It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran Says U.S. Departure Would Calm Iraq

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Supreme Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told the visiting Iraqi prime minister Wednesday that the way to end instability in Iraq is for U.S. forces to withdraw.


source

Given that a large number of the militia's fighting in Iraq are supporters of and possibly suported by Iran he would probably know more than most, also given the way that Iraq has now started to cosy up to Iran with the recently announced oil pipline deals ect shold we be making a start on removing all of our troops?

[edit on 14-9-2006 by solidshot]




posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Well, in my opinion they should never have been there, unfortunately reality differs.
Last week Bush said the US army won't leave any time soon, they'll ''complete the job''.

I wish the US army all the luck, as they'll probably will be busy for another ten, twenty years. The task they have to accomplish is in my opinion unrealistic, they'll not be able to calm down the region.

Months ago I said I wouldn't be surprised to see another Vietnam; the sign are pointing in that direction and strenghten the spirit of terrorists and thus, to an even bigger threat for us, Western citizens.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Irans president saying today that this trouble would cease when the leave ends its occupation, and pledged to help iraq secure its self.

Thats awfully bold,, change when to if...

then think about the current 2 week crisis weeks on irans nuclear research...
Is the iranian president, giving the US a slight hint....

Its becoming common on world media, that the US has slowly and surely been dripping this war down the drain.

Day by day, its been since 'they occupied baghdad' nothing but death, bombs, bodies, civilians & innocents being mentioned in the news.. for all the wrong reasons.

We caved into Iran once, is it possible we will cave in again, risk them with nuclear tecnhology & save our way of western life....

Why cant we become allies.. trade with them.. build there Oilfield infrastructure and allow this world the 3 or 4 decades of oil left on this planet..giving us time to pull our heads in, use our complete attention focusing on the enviroment problem that is fast approaching, and finding a new enviormentally friendly, cheap means of making our combustion engines obsolete.

Why do I feel we had the choice back in 2000.

Elect a man that would lead us into a potentially economic collapsing military adventure, after allowing a strike on his watch?

Or elect a man who's politics wasnt good, but he had the right idea in mind. In saving the planet we live on.



[edit on 15-9-2006 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 15-9-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Does anyone actually agree with the Iranian Government's statement? That if the US left, the various iraqi militias would lay down their arms and there'd be peace??



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Does anyone actually agree with the Iranian Government's statement? That if the US left, the various iraqi militias would lay down their arms and there'd be peace??


I think that Iran would stroll in and take over.

Since the terrorits are controled/paid and armed by Iran, yeah, the violence would stop or slow down to normal for the area.

Would THAT be a good thing-NO!!!



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon

Since the terrorits are controled/paid and armed by Iran, yeah, the violence would stop or slow down to normal for the area.


Really?

You might want to read this.
US cooperation with Iraqi MEK Terrorists

Of course there would be no peace, Sunnis and Shi'ites won't stop killing each other, with or without US intervention, though the US army neither will be able to improve the situation.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:04 AM
link   


Does anyone actually agree with the Iranian Government's statement? That if the US left, the various iraqi militias would lay down their arms and there'd be peace??


Too some degree, yes.

There is no doubt that much of the violence being committed in Iraq is due to sectarian violence. However, a large proportion of the insurgancy is anti-occupation. So yes, to some extent the violence would subside. However, this doesn't help with extreme factions in Iraq taking controll, with organizations like Al Quada having a base of international operations.

Partially, i think the Administrations strategy has been to "take the fight to the terrorists". They have successfully done this, the unfortunate thing is that the largely innocent Iraqi citizens have to bear the brunt of Iraq being drawn as the battleground.

Even if, (not when) the U.S/U.K withdraw their troopsfrom Iraq, i believe the fight would just be taken somewhere else. If not Iraq, then Northern Africa or the U.S itself. I believe the fight needs to be taken the the Madras's of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in conjunction with a shift in rhetoric (and action) from the Whitehouse.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Are you out of your mind this administration corporate cronies will never allow a withdraw from Iraq.

No sireeeee, after all with all the plans Chaney and its energy group have for that oil in Iraq.

No way Jose!!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Exactly,

Iraq is a money cash cow, too many people in powerful positions are making bucket loads of money.

This helps those greedy oil baarons too, how much profit have they made in the last 5 years.. who cares the average man is struggling to live, as long as that oil barron gets his 7 figure profits.

Look at all the cousins, and nephews that are now making a decent wage managing security for various US firms, The presidents father making a few bucks here and there on this little military adventure.

Them damn insurgents will just keep coming, one after the other, day by day creating a public excuse to stay the course, and ensure safety and stability.
Just how do you make an occupied countries citizens feel safe and stable?...

According to this admin, you stay, keep killing, keep bombing and keep telling them how better off they are.

Those soilders signed there lives to this administrations bidding, they have a duty to go there, and do as they are told regardless of the consequences.
They are the pawns, this government is using soley to line the pockets of this administration.

Utterly disgusting.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
Since the terrorits are controled/paid and armed by Iran, yeah, the violence would stop or slow down to normal for the area.

I don't think that even that would happen. All it means is that the religiously motivated shia militias would side with whatever forces the iranians sent in. There would still be the secular puppet government that everyone would try to destroy anyway, its not like the iranians would be the government. And once the central government was destroyed, there'd be fighting between shia zealots backed by iran, the powerful sunni minority, and any other regular iraqis that object to being run by a puppet of a foreign power, be it an american or iranian puppet. Not to mention that the north would simply seced, and then there'd be 'inter-state' warfare between kurdistan and iraq. And this time, no one would be able to remain neutral.

Hell, there'd probably be war between Kurdistan and kurd secessionist militias in Turkey against Turkey for that matter.



Mdv2
though the US army neither will be able to improve the situation.

Do you mean then that if the US left, there'd be no difference in the violence, certainly not less, and certainly not more?


kojac
However, a large proportion of the insurgancy is anti-occupation.

Indeed, people tend to underestimate this aspect.


This helps those greedy oil baarons too, how much profit have they made in the last 5 years

Why do you think they are having higher profits because of iraq? If profit was the only motive, why attack iraq in the first place, why not arabia instead? Heck, why not attack iraq and iran and arabia, prices'd be really high then no? Anyway, what do you have to say about iraq being more or less peaceable if the troops leave?



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why do you think they are having higher profits because of Iraq?


The war in Iraq has made profits for the war profiteers.



why attack Iraq in the first place,


Iraq was an easy target and beside they were a a danger to Israel stability.



why not Arabia instead?


Because Arabia is a very good willing partner.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan


Mdv2
though the US army neither will be able to improve the situation.

Do you mean then that if the US left, there'd be no difference in the violence, certainly not less, and certainly not more?


If the US leaves Iraq the insurgents will have no Americans to kill anymore, though, sunnis and shi'ites won't stop killing each other, that particular aspect cannot be easily improved, not by the US Army, not by the Iraqi government.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join