Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Quagmire in Iraq - How's it going to end?
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar
The Decider
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:38 am
Posts: 5575
Location: Sydney, NSW
the swallowed seeds of arrogance, breeding in the thoughts of ten thousand fools that fight irreverence

Today marks the third anniversary of the


Image

we call Iraq.

Way to go, George.

Image

Jackass.

_________________
Jammer91 wrote:
If Soundgarden is perfectly fine with playing together with Tad Doyle on vocals, why the fuck is he wasting his life promoting the single worst album of all time? Holy shit, he has to be the stupidest motherfucker on earth.


Last edited by shades-go-down on Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:40 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:20 am 
Offline
User avatar
Johnny Guitar
 YIM  Profile

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 8:56 pm
Posts: 254
Location: Somewhere In The Time Between
Gender: Male
:shock: it has been that long huh???
that jackass need to step down and bring back my friends ALIVE

_________________
MF wrote:I'll be B&Ping knuckle sammichs for all who want them.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Decider
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:38 am
Posts: 5575
Location: Sydney, NSW
Dear mods,

I'm irked by the "War Room" thread. It becomes increasingly clear every day that the "war on terror" and the war on Iraq have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and combining the two topics in that thread is just anither little way in which that myth of the two being somehow linked gets perpetuated. By all means lock or merge this if you want, but here I was hoping to provoke some discussion on how people think this will end independent of the general strategy in countering terrorism.

Can foreign troops pull out any time soon? It's been 3 years now, and the Iraqi people live in more fear and terror than probably ever before.

Yet I'm not convinced that a full and immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops is not going to lead to the ultimate disaster. I'm completely torn on this one.

_________________
Jammer91 wrote:
If Soundgarden is perfectly fine with playing together with Tad Doyle on vocals, why the fuck is he wasting his life promoting the single worst album of all time? Holy shit, he has to be the stupidest motherfucker on earth.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
shades-go-down wrote:

Yet I'm not convinced that a full and immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops is not going to lead to the ultimate disaster. I'm completely torn on this one.



It absolutely will. And not just in Iraq. It will show Islamofacists everywhere that terror is how you make the US retreat.

We are in Iraq for the long haul, get used to it.

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:22 am 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:55 am
Posts: 9080
Location: Londres
A pundit/academic was asked this question the other night, on where will we be in 3 years time.

The US forces will still be there, and the insurgency will still do what they're doing now. The US forces basically can't leave for fear of a fully blown civil war, and yet can't suppress the strong insurgency. While not capable of defeating the US forces, they're sufficiently strong enough to overcome the security forces and thus force the US to stay put. All comparisons to Vietnam are unfounded. This is much worse than 'Nam, for what will happen after the withdrawal is sure to be a bigger disaster than what's going on right now.

shadey, I personally don't feel they should've been in the same thread to begin with.

Iraq just doens't work as a country. Kurds can take Kirkuk. Sunnis can take the Triangle, and Shiites the rest. They're just not going to able to work together.

_________________
SABOTAGE!


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:59 am 
Offline
Dr. Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:08 am
Posts: 261
Iran will take control of Iraq. Iran presidents master plan is working the shiites are causing this civil war& America has taken them to power, Iran are the only winners in Iraq.

“Iran and Iraq will form a new Shiite Islamic alliance. They will control oil reserves as large as Saudi Arabia’s. And they will cause turmoil in the world’s oil markets.

“The Shiites of Iraq have a very simple plan for us:

“They will cooperate as long as we are helping them squash their Sunni enemies in Iraq.

“They will turn against us when they feel we’re no longer on their side or they think they don’t need us any more.

“And when we begin withdrawing from Iraq, they will rush back into the arms of their true allies, their fellow Shiites of Iran.

“The end result will be the second Shiite Islamic Republic in the world—and a powerful economic, military and strategic alliance between Iran and Iraq that is extremely hostile to the United States”

People History is repeating itself just like hitler rose to power in the 30,s so now is Iran, but no one is doing nothing, when they control oil look at the power it will have, & look at how much Europe & US get from the middle east.

an article from the SMH.

THE updated version of the Bush Administration's 2002 national security strategy, released in Washington last week, identifies Iran as the country that may pose the biggest danger to the United States.

According to Reuters, the strategy document, which reaffirms pre-emptive military action as a central tenet of US security policy, raises fears the Bush Administration will resort to force to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

If force is used, it will come in the form of air strikes, as US land forces are already overstretched in the occupation of neighbouring Iraq.

One question still to be confronted is the impact such a strike would have on the US economy and how that would affect the global economy, particularly Australia, which is, after the US, the largest-deficit country in the advanced industrial world.

At the very least, a broadening of the war in the Middle East would be certain to push up interest rates in the US and Australia, because the central banks there would have to protect the currencies' value by increasing yields. How far and fast would depend on judgements about the likely outcome of the military intervention.

An air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities is unlikely to be surgical. There are about 50 sites associated with nuclear development in Iran and they are mainly sited in towns where civilian populations would be at risk. An attack would be certain to inflame the Islamic world against the US, almost certainly lead to a full-scale civil war in Iraq with the support of the predominantly Shiite Iranian people, and the US fleet in the shallow and narrow Persian Gulf would have to withdraw or be vulnerable to Iranian missile attack.

Worse, any air strike against Iran is unlikely to get the support of the United Nations Security Council, given that China and Russia would likely veto any resolution put up by the US.

Why would the Bush Administration risk widening Gulf War II to include Iran when it still has the chance to limit its losses to Iraq? The most popular explanation is that the US wants to pre-empt the Iranian decision to set up a Tehran oil bourse to facilitate the selling and buying of oil in euros instead of US dollars.

The idea is that this would cause a chain reaction in which more and more oil producers and their customers would trade in euros and eventually force the US to pay for its oil in euros too. This would mean the US would have to do what every other country in the world has to do, namely earn foreign exchange through exports in order to pay for its oil imports.

Last year the US trade deficit for petroleum products was about $300 billion. While the $US remains the international reserve currency and oil continues to be traded in dollars, the US can pay for its oil simply by printing more IOUs in the form US treasury bills.

If the US had to find euros (or yuan) to pay for its oil, it would have to increase taxes, cut consumption and increase exports. In short, according to this scenario, the US could no longer afford to be a military superpower and would have to cut back its global adventures.

In the process, the $US would collapse, wiping out the accumulated financial assets of America's major creditors and probably causing a depression of 1930s dimensions. More generally, such a development opens up the question of whether the reserve status of the $US is supporting US superpower status, or whether US military power is propping up the reserve currency status of the $US.

WHILE the possibility of oil trading in euros and the yuan present a possible long-term threat to US economic and military hegemony, it doesn't have to be dealt with immediately.

Similarly, the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is at least some years into the future. But even with nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them and the control systems to guide them, deterrence and the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) applies to Iran as much as it did to the Soviet Union.

The main strategic change is that if Iran gets the bomb, the US (and Israel) can't attack Iran unless they are prepared to risk MAD.

The cynical explanation for the Bush Administration's threats against Iran is that, like the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, the real objective is "regime change", which has been re-enforced by the slump in President Bush's approval rating to 34 per cent.

The only thing on the political horizon that might restore Republican fortunes is a new and credible national security threat in order to keep control of Congress in the November elections.

If the Republicans lost control of Congress, the way becomes open for hearings into the constitutionality of the Bush Administration's use of wiretaps on Americans without warrants as required by legislation.

The Republican majority in both the Senate and the Reps has blocked examination of the legality of this and other actions by the Bush Administration.

How far the Bush Administration is prepared to go in Iran in order to avoid losing control of Congress to a hostile Democrat majority, which might opt for impeachment, will have fundamental consequences for the global economy in 2006.

Kenneth Davidson is a senior columnist.



America thinks Iran are the biggest danger but a far more fearful danger will take them both out GERMAN LED EU.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:05 am 
Offline
Dr. Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:08 am
Posts: 261
America is in its most dangerous time in history recession like days could happen at any time, its only a matter of time before the dollar collapes.
Your only hope is God.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:06 am 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:55 am
Posts: 9080
Location: Londres
davejeni wrote:
America thinks Iran are the biggest danger but a far more fearful danger will take them both out GERMAN LED EU.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You are all kinds of brilliant.

_________________
SABOTAGE!


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:33 am 
Offline
User avatar
Force of Nature
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 3:16 am
Posts: 706
Location: Montreal/Pittsburgh
davejeni wrote:
“And when we begin withdrawing from Iraq, they will rush back into the arms of their true allies, their fellow Shiites of Iran.

“The end result will be the second Shiite Islamic Republic in the world—and a powerful economic, military and strategic alliance between Iran and Iraq that is extremely hostile to the United States”


Iran was banking on this during the Iran-Iraq war in the late '80s, but it didn't happen. Iraqi Shiias have a different set of beliefs than the Iranians. The Iranian Shiia political structure is based on an "activist" school of thought with the belief that religion should be the dominant factor in all aspects of life, including politics.

Iraqi Shiias, led by Sistani, are considered "quietist", with a belief that religion and state should be kept separate.

Of course with things on the ground getting more fucked up each day, alliances seem to be forming and breaking on every turn so anything is possible, but an Iran-Iraq alliance isn't a traditional one.

While I believe pulling out of Iraq would lead to full-scale civil war and complete marginalization of Sunnis in the area, I don't think keeping the troops there is solving anything. I think we're pretty much going to be in the same situation with fluctuating levels of violence indefinately.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:50 am 
Offline
User avatar
Devil's Advocate
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:59 am
Posts: 18643
Location: Raleigh, NC
Gender: Male
We're fucked. It's going to be worse, WAY worse than Vietnam. Except in american casualties, of course. But the endgame will fuck the US extremely hard.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:53 am 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
Image


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:56 am 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
Hinny wrote:
Iraq just doens't work as a country. Kurds can take Kirkuk. Sunnis can take the Triangle, and Shiites the rest. They're just not going to able to work together.


Ah, this is the perfect answer, but it's too bad the world's not that simple.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:57 am 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
Athletic Supporter wrote:
We're fucked. It's going to be worse, WAY worse than Vietnam. Except in american casualties, of course. But the endgame will fuck the US extremely hard.


I don't know if it's going to fuck the US extremely hard, but the ones that get really fucked are the general Iraqi masses, having to put up with war of some sort for years to come. :(


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:30 am 
Offline
User avatar
Black Metal Hero
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:04 pm
Posts: 39920
Gender: Male
I'm sure he'll suddenly lose interest in "helping" the Iraqi people when all the oil wells go dry.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:35 am 
Offline
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:28 pm
Posts: 2573
Location: CT
I think 50% of our troops will be out of there by November. The administration is in the process of trying to make us believe that Iraq is almost safe enough for us to take our troops out. Specifically, this last week saying that 75% of Iraq is being controlled by Iraqi troops. They will keep doing this for a couple of months and then start pulling troops out. This way they don't look like they are cutting and running. Iraq will break out into a true civil war, this administration will blame it on Iran, and use this as an excuse to invade Iran.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:48 am 
Offline
Dr. Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:08 am
Posts: 261
Quote:
We're fucked. It's going to be worse, WAY worse than Vietnam. Except in american casualties, of course. But the endgame will fuck the US extremely hard.


Yeah Americas good days are nearly over.Bad days are coming.
The power is in vain & the pride has been broken.
Why is America & Allies falling why Iran, China, russia & the EU are all rising.People this is all prophesised to happen laugh at me all you like god has a master plan at work but few see that.
This is going to end in a nuclear war!!
America has been so blessed but now their is violence everywhere, your the leader of porn, divorce is everywhere,crime,no love & affection, greed is everywhere you have forgotten god.Abraham Lincoln called for a day of prayers for his countries sins could you imagine Bush doing that America has forgottn god that is their biggest problem.
God is raising these countries to punish us for our sins.
God will use a german led EU to destroy iran led islam & let the eu punish america for our sins, & use china russia & india & japan & eastern countries to destroy the german led eu.Before christ returns to end it all.

I dont care what anybody thinks our only hope is to repent of our sins & have faith in Christ return.Everything jesus said is happening but know one believes him.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:53 am 
Offline
User avatar
Force of Nature
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:31 pm
Posts: 813
Location: IA
Image

_________________
Post sober.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:59 am 
Offline
Dr. Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:08 am
Posts: 261
evenflow joke all you want but this generations faces that reality!!


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:33 am 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
davejeni wrote:
an article from the SMH.

THE updated version of the Bush Administration's 2002 national security strategy, released in Washington last week, identifies Iran as the country that may pose the biggest danger to the United States.

According to Reuters, the strategy document, which reaffirms pre-emptive military action as a central tenet of US security policy, raises fears the Bush Administration will resort to force to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

If force is used, it will come in the form of air strikes, as US land forces are already overstretched in the occupation of neighbouring Iraq.

One question still to be confronted is the impact such a strike would have on the US economy and how that would affect the global economy, particularly Australia, which is, after the US, the largest-deficit country in the advanced industrial world.

At the very least, a broadening of the war in the Middle East would be certain to push up interest rates in the US and Australia, because the central banks there would have to protect the currencies' value by increasing yields. How far and fast would depend on judgements about the likely outcome of the military intervention.

An air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities is unlikely to be surgical. There are about 50 sites associated with nuclear development in Iran and they are mainly sited in towns where civilian populations would be at risk. An attack would be certain to inflame the Islamic world against the US, almost certainly lead to a full-scale civil war in Iraq with the support of the predominantly Shiite Iranian people, and the US fleet in the shallow and narrow Persian Gulf would have to withdraw or be vulnerable to Iranian missile attack.

Worse, any air strike against Iran is unlikely to get the support of the United Nations Security Council, given that China and Russia would likely veto any resolution put up by the US.

Why would the Bush Administration risk widening Gulf War II to include Iran when it still has the chance to limit its losses to Iraq? The most popular explanation is that the US wants to pre-empt the Iranian decision to set up a Tehran oil bourse to facilitate the selling and buying of oil in euros instead of US dollars.

The idea is that this would cause a chain reaction in which more and more oil producers and their customers would trade in euros and eventually force the US to pay for its oil in euros too. This would mean the US would have to do what every other country in the world has to do, namely earn foreign exchange through exports in order to pay for its oil imports.

Last year the US trade deficit for petroleum products was about $300 billion. While the $US remains the international reserve currency and oil continues to be traded in dollars, the US can pay for its oil simply by printing more IOUs in the form US treasury bills.

If the US had to find euros (or yuan) to pay for its oil, it would have to increase taxes, cut consumption and increase exports. In short, according to this scenario, the US could no longer afford to be a military superpower and would have to cut back its global adventures.

In the process, the $US would collapse, wiping out the accumulated financial assets of America's major creditors and probably causing a depression of 1930s dimensions. More generally, such a development opens up the question of whether the reserve status of the $US is supporting US superpower status, or whether US military power is propping up the reserve currency status of the $US.

WHILE the possibility of oil trading in euros and the yuan present a possible long-term threat to US economic and military hegemony, it doesn't have to be dealt with immediately.

Similarly, the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is at least some years into the future. But even with nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them and the control systems to guide them, deterrence and the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) applies to Iran as much as it did to the Soviet Union.

The main strategic change is that if Iran gets the bomb, the US (and Israel) can't attack Iran unless they are prepared to risk MAD.

The cynical explanation for the Bush Administration's threats against Iran is that, like the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, the real objective is "regime change", which has been re-enforced by the slump in President Bush's approval rating to 34 per cent.

The only thing on the political horizon that might restore Republican fortunes is a new and credible national security threat in order to keep control of Congress in the November elections.

If the Republicans lost control of Congress, the way becomes open for hearings into the constitutionality of the Bush Administration's use of wiretaps on Americans without warrants as required by legislation.

The Republican majority in both the Senate and the Reps has blocked examination of the legality of this and other actions by the Bush Administration.

How far the Bush Administration is prepared to go in Iran in order to avoid losing control of Congress to a hostile Democrat majority, which might opt for impeachment, will have fundamental consequences for the global economy in 2006.

Kenneth Davidson is a senior columnist.
.





:lol: :lol: :lol:


Oh wait, was that suppose to apply reality?

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:09 am 
Offline
Dr. Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:08 am
Posts: 261
Yes America will soon be living in 1930's recession like days, once the EURO dollar rises & more & more countries are using alternate resources especially China.How do America pay for fucks sake their 300trillion in debt.

You think everything will continue to sail smoothly.
Wake up America is in a mess.Financially they may last a few more years but eventually its going to fall its not a matter of if ,but when.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
It is currently Tue Dec 02, 2025 9:56 pm