our pocket we wouldn't look the other way on their state's involvement in terrorism
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Also, Moqtada Al Sadr is opposed to Iranian control, so he'd be fighting them too for as long as his power held.
Essentially, they'd have no allies.
As an addition, the Saudi-Israeli alliance is more likely then you think. I remember that when Israel invaded Lebanon the Saudi's condemned Hezbollah but didn't condemn Israel until they were put under pressure. The leadership clearly understands that they might need to combine forces with the Israeli's some day.
More than jsut the physcial stuff itself the Saudis have a commanding influence in OPEC and thus the oil prices.
SCIRI.
It's very unlikely; what would Israel provide for Saudi Arabia? An easy way to piss a very large number of people off?
Seriously, though, who the fuck knows? We should have had three times the troop level in Afghanistan that we had in Iraq (more people, more land, and Osama bin Laden was somewhere near there) this whole fucking time.
After the eventual Iraq pullout, we will still be in Afghanistan.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
They buy their weapons from us. We make quite a profit.
What was that crap in the news about the US giving Saudi Arabia and Isreal around 30 billion dollars over ten years? It was something like that.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
We already give Israel $2.4 billion a year. Now we're going to give them 3.0 billion a year. Israel traditionaly didn't want us to sell any weapons systems to the Saudis or the Egyptians, but Iran is becoming a bigger threat. So now we'll sell $20 billion worth of weapons to them.
If you're going to get involved in a war it might be a good idea to have the worlds most advanced military on your side.
Not the people as much as the technology.
Why didn't they do it when the Iraqi army was standing at their borders? Why was Saddam trying to get this advanced military involved? Because wars always have political goals, and the political costs of having Israel on your side are extraordinarily high. And a war in Iraq will not be Israel's kind of war. It's going to be a nasty low-tech war, not a bomb 'em from high affair, and air power will be worth less than what it already does. It'd much more valuable to have Hezbollah training your fighters than an ally with some F-16s and a lot of baggage on your side.
No, Saudi Arabia didn't they speak out as soon as the Lebanon war started, because they don't like Hezbollah. They don't like what Hezbollah represents; the Shia resurgence in the middle east, and actors going against the status-quo. But it's all about Saudi Arabia's status as the 'leader of the Muslim world'; how could that go up with them tag-teaming with Israel against another Arab/Muslim faction? It wouldn't.
In conclusion, your are the wrongest person ever.
The tech isn't just a bunch of F-16's, its also some of the best anti-terrorist technology and training on the face of the planet. Israel has been snooping around keeping track of the PLO for about a decade now. They put a rocket into Arafat's compound while he was sitting in the next room. Saudi Arabia isn't going to officially ally itself with Israel, it could just turn the other cheek when Israel invades Iran or takes out Al-Sadr. Or they could just have tremendous luck in catching Shia insurgents, being at the right place at the right time to take everyone out.
Also, who do they have left to piss off? The populace already is divided into Wahhabists who won't like them no matter what they do and loyalists who will stay loyal no matter what. The middle east is divided into countries who's leadership would love them for taking out the upstarts and generally kicking terrorist butt (Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan) and the countries that they are going to shadowbox with whether they have Israeli help or not (Syria, Iran)
So no, an Israeli alliance doesn't mean that Netanyahu is hugging the crown prince, but Israel has quite a bit to offer in covert ops and if this is a war that you need to win (Iranian victory=more terrorism=eventual toppling of the Saudi government by Wahabists with Iranian help who will turn Saudi Arabia and the world into a nightmare
And I very much doubt Israel has many human assets in Iraq. It's easy to keep track of everyone in a tiny strip of land right next to you.
Who does Saudi Arabia have to piss off? Saudi Arabia has a pretty good reqputation in the Arab world. It's been tarnished a bit by their inaction in Palestine and Lebanon, but there's a lot of prestige that comes with being the home of the holy places, and then spend many billions in charity in the Muslim world. Maybe you're getting its image in America confused for its image in the Middle East.
And Israel isn't in Iraq to a large extent because they want the same thing that the US does right now. If the US leaves then Israel wants to keep the country out of Iran's hands, because they are the most likely to take over the majority of Iraq and Israel hates Iran more anyway, considering they're the new terrorist donor state on the block.
Also, Saudi leadership seems to be miles away from the Saudi people. Saudi leadership seems to be a bunch of greedy cunts who want to stay in power so they can tap their oil, same as any oil state. The Saudi people, rich and poor, are a pool of potential terrorists and terrorist donors. This could also just be kept a secret, and the Israeli's are pretty good at making sure a secret doesn't get told.
Saudi Arabia can't do much but watch if Israel decides to bomb Iran, and if Israel does they might be a happy about it, but not too much. It isn't actually bad for Iran to get bombed by Israel; Israel won't be able to destroy their program, just temporarily set it back, and it puts them in a better political situation, both domestically and regionally. Saudi Arabia wouldn't shed a tear if Iran got bombed, but they wouldn't want it to happen.
And Israel can't do much about Iran's influence in Iran, because again, it's political. You can't bomb history out of people. The question is how much influence it'll have, and again, that's mostly political, and I doubt Israel could help with the bit of it that's not. How impressive was their Intelligence Gathering Machine of Doom the last time they needed something that wasn't in the Gaza strip? The little foray into Lebanon was a big success, wasn't it? Involving Israel has too much risk, and a reward that based mostly on a lot of hype. Iran and its allies have more than rocks.
And the Saudi leadership is greedy, but also care about their stability and their position of leadership, and both are quite good at the moment.
Actually the US gives about 6 billion a year to Israel. Some of it in the form of cash, some in the form of weapons.
Israel had no issues selling weapons to Iran, and buying oil in return, twenty odd years ago.
I personally want to be in the invading force, but that's just me.
I'm still not sure if there will be a political way out of this mess with Iran. Sure, they say that they have no interest in making nuclear weapons (yeah right) but they sure as hell have stated many times that they would love to remove Israel from the face of the Earth.
Guess time will tell.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Well, Iraq and Lebanon were such cakewalks that it stands to reason that someone would want to try the whole thing again on a bigger and more populous country. All the success of the of the two on a grand scale. It would be truly epic.
Dubya named three countries in the Axis of Evil: one of them was jumping up and down, shouting "I've got nuclear weapons! I've got nuclear weapons!" Another, we knew for a fact did not have nuclear weapons. Which one did we invade?
That really gives Iran a huge incentive to avoid nuclear technology, doesn't it?