I was reading an editorial in my school newspapers, and the writer claimed that if we leave Iraq, Iran will invade Iraq, take over the oil, and then jack up the price to hurt the U.S. economy. Of course he didnt cite any expert sources to back up this prediction, so I was more than hesitant to belive this hunch.
Do you think this would be a likely reactio to our pull out from Iraq?
2007-12-14 11:42:59 · 16 answers · asked by Psychedelic P 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
reaction, not reactio.
Sorry.
2007-12-14 11:43:40 · update #1
For me sounds more like an excuse rather than an argument.
US administration and US citizens have to see what they can do for their country and not what other countries may do to them in order to hurt US. Because in the end you're doing the same thing: you're hurting your own country!
2007-12-14 11:58:42 · answer #1 · answered by tes 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, and it's not just a hunch, but your President should have thought of that before he destroyed Iraq and assassinated Saddam.
Did he and his oil-robbing cronies (and his lapdog, Prime Minister Blair) forget that the reason the USA, along with the UK and other European countries, provided Saddam with all the arms and support he asked for following the exodus of the Shah from Iran was to resist that very threat, which had been on the cards but thereby effectively countered by Saddam, ever since that time?
There is now no way that Iraq alone could defend itself against Iran and, given the worldwide condemnation of the disastrous Iraq invasion and occupation fiasco, it is now highly unlikely that the USA could get the international support it would require to invade Iran.
All of this enables Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to continue to pursue Iran's nuclear ambitions with an air of assurance he would, perhaps, never otherwise have had, thanks to you, in America and to us, in Britain. United, as loyal allies, we f*cked it up completely.
Bloody idiots!
2007-12-14 13:21:38 · answer #2 · answered by JimP 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
decrease and run? you think of we would desire to consistently stay in Iraq perpetually because of the fact we destabilized that complete area? Is Bush so dumb as to no longer understand that Iran and Syria are a brilliant gamble, while we are people who placed Saddam in skill, armed him, and had him combat Iran for us! We knew Iran replaced right into a brilliant gamble then, and extremely while they took our human beings as hostages! those are the end results of our stupid invasion of Iraq, and good now it would desire to no longer additionally be Iran who takes over. you do no longer seem to appreciate that we at the instant are not needed there! We brought about the civil conflict which Bush Sr warned approximately as some time past because of the fact the early ninety's! you're able to have us stay there perpetually an have our childrens delivered residing house in physique bags on an accepted basis! So what if Iran takes over Iraq? It appeared we've been maximum attracted to removing Saddam than we've been of every physique in Iran, so as that they'd desire to be extra powerful off, good? Why do no longer we in simple terms stop all the nonsense, and supply Iraq lower back to Saddam! do no longer look now, yet Iraq is already in a civil conflict because of the fact individuals!
2016-10-11 07:39:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iraq could be invaded by Iran, they have before. But with the way Bush is posturing, it's more likely that Iran will be invaded, by the US. Hopefully, Bush will get out of office before starting a third war in the Middle East. But he does think God is on his side, and is telling him what to do, so who knows?
2007-12-14 16:39:00 · answer #4 · answered by edith clarke 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know if it's likely or not.. But it is a possibilty..
That's why you don't just leave and wipe your hands clean.. You make sure Iran and every other country knows that the U.S. will come back if needed.. Tensions are high with Iran as it is, them invading Iraq will give the U.S. the "go ahead" with taking them on.. I doubt they'd have the gall...
2007-12-14 11:48:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Iranians are not Arabs and would be seen as foreign occupiers just like we are. so would face an insurrection if they tried. Since they live in the region and understand the situation they won't try. Much more likely is that a civil war will break out they will help the shias and get control of the southern oil by making them dependent.
2007-12-14 12:14:34 · answer #6 · answered by meg 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They're already letting fighters cross their borders and providing them with the parts and know-how to build road side bombs. So even if they don't invade with an army, they will certainly be the driving force behind a continuing insurgency to undermine the government there and place a friendly government in its place. Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.
2007-12-14 11:51:11 · answer #7 · answered by Jay 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
could be anythings possible i suppose.but whats funny we put saddam in power in the 80's and gave him chemical weapons to keep the iranians at bay now we removed him and iran is starting to run amok
2007-12-14 11:47:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
well its certainly possible. but i would be hesitant to call it likely. it would be real bull headed of Adminijahd to do that. he would have to think he is invincible because he would have the entire west and Israel sending troops over there. it would be the persian gulf war all over again.
2007-12-14 11:49:05 · answer #9 · answered by Razgriz01 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iran would be in there like a flood.
2007-12-14 11:57:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋