pedex

thread title is: "McCain says Iraq would pose a grave threat to the world if we left", my take is your agreeing with it as posted

Well one would think if Iran is the big bad boogey man national enemy of ours I would assume we would at least know and understand what is going on in their country and what they are capable of, yes? Yet this kind of thing always gets left out of this kind of discussion, why is that? Maybe it's cause if you take a look at Iran they are in pretty bad shape really. The past has EVERYTHING to do with where to go and what to do next.

Take for example the subject of sanctions, if you have been following this for the last few years and understand how F'd up Iran is economically some things might make some sense. The US as of yet hasn't really pushed as hard as it could for sanctions, but what has been done so far has had it's effects and the Iranians fear it very much, they have the same achilles heel we have, fuel. They import a big chunk of their fuel and their economy is weak, govt dysfunctional and F'd(just like ours, imagine that). They are suffering basically the same scale of problems Mexico is right now with a few added issues. Fuel in Iran is subsidized to the tune of 1 liter costs 11 cents US roughly, max monthly allotment under rationing is 120 liters per month last I heard. Their oil industry is a wreck and loses around 1 million bpd just to leakage and theft LOL. Their govt spends like 1/3rd of its budget to just buy fuel which it sells at a huge loss, and they are doing it with a stagnant economy and little hope at this point of turning this around without big big social changes and world cooperation which they are not getting. Sound familiar? It should, we are looking at the same fate at some point. Wikipedia is showing their inflation rate around 14% and unemployment at 11%(2004 numbers). Seems Ahmidinejad has doing a good job running their economy into the ground too. Sorry, but this isn't the kind of country that poses a "grave" threat to anyone cept themselves. Armies today run on fuel, lots and lots of fuel, they simply do not have it, nor can they economically afford it. They do have lots of conscripts, however if the Iran-Iraq war is any indication I wouldn't count on them fighting too hard for anything cept their own survival if invaded. They spend a whopping $91 per capita on military, less than ANY other gulf state cept the UAE according to wiki.

Take over Iraq? by Iran, nonsense, the US hasn't even been able to pull that off. Its been there 5 years and still doesn't have much control. Biggest baddest toughest country with money to burn, and here we are with a world class clusterfuck, oh but Iran can just take over? Doubt it. The Sunni's backed by Saudi Arabia, the Kurds, and even some Shia wouldn't go for that.

Oil industry doesn't just magically up and appear and go into business, it needs expertise, capital investment, and just as importantly peaceful conditions to operate in. Iran can't pull that off in Iraq. Can't even do it in its own house, apparently.

Al Queada? small loosely connected group with safe haven in the tribal border areas tween Pakistan and Afghanistan, small contingent in Iraq now that they have a reason to be there, US response? minimal and quite ineffective, hmm, must not be much of a threat. Immediate post 9/11 response by US, stalled, politicized, botched, and swept under the carpet, problems not fixed, failures rewarded, again, gee, guess Al Queada isn't much of a threat. Money spent so far, $500 billion+ and counting, Al Quaeda prosecuted? What like 10? killed? unknown so far, not many evidently. Americans killed, more than 4k in Iraq. Sorry, this doesn't add up to being the "grave" threat. Not even close to threatening the US as a whole or its existence. Most folks are more likely to die from almost anything else, and the US presence in Iraq or Afghanistan has not made things any safer.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Whether or not people understand Iran has nothing to do with whether Iran is a threat to the US or not. People can not understand that 2+2=4, that does not change the fact that 2+2 does equal 4. So your comment makes no logical sense.

Your comments are pretty arrogant in the personal sense, and not in the political one. Or maybe they're just dishonest. You make a dishonest assumption that because I tell you to stop making immature comments that this means that I don't know anything about Iran. That's a totally dishonest non-sequitur.

Again, more dishonest comments from you, saying that because I disagree with you, I don't know anything about the subject. Obviously, people can disagree and still be knowledgeable. Actually, while listing Iran's economic woes, you forgot to mention the massive unemployment and capital flight they've had, so obviously your analysis on Iran has not employed a great amount of knowledge in any case.

Despite all that, the regime shows no sign of collapse. There are no riots and no mass protests. Even if there were (as was the case in Burma) that still would not be indicative of collapse (as you can see in Burma where the was widespread rioting against an authoritarian government and still no overthrow).

Not nonsense, just you misrepresenting what I said. I never said they would take them over. That's what you're saying. I'm saying that they would be sattelites. There could also be some kind of merger. The Sunni, and Kurds don't need to go for it, since they would all be fighting each other anyway. They're not supposed to "go for it". The Shi'ites will be trying to ethnically cleanse the Sunnis. The only way they want them to go is out of the country. As for taking Iraq, the Iranians wouldn't do it by force. The Arab Shi'ite - Persian Shi'ite alliance would be voluntary. It's already been voluntary.

So what? Even if what you say is true, that's still oil that we don't get.

Well you imply that you don't know how much Al Qaeda has been in Iraq. You ask how many, so you don't know. So your criticism is not strong, given that you are critical of results you are uncertain about.

Your comments again are mostly a criticism of past policy and thus are irrelevant to a discussion of what to do now.

It's unknown what kind of advantages Al Qaeda would gain if we left Iraq, but they would be expanding there, and they are our mortal enemy. Anything that benefits our mortal enemy is a loss for us.


WEB

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

pedex

ok, so define what constitutes a grave threat? cities wiped out, 10's of thousands of deaths, a pimple getting busted? what?

and what does it take to actually make good on this threat?

threats are useless if they can't be actually pulled off, Iran is very vulnerable and has lots of weaknesses, they can be bullied quite easily when push comes to shove

sheot, oil prices climb to $150-$200 a barrel and they are fucked, and its coming soon, they may end up being one of the first actual exporters unable to afford their imports LOL

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

I don't give a rats ass about semantics. "Grave threat", "dangerous threat", "slightly scary but not terrifying threat". Who gives a shit about stupid catch phrases?

I maintain what I said in my first reply on this thread.

US leaves.
Iran moves its influence in.
Iraq disintegrates into civil war.
Al Qaeda returns.
Saudi Arabia and Syria supports Sunni's. Iran supports Shi'ite.
Turkey and the Northern Kurds fight some more.

It might end there, or it might not. We're already talking about 4 different countries (and one terrorist organization) fighting in Iraq though. I would consider Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran part of the world, so McCain's statement is factually correct.

Why don't you try dealing with that instead of concerning yourself with useless semantic arguments?

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

HartParr

AlQuaida and Iran are like oil and water.

They won't be occupying Iraq together.

The reality is, Iraq would pose no threat to the US or the world.

There are no evil WMD's there. There is no functioning society aside from the fruit markets. There are no military weapons there. No Air Force. No Army.

If Al Quaida IS there now then we've already failed.

Nothing changes the fact that Iraq poses no threat.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

They'll be occupying Iraq together, though on opposite sides of the battlefield. Regardless, its an expansion in Al Qaeda's activities and size, which is bad for us.

All you've done is throw out strawman arguments, criticism of the past policies and completely failed to acknowledge the problems that would be created by a US withdrawal.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

HartParr

Why do we care if Iran goes broke fighting AlQuaida?

Why do we care if Iraq falls into a chaotic mess?

Kansas_Boy

I'm an opponent of this war, but I would agree there could be some negative consequences if we leave now.

However, let's say the Bush administration and WEB are right about what would happen if we leave... is that to say we can never leave? Ever?

That's my problem with this whole conversation. Has Bush gotten us into something we cannot get out of? Will there not be problems whether we leave now or in 50 years?

Do we need to build an entire new military force - one to stay in Iraq forever and one used for everything else?

Eventually there has to be an answer to these questions. How long will it take before we take the training wheels off and let Iraq ride down the sidewalk on its own?

There are more problems in the world and in our own country we need to be addressing aside from Iraq. Will we ever get around to worrying about them?

__________________
Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. ---- Mark Twain

rsather139

Alright, I'll play with this one.

The US makes a orderly withdraw from Iraq, and we pick up most of our equipment and all our troops. I've heard that his would take upwards of 9 months or so. I don't think anything major would happen during our pullout. Then what?

Let's say that Iran moves in and tries to take over. You've got two problems right there. First off, the Shia in Iraq might have the same religion, but they do not want to be ruled by the Iranians. After all, they did fight a war that lasted 8 years. I think that there would still be an insurgency, now largely targeted at Iranian troops. Not to mention, I don't think the Saudis would take kindly to the Iranians moving in, so there might very well be a war between the two nations over Iraq. Kill two birds with one stone, we'd have two nations who despise us going at each other. I'd consider this a best-case possibility, obviously there would be others.

I think this scenario is a possibility, but honestly, the country itself poses almost no threat.

__________________
"It is dangerous to be right on matters where the established authority is wrong."
-Voltaire

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Strawman argument. No one said they would go broke fight AlQuaida.

Are you saying that you don't care if Iraq turns into a regional war? Are you saying that you don't think that there are no problems for the US if there's a regional war in the heart of the Middle East?

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.