What do you think about Iran sending in troops to Iraq and more Artillery? Putin the Russis President?

Question

is supporting Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan? The UN Gates just told him to back off? And has advised a close watch on these situations? Do you think this is a plot to start a WW, before the two years is up for our United States beloved President Dubya? Is it possible the chiefs in charge in all these countries have cooperated so to make vast improvements on their population? And certainly make oodles of money like they did in Viet Nam after the war? And Japan, and Germany? And Russia? And if you think so why?

Answer 1

you raise a lot of good points.

Answer 2

World wars are started by inept leaders supported meekly by their citizens. IF the US wants the world to respect its integrity then the people should ask for fumbling leaders to be tried for treason. Look at it for 3000 killed how many more us citizens have died. .
Keep world peace by propping up good bastards overseas. Middle Eastern Govts. hate you , but love migrating to you to start life again without integration. The Teleban type militants conquered vast countries including Afghanistan then by oppression and conversion made conquered offspring become militant..(.Easy method)
.
In 2001 experts warned against going to Iraq. Bush senior was brilliant he did not invade Iraq.After all even with Boko Hram in Nigeria kidnapping girls Saudi religious preachers . are not condemning them.What is the point of world leaders screaming at Boko Haram when .Islam's r version of "Pope" or Imam is not condemning Boko Haram - fatwas can be placed on violent militants. Is the US placing top reliance on oil money and not asking the Saudis to help and intervene.


tiny brain
..

The war in Syria and Iraq is financed by Saudi Arabia..

Answer 3

In think we need all the help we can get. The Iranians will have a better time relating to the Iraqi people than us anyway.

Answer 4

It's clear that you've been following at least one "news" source. But even more clearly, you've not spent any amount of time reading the "Right" news source. Care for a semi-quick lesson? You'll have to put any political agenda aside, and you may even have to forget alot of the preconceived B.S. you've already been taught and have fostered. Here we go...
Focusing purely on Iraq and Iran, go back to the days of the Eisenhower Administration. Almost as a lark, to see if it could be done, the CIA overthrew the Iranian government and installed, the Shaw upon the Peacock throne. They REALLY wanted his sister to be incharge, she was viewed as being much stronger, but being a woman... The Shaw was supposed to be a "Yes" man. As it turned out, he was a ruthless dictator. Kennedy all the way through to Carter supported him and sent our tax dollars his way. While Carter was in office, he gutted the budget to the CIA and left this country virtually blind and very much dependent upon foreign governments to give us intel.. No one addressed this issue until just recently (Bush (Jr.) has "corrected" that error and lapse in judgement.). The people of Iran overthrew the Shaw and gave him the boot. Carter took him in. Reagan, seeing that we were nolonger on good terms with the Iranians and that they were at war with Iraq, sided with Saddam Hussein and sold him all kinds of military hardware and technology -- including WMD.
The war began to get costly in that oil tankers passing through the region came under fire and so, Reagan, knowing that the world economy is based on oil, reflagged those tankers and provided they with U.S. Navy escort.
Saddam made a power grab and over ran the border to Kuwait to get their oil and seaport access to the Persian Gulf. The U.N., sat on their thumbs and did nothing. Bush senior amassed a military coalition and drove back the Iraqi's and then basically begged the U.N. to finally do their duty and do something. They brokered the cease fire agreement.
For the next eight years, it was basically the job of the U.S. military to enforce and up-hold that agreement. The U.N. busied themselves wth lining their pockets by accepting bribes from Saddam in the Food For Oil Program. Throughout the eight year period, U.N. weapons inspectors were given absolutely no support and were also given the run around -- to the point that the first inspector resigned in disgust. When called on this by the U.S., the French lead U.N., again refused to do anything. Some 17 sanctions of the cease fire agreement had been broken and there was growing concern about a new WMD program in Iraq. The French, Germans and Russians were all selling technology to Iraq and were lining their pocket with bribe money. Diplomacy failed and another coalition of military force was brought in to again do the U.N.'s job.
The fall of Iraq and Saddam came relatively quickly and with a minimum of bloodshed on the part of the coalition. With the disarmerment of the Iraqi military and the disolvement of the Baath Party, a new government was quickly brought in to run democratic elections. As the electons drew near, here was a sudden and sharp increase in "Insurgency" violence against the Iraqi people. The terrorists were/are not home grown nearly as much as they are from neighboring Iran. But why? What does Iran have to gain?
Iran's oil industry is state run. Their policy is to discourage foreign investment and foreign oil companies from coming in to get the oil. Iran sits atop the world's third largest known oil deposit, and while the people are paying all of 38 cents a gallon at the pumps, the profits are not going towards R & D, but instead into various social programs. Their wells are now all over 50 years old and in a rate of decline of output of 13% a year. Last year, Iran was unable to export even a single drop of oil, but instead, had to import just to meet their supply and demand issues. They've mismanaged things miserably. This explains also, their desire to get a nuclear energy program up and running. The trouble with that is, it's the Russians, backing and selling the technology (can you say "Hello Mr. Putin?") and Iran exports terrorism. The bi-product of their nuclear power program is weapons grade uranium.
I'm quite sure that the Iranians know that if they play their hand long enough, the American people wll grow weiry and, following their history in Vietnam, will cut and run. Iran will then be able to just waltz into Iraq full force, either by invitation or not and take over their oil production -- remember, the world's economy is based on oil.
It's all about politics, religion, and oil. For Bush, it's a tightrope of not pointing fingers at past administrations for their complete mishandlings of foreign policy. For not upsetting OPEC as Carter had done leaving us to face another oil embargo. And the news media who plays the doom and gloom all the while ignoring all of the good this country has done there. Iraq now has more hospitals, schools, waste treatment and water treatment facilities than ever before in its history, Industrialization too is coming on line, offering the average Iraqi greater opprotunity for employment and a higher standard of living. But all of these facts go unreported. They don't fit the paradigm the newsies want to portray. The truth of the matter is, as far as the number of U.S. military lives lost, we average just under three a day. That means, you and I stand a greater chance of being murdered here in the U.S., or killed in a car wreck than does the military of dying in Iraq. Do the math yourself! I'll be generous, and say 3,100 lives lost in three years. Hell, Patton lost more per month in 1944, driving the U.S. 3d Army across France -- 1,300 per month. This, fighting an easily identified, uniformed military that didn't hide behind women and children.
I'm not asking you to support or defend the war, just to understand the history and politics of what actually goes on behind the scenes.