It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
posted by seagull
Forgive me if I read you wrong.
If the only reason we went into Iraq was for oil (it was indeed one of them, granted), wouldn't it have been easier, not to mention less expensive in lives as well as treasure, to broker a sweetheart deal with Saddam, and/or his sons? [Edited by Don W]
The point I was making about the Montengards was that they were our friends and we turned our backs on them when we left Vietnam. Payback is a bitch, but there shouldn't have been an opportunity for it. We owed them, and we reneged on our obligation to an ally and friend. Honor.
The same applies in Iraq, we have people who are our friends, do we abandon them? For the sake of expediency? Politics? The truism that nations have no allies only interests is to my mind bunk. If a nation has no honor, or doesn't honor its obligations, or at least try to, what does it have? I submit, not much.
posted by gimmefootball400
What if Moqtada al-Sadr comes to power . . “ [Edited by Don W]
“ . . The revolt [al-Sadar coming to power] even if it was non-violent, could lead the United States to invade Iraq again some years down the road after we get out of this current mess we are in over there.
If Maliki sides with al-Sadr, the consequences could be catastrophic to the Iraqi people.
He [al Sadar] could purchase nuclear weapons technology off of the black market from the Russians and threaten to use those weapons against Israel or maybe even Saudi Arabia.
We could have a problem again in Iraq if another radical government were to come to power over there.
Al-Sadr is a Shiite Muslim, this could pose a problem for the Sunni and the Kurds in the north of Iraq.
IMO, I doubt they [Iraq under al-Sadar] will be friendly to the United States or any of our 'allies' [say Israel] in the Middle East. If those two join it could also pose a problem to what peace there is in the Middle East.
To be honest with you, it could very well be possible that the new government in Iraq, with a-Sadr and Maliki at the controls, could be sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah [and Hamas]. With all the hatred that most radical Muslims have shown toward the United States and our allies [Israel], it would not really surprise me if they did.
It would be a larger threat since Al-Qaeda would have more funding to go around.
Not only would the threat of an attack increase here, the risk of a major terrorist attack would go up ten fold across the world. I honestly believe they won't say that was because we backed out of Iraq. I think what will happen is that they will still fight us to the death.
posted by Majic
Plan D. I don't know what to expect from the Democrats with respect to Iraq, but hopefully they will realize that handling it the way they handled Vietnam i.e., cutting funding and allowing the nation to collapse in chaos and genocide would not serve them well in this case.
Since I'm pretty sure they don't want to hand the Republicans certain victory in 2008 by sealing defeat in Iraq, I expect they will demand some changes in strategy - mainly to reduce the profile of U.S. troops as targets for IEDs and snipers.
This may include a replay of the way Yugoslavia was handled: heavy dependence on air power and minimal involvement of troops, although such a strategy would necessarily have to be adapted to the unique issues being faced in Iraq.
There's been some rumblings among some Democrats of actually negotiating with insurgent leaders, although that seems unlikely, if not impossible.
Considering the alliance which exists between the Democrats and the majority of press agencies in the U.S. and abroad
I could be wrong about that, but I remember the way the press handled things during the Clinton administration, and I expect the return of that legendary press love affair with the Democrats
Hopefully whatever changes will be positive. [Edited by Don W]
posted by Majic
Your opinions on this topic and disagreement with my own opinions are quite welcome, but personal digs like that are not.
Please refrain from them.
Originally posted by donwhite
I've complied. See Edit above. Sorry about that. Over exuberance, I'd say.
posted by Majic
No worries -- I hope I didn't come across as too cold or authoritarian, and I'm certainly not angry. I just don't swing that way is all. [Edited by Don W]
Maybe my opinion of how the Vietnam War ended is overly simplistic, for example. My overall opinion remains, however . .
“ . . that there will be some changes to U.S. strategy in Iraq as a result of the elections and that it is unlikely the Democrats would want to do anything that might be seen as losing the war there. I think they will simply want the US to try a "new direction" their theme for this election, and - who knows? - it might well be a better one.
Originally posted by davenman
I expect that there would be key Democrat leaders who would step up and initiate some laws that would specifically tell Bush how to lead more effective control within Iraq. With more effective control, we could actually turn the government over to the new Iraqi government and get out within the next 2 years.
Unfortunately, Bush would get some of the credit for that. Fortunately, we would have our young men and women home again where they belong. That's a fair trade.