If not,how long would it take to get them there?
2006-12-04 06:19:55 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Great question !! And the answer will cover two points of interest .
No, the Iraqi's wouldn't last a day against Iran . And the main reason is.. . . . . they don't have tanks, transport vehicles, etc, etc, etc......!!
And that's also why we can't leave right now, and exactly why we're still there, because they can't defend themselves yet .
I watched a very interesting program, and liberal at that, that showed precisely why they're not ready . Which, I guess, solves the other big question.. . . Why aren't they ready yet ?!?!
2006-12-04 06:27:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
At the moment they can't defend themselves among themselves. It's coming but they arent't here yet. There are actually a lot of good tings that have happened over there but the media doesn't report them because it's not "news"! I have a son that just got back from there after 2 years and hough things look very bad there, you only see what the media reports. Did you know that there are 28 new hospital's that we have constructed and opened, did you know there is actually a Night life in the city of Mosul (though its curfewed after midnight?) Many school are new and other reopened, private busines has gone up and the are open air coffee shops on the street. Just things you don't read about. Iran and Syria would gobble them up at the moment. When we first went into Iraq I figured we would be done in 2008, knowing that past wars and reconstruction took about 6 years, Germany, Japan, etc. Our problme is that we are a fast food society and always are looking for a quick fix...doesn't happen like that..but thats what we look for!
2006-12-04 06:26:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Iran is the purely usa that poses an existential danger to Israel. Israel is a sovereign usa, meaning they could and may tell an major best pal like the US of their protection rigidity plans, if any, vis-a-vis Iran, yet they don't seem obligated to finish that. so a procedures as Syria is in contact, Assad and his regime are doomed. The question is what style of authorities emerges positioned up-Assad and what overseas coverage will they pursue vis-a-vis Israel and america? optimistically, it's going to be concentrated on non violent co-existence and increasing commerce, cultural and tutorial contacts with all it is friends which incorporates Israel and america. in this comprehend, covertly arming the Syrian rebels with heavy guns, communications technologies and different functional resources is the suited coverage for america to pursue in Syria. Have an excellent Friday!
2016-11-23 16:24:44 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the US and OTHER countries left (they arn´t the only ones there) then the mayhem would just esculate quicker and probably result in a civil war.
The curds would want thier part and get hammered by Turkey who´d want to gain some land.
Iran would influence and arm the Shi,ite Muslims who would probably dominate and do a "ethnic cleansing" on the Sunni muslims.
The process would be quicker, and Iran would have total influence in the region. This is going to happen anyway, its just a matter of time till the politicians, in fear of thier votes, pull out.
2006-12-04 06:26:11 · answer #4 · answered by Ganymede 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not being privy to details, one can only surmise. But I believe they could not at this time, defend themselves. As to a time line when they could, I will say that it will depend on if we pursue an end to the war vigorously or not. If we step up our efforts, maybe as little as another 12-16 months. If we do nothing, 24-36 months.
2006-12-04 06:26:36 · answer #5 · answered by Rich B 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
Very few countries could defend themselves alone against an attack by Iranian nuclear weapons.
How long you asked? Not in our lifetime.
2006-12-04 06:24:41 · answer #6 · answered by Lynn G 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They wouldn't be able to defend them selves from an attack from within Iraq.
2006-12-04 06:22:46 · answer #7 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
they couldnt defend themselves against an attack from Kazakhstan led by First General Borat
2006-12-04 06:21:49 · answer #8 · answered by RustyOwls 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why would iran will attack iraq? Iran is already winning, and in control.
2006-12-04 06:24:04 · answer #9 · answered by BushSupporter 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If you listen to the rumsfeld report, the force we left behind could be overrun in nothing flat.
If everyone pushes really hard, about a year to do so
2006-12-04 06:22:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋