English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Seriously, I'm talking about both short and long term ramifications.

2006-12-16 10:06:04 · 10 answers · asked by Wocka wocka 6 in Politics & Government Government

10 answers

Well I need to get out my crystal ball..........okay here it is.

Well it would appear that if the US pulled out now there would be a civil war in IRAQ in the short term. Of course the other countries that stand to gain or loose around them will begin to fund the side the feel they need to come into power.

Saudi Arabia has already stated the faction it would begin supporting.

I am sure IRAN would make very sure that what ever happens it will benefit them.

Worse case scenario on the long term would be a total collapse of the IRAQ government. The state is taken over by the terrorist groups and it would become a primary base for launching attracts throughout the world. If the other Arab states felt at all threatened by this it could end up in a full scale war involving all Arab states in that region.

Israel would be the most immediate looser in that war along with the entire middle east and ultimately so would the rest of the world.

So is stay the course the answer. Without question.......NO!

Our government must begin to hold serious talks with all Arab nations to resolve this. This includes IRAN because they are very much involved. Continue to push hard on the IRAQ government to build...train...and implement it's security force ASAP. This is key to getting control and returning the trust of all the IRAQ people.

This should be done soon but pressure should be placed on the IRAQ government to get their act together. Those officials have the most to loose if they don't.

2006-12-16 10:52:36 · answer #1 · answered by John B 5 · 0 0

The question isn’t IF there will be a struggle for power that will be a fact.
Iran loves to meddle in the politics of the region, as does Syria. It is on Iran’s agenda to make all Moslem nations fall under Islamic rule. When the Shaw of Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Islamic_Revolution_and_war_with_Iraq_.281979.E2.80.9388.29) left Iran in the 1979 the brutal dictator left a power vacuum. The various Islamic sects would attack each other and bring the country into a civil war, the only way to prevent that would be to put a religious figure into power—which gave rise to the rule of the Ayatollahs. The Iranians hate the US since they supported the Shaw of Iran, they also hate the US for backing Israel.

After the Soviets pulled out of Afghanstian the government there lasted for two years before falling. When that happened a power void was filled by the Iranian backed Taliban. Iran and Iraq fought a long bloody war between 1980-1988 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War). Saddam Hussian thought he could take advantage of a weakened government. The war ended in a stalemate. Iran would love to get its fingers back into Iraq and topple whatever government is there so they can install an Islamic Government. We can see Iran doing that now because they back and supply a lot of the insurgents coming into Iraq.

The Persian Empire was once the most powerful empire in the world, until Alexander the Great took it over. It is Iran’s current intention to rebuild that empire, to do that they will have to take over Iraq.

Then there is Syria who have their eyes on Lebanon. The Lebanese Government is a very fragile one because whenever a good politician is elected the Syrians assassinate them. They also help fund Hezbollah (The Party Of God). Hezbollah is a terrorist group responsible for this summers rocket attacks into Israel. They were founded in 1982 by Iran so that Iran could carry out a proxy war with Israel. Syria might help destabilize the Iraqi government so that Iran could come in a take over. As a reward for this support they might receive a nuclear bomb of their own from Iran.

2006-12-16 10:36:49 · answer #2 · answered by Dan S 7 · 1 0

The point is that no weapons of mass destruction were found there, Saddam was backed once by the U.S.A. , so the going there of any arm force in the eyes of justice is not valid, there fore now at the push of the invaders there is a civil war on , the country has been destroyed, it is a made up country anyway, like most of the middle east, so eventually the U.S.A. must hold itself accountable , and get the young men back home, and let the Iraquies, Iraninans, Lebanese , handle their own affairs! The U.S.A. has big problems at home that must be taken care of.

2006-12-16 11:28:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

If we leave Iraq then Iran will take over, that would put Iran on the border with Saudi and Kuwait, it also puts Iran close to Israel. Iran with Syria and Lebanon and Egypt will attack Israel and at that point Israel will go nuclear. So either Iran will control all oil or nuclear war will turn the middle east into a wasteland.

2006-12-16 10:11:27 · answer #4 · answered by 007 4 · 0 0

nicely, of direction. the actual question is a thank you to coach McCain-ites this. it particularly is complicated, by using fact they do no longer answer questions with information, arguments, do no longer make their assumptions sparkling. The administration spent maximum of it particularly is time attempting to persuade the human beings of a lie - that Saddam became an coming near probability, that he became linked to 9-11 and had WMD. particularly, it became those circumstances that have been explicitly reported in the 1st Iraq conflict authorization. the justifications that they did no longer in simple terms emphasize that Saddam became achievable to his own human beings became that a million) Donald Rumsfeld went to Iraq after Saddam gassed his own human beings to sell him extra arms (in the eighty's). and Cheney outfitted up his oil fields as CEO of Haliburton (it slow after the 1st Gulf conflict). finally, there have been dictators the international over that we forget approximately on a each and on a daily basis foundation. yet they are achievable to their human beings. it particularly is with the terrific leisure that the administration and McCain are asserting that besides the very incontrovertible fact that 3 politicians from Iraq (consisting of the top Minister) has suggested they needed us to right this moment go away or furnish a timetable for withdraw rather McCain and the administration are in simple terms ignoring their sovereignty. The final excuse to be in Iraq - to sell a self ruling democratic government - is now long gone.

2016-10-15 02:06:19 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I can see Iran and Syria sending "more" terrorist ops into Iraq, and even the possibility of a bigger war between Israel and Iran.

Anyway cuz, Mele Kailikimaka and Hauoli Makahiki Hou !

For those not from Hawaii it says:

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year !

Aloha Ke Akua, Mahalo Ke Akua ! ( God is love, and all thanks be to God)

2006-12-16 10:20:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well some terrorist organization will overturn the Iraqi government and it'll probably become a fascist religious extremist state, kinda like Iran.
Then they'll join the fight against Israel, and slowly but surely my country will be pushed into the sea.

2006-12-16 10:08:33 · answer #7 · answered by Tanktunker 2 · 1 1

The same thing that has happened there since the profit Muhammad died and Islamics split, WAR.

2006-12-16 10:08:16 · answer #8 · answered by smartass 3 · 0 0

If we're lucky they'll kill each other off.

2006-12-16 10:19:16 · answer #9 · answered by jackie 6 · 0 1

same thing in Vietnam not much.

2006-12-16 10:07:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers