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.

 

If Obama pulls out of Iraq . . .

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Obama has made very clear statements that he stands for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. This short-sighted campaign rhetoric will emasculate his foreign policy if he ever takes office.

-His supporters:
If he doesn't pull out the troops, many of his core constituents will desert him. Granted, he'll still have almost 4 years in office, but he'll lose any and all claims to lead the democrats or congress from that point onward.

-The opposition:
Republicans in congress will be in the minority, but likely a very large and cohesive minority. They will begin pressuring Obama to withdraw troops immediately, and yet prophecy doom if actually does so. This is called having your cake and eating it, too.

So Obama will be forced by domestic considerations to withdraw from Iraq. But consider the balance of power in the Middle East.


Turkey:
The main threat to Turkey's regime is from separatists Kurds who want to leave the republic and merge with the Kurds of Northern Iraq and Northern Iran and Azherbaijan. Turkey committed the first genocide of the 20th century by trying to wipe out the Kurds. Once the US pulls out of Iraq, the Kurds there and Turkey will renew their drive for a "Greater Kurdistan." Turkey has already launched punitive raids over the border into Iraq, even with an ostensible US presence in the North. And that's with US troops present!

Iran:
Iran has its own long-standing history of genocide against Kurds; they face the same problem as the Turks. While the Iran govt. has always distrusted the ostensibly secular Turkey, they share the same fears of a nascent Kurdish homeland

Syria:
They have Kurds too; they wish they had oil. While they are Sunni, they are allies of the Shiite Iranian regime.


The Punch Line:
Once Obama withdraws troops, he won't be able to send them right back in. So Iraq will be the one place on earth a smaller state could invade without fear of retaliation (or even response) from the USA.

So Turkey, Syria, and Iran can solve their Kurd problem by simply annexing those parts of Iraq that contain Kurds. This ends the hope of an independent Kurdistan once and for all, and Syria ends up with major oil fields.

While they're at it, Iran may as well "protect" the Shia majority around Baghdad and the central portion of Iraq. Basra would be neat to own, also. And as long as Turkey and Syria get some oil, and control of the Kurdish homeland, they wont be complaining.

Basically, once the Americans withdraw, Iraq will cease to exist, as it is annexed piecemeal by its neighbors. The US will be unable to intervene, and Europe will be Unwilling. Russia can improve relations with both Turkey and Iran, by lending its support; it'll also be a PR coup against the US.

Not that I blame Obama for all of this. Iran was sending terrorists into Iraq even before the US invaded in 2003. Saddam's biggest fear in 2002 was a Shiite overthrow, not a US invasion. IF anything, US policy in Iraq has merely forestalled the inevitable collapse of an artificial state until about 2009 or 2010.

.




posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   
As soon as our troops are pulled out of Iraq, Iran will invade and take control of the oil fields. Although we only get a small percentage of our oil from Iraq, the fact that Iran is in control will cause panick and we might see $10/gal at the pumps.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
If we pull out of the fiasco call Iraqi war perhaps we can be able to pay some of the national debt and invest in America again.

But that is just a dream, while America is reversing to pre industrial times the few behind our government war path are profiting handsomely from the blood of the people in this nation and Iraq.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Will we ever know the real reason for being in Irag in the first place. You know what? If Bush and his fellow oligarchs had just come out and said that we are running out of oil and if we dont invade Iraq, the economy will be destroyed, well I would have been much more supportive than what happened which was a war based on lies and deception.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by 420prajna
Will we ever know the real reason for being in Irag in the first place.


The "reason" for being in Iraq was that we had a mandate from the UN security council. When Saddam surrendered in 1991 to the coalition of 22 nations, he accepted our terms of surrender.

Saddam quit abiding by those terms in 1998.

Which was why Bill Clinton launched missle strikes into downtown baghdad: for abrogating the terms of the 1991 surrender. Clinton was applauded by the media and Europe for his act; while Bush is vilified by the left.

Apparently, the main thing Bush did wrong was to succeed where Clinton failed.

.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
If we pull out of the fiasco call Iraqi war perhaps we can be able to pay some of the national debt and invest in America again.

But that is just a dream, while America is reversing to pre industrial times the few behind our government war path are profiting handsomely from the blood of the people in this nation and Iraq.

Do you really believe the money we save from pulling out of Iraq will be invested into America? The Liberals will find plenty of ways to spend this money. Life in America will not be improved.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Obama won't be pulling troops from Iraq, because he won't be President.

Even so, Iran would take over Iraq and use that military to aid Iran's existing military. After that, Iran would feel pretty confident about going after Isreal or said other Arab country.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Originally posted by 420prajna
Will we ever know the real reason for being in Irag in the first place.


The "reason" for being in Iraq was that we had a mandate from the UN security council. When Saddam surrendered in 1991 to the coalition of 22 nations, he accepted our terms of surrender.

Saddam quit abiding by those terms in 1998.

Which was why Bill Clinton launched missle strikes into downtown baghdad: for abrogating the terms of the 1991 surrender. Clinton was applauded by the media and Europe for his act; while Bush is vilified by the left.

Apparently, the main thing Bush did wrong was to succeed where Clinton failed.

.


Correct me if I am wrong, (sorry not an American), but I was under the impression that Clinton launched those missiles as a retaliation for Saddams refusal to abide by those terms

Bush entered because he was looking for WMD's, well thats his official reason. In my opinion he just wanted to end what his father didnt finish, there wasnt enough evidence of WMD's for him to enter and "do as he pleases". Thats the reason why he is vilified



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


He's right. Bill Clinton used almost the exact same pretext to bomb Iraq in 1998 that Bush used to invade:

www.cnn.com...



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
The other side of the coin is they might toast Iran because they think Obama will win and pull troops from Iraq. Then both countries can fight with sticks stones and IUDs.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Whoops IEDs..........
Man I'm tired better get some shut eye.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   
If Obama pulls out of Iraq thats the worst mistake that could be made for the region.That place would be total chaos and genocide.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by A TRUE AMERICAN
 


The only thing that will happen if we pull out of Iraq too soon and before the situation has stabilized is that the money will be spent on some useless social program. But 10-15 years down the road, we'll have to clean up a much bigger mess in Iraq than the one we left behind. As you say, the Iranians will move in or some other radical regime will take hold and we'll ultimately end up with a far bigger problem than what we have now.

Unintended consequences suck.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by vor78]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Update:


Obama's campaign has been reading THIS THREAD!


I heard Obama's "foreign policy advisor" being interviewed on NPR on the drive home this eve.

He was basically explaining that Obama plans to "begin removal immediately after the election." which means on unit (brigade, I think he said), per month, and that the process would take probably 16 months.

I laughed out loud when I heard that. 16 months will put a hypothetical President Obama half-way to the midterm elections in 2010. Which is a joke, because Obama won't even be running for anything. The Democrat Congress (the Dems assume they'll hold it) will take a hit, but Obama may not care as long as it's not him getting dumped on. And the Democrat congress can claim that "the situation is now changed, and the pullout would endanger our brave soldiers if we force the timetable." And then say they never promised a pullout anyway: Obama did, and he's not up for election till 2012.

The interviewer asked whether, at the end of 16 months, all troops would have left Iraq. He paused, then said "yes; of course some anti-terrorism units will remain in place to help the transition government, and there will be other units to protect US military and economic interests in Iraq." Translation:

(If Obama wins) There will always be troops in Iraq. But Obama will declare "mission accomplished" for Memorial Day 2009. But troops will always be in Iraq, just like troops are still in Germany, Korea, Japan, etc.


Lotsa Luck, taxpayers.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
does anybody really seriously think that either candidate, when he becomes president, will have a single thing to say about or any power to decide on whether we pull out of iraq or not? i sure don't. things will spin out of control fast one way or another and we'll be deeper in the quagmire than ever, probably in iran and maybe pakistan. this destiny was preordained long ago and no single person is ever going to change it.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
The occupation of Iraq has been the greatest strategic error in US history, and the best thing we can do is end it as quickly as possible.

The US needs to dismantle it's Empire and return to being the independent Republic it was meant to be.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienstar
If Obama pulls out of Iraq thats the worst mistake that could be made for the region.That place would be total chaos and genocide.


you mean the way it is RIGHT NOW and has been
since the invasion?

that makes no sense to say "if we stop bombing and killing in Iraq,
then it will be total chaos and genocide".

Terrorist insurgents my arse... its actually boys and men who have watched there families MURDERED........

I don`t think Obama will pull them out.... I think its all political bs,
lies to get voted in....
I do not trust ANY FRONT RUNNER...they have all proven so far to be wankers....



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maya432


Terrorist insurgents my arse... its actually boys and men who have watched there families MURDERED........




Well, since 4 out of five combatants are middle-class 19-25 yr olds from Saudi or Syria, their families are still safe at home. If you look at most videos, they are wearing red net-patterned kaffiyehs, which has become a nationalist symbol in Sa'ud and Egypt. Most Shias in Iraq self-identify with Iran, and are anti-Arab. They don't wear arab headscarves and wouldn't support arab attacks on anyone, since if they bide their time (or get a democracy) they'll be running the country soon.

The people shooting at coalition forces are Sunni minority who were historically supported by Saddam (an arab himself). They are worried that future governments will relegate them to the tiny minority they actually are.

Thing is, the people shooting at Americans now will be shooting at whomever is in charge of Iraq, unless its a Sunni Calipha.

.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   


Well, since 4 out of five combatants are middle-class 19-25 yr olds from Saudi or Syria, their families are still safe at home


More like 4-10%, according to the best estimates.

Even the military estimates foreign fighters only make up about 10% of Al Quaeda in Iraq, although they are disproportionately represented among suicide bombers.

It's also incorrect that Iraqi Shiites are "anti-Arab" - they are ethnically Arab, not Persian like the Iranians.

Persians, unlike Shiites, are a very small minority in Iraq.

Still, I fully agree that the Sunni militants who are the primary attackers of US forces will keep shooting whether we are there or not.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Your thread gives me a smile on my face, not because I think this should be any kind of reason not to vote for Obama, but because the points you make, once again show what a big mistake it was to enter Iraq and in the end, kill Saddam.

Saddam, this one single person the US turned to hate so much, might have been the one person keeping the Middle East stable and separated.

With him gone, the only thing that can keep Iraq from being chucked into pieces and annexed by its neighbors, is a US presence.

Iraq annexed by its neighbours might actually be a good thing, considering Iraq is one big wasteland with to little natural resources to sustain basic water and food requirements without import.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join