Ten American soldiers were killed on Tuesday, the military announced today, bringing October’s death toll for United States forces to at least 68.
Four of the soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb west of Baghdad, and three others died in fighting in Diyala province, a troubled area northeast of the capital where sectarian violence has run high. A Marine was killed by insurgents in Anbar province, the western region where the Sunni insurgency is centered, and two soldiers were killed in Baghdad, one by insurgent gunfire and one by a roadside bomb. In addition to the American casualties, the Iraqi chief of intelligence for Maysan province in the south died along with four of his bodyguards when his car touched off a bomb planted on a highway.
2006-10-18 03:51:08 · 10 answers · asked by zeca do trombone 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I'm sorry, but are you clinically insane? That is the very worst idea anyone could ever suggest. A unified, evil empire from Tehran to Damascus that controls all that oil, and has the military might to threaten the more benign nations in the gulf and the entire Arabian peninsula would destabilize the region even further than it is now. Israel would have little or no choice but have to turn any fight nuclear, especially since Syria would reclaim Lebanon as a puppet state in short order. Iran will likely have nukes soon considering that North Korea is barely being hand-slapped for their test. That is begging for trouble that makes what we're fighting in Iraq look like a schoolyard dust-up.
2006-10-18 03:59:31 · answer #1 · answered by Crusader1189 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
if Iraq was divided with Syria taking over the Sunni areas which might renew there own sense of being part of a nation again, the Kurds having their own nation in the north with guarantees given to turkey they would not try to influence the Kurds in eastern turkey. then the shia in the south joining Iran might well be a good strategy for stability, but the only problem for the west would be the fact that Iran would be the regional superpower and Israel and the US will never accept that while the ayatollahs are in power even if they swore to be benign to wards the rest of the region.As for the terrorism fear both Syria and Iran are very brutal when they get hold of terrorists in their own lands.
2006-10-18 11:22:02 · answer #2 · answered by ??? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh yeah, that would be a great idea. Let's let two terrorist-supporting nations take over the emerging democracy in Irag. Iraq has the world's second largest petroleum supply and you think the answer is to let go and give up to the terrorists. ARE YOU NUTS? DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT WOULD MAKE THEM LIKE US MORE? Put the Kool Aid down and put the tinfoil back on your head.
2006-10-18 11:32:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
you forgot Turkey in this story they will be very happy to invade the Kurd area...
Iran through the shia militia is already controlling the majority of the country .. they are quiet as they know they have time for them ... indeed they are the first military force in case of civil war and the majority of the population in case of election...
So why to rush they just need to wait for the leave of allied force...
The Sunni are in insurgent and in relationship with Syria...
Once the allied forces will leave soon or late ...
Iraq after a civil war likely will be split in 3 parts with a strong relationship / domination from Turkey, Iran, Syria...
2006-10-18 11:30:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
while i dont like this war, or any war, i believe that at the present time if we abandon iraq, it will surely be the epicenter of terrorism. after that, country after country in the middle east will fall due to terrorism and then we're all in for it. and then there would be poor israel all alone... Iran would obliterate it and then we would have two of the most horrific terrorist nations in power over there, make that three with iraq. how much longer would we have then? we would have to glass the entire region then.
2006-10-18 10:55:05 · answer #5 · answered by afterflakes 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't you think it's a little strange that we went into Iraq for WMD's (among other things), didn't find nuclear warheads or anything similar, and suddenly now Iran is developing nuclear technology? Hmmm...rather odd.
No, we DON'T need another Iran in power.
2006-10-18 10:54:47 · answer #6 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll echo a bit what Matt/your first answer-er stated. What? Let Syria and Iran step in? Check out their respective politics and leaders in charge. If we did that, it would be better if we'd left Saddam H. in charge.
2006-10-18 10:59:16 · answer #7 · answered by miked918 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, that's all we need...Is for the two of the biggest terrorist states to have MORE land and MORE OIL in which to grow their terrorist jihad!! I don't know about you, but I like my freedom of religion, not to be forced into Islam or die!
2006-10-18 11:00:33 · answer #8 · answered by sacolunga 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
USA needs to go home now let them fight and soon as Saddam gets sentenced
2006-10-18 10:55:22 · answer #9 · answered by enterprisefence 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You want Iran and Syria to control Iraq??? Lawdy, lawdy...
2006-10-18 10:52:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋