Iraq in 10 years

[Interviewer/surveyer]

Where do you think it will be, where do you want it to be?

[Slaapkamers]

They will be free. Once they are free they will destroy themselves, because they hate freedom.

[Iscariot]

They will be free. Once they are free they will destroy themselves, because they hate freedom.

this

they don't want to be democratic they want to have continued and endless sectarian violence all across the country no amount of intervention is going to change that

they're all ready gearing up for a sunni genocide once we withdraw our troops

[Slaapkamers]

And then they will bomb us and kill us because we're freer than they are.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Hopefully it'll be carved up into three separate countries like it should be

[gregulus]

Hopefully it'll be carved up into three separate countries like it should be

That does seem like the only realistic possibility.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Hopefully it'll be carved up into three separate countries like it should be123, although Turkey won't tolerate an independent Kurdistan and Iran would probably majorly fvck around with (i.e. indirectly control) an independent southern Iraqi Shia state. A central Sunni state would likely gravitate toward Syria's protection.

[Shotti]

We should just annex the hell out of it! I think Ford Trucks and the Dixie Chix are just what the godless Iraqi's need to become a decent nation.

[TheDarkHorse]

Iraq will be a giant military base

I would want it under Saddam again, but thats not gonna happen :(

[Iscariot]

at least under saddam there was relative sectarian peace

now we've set them up for one of the bloodiest holy wars they've seen in years

[lfantwister]

now we've set them up for one of the bloodiest holy wars they've seen in years
but theyll be free!! and thats what matters

[griftadan]

Hopefully it'll be carved up into three separate countries like it should be

well i used to say that this wouldn't end violence, but i don't see an end to violence coming anyways so yeah probably.

anyways i say if we want to salvage anything from the war, we support kurdistan, the only faction who views us favorably.

[Mr. Ron]

Where do you think it will be, where do you want it to be?
We'll still be there, probably still in the same situation but maybe a little less violent...or maybe not.

I would like to see them gain control finally of their own government and get our stupid butts out of there.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Winston Churchill said the biggest mistake he ever made was making Iraq a single country. It's just like in Africa; the country lumped together for geographical convenience with no regard to the ethnicities of the people living there

[Reaganista]

I would want it under Saddam again, but thats not gonna happen :(
you're serious?

[White Riot!]

Another country RUINED by america

[Iskandar]

We'll still be there, probably still in the same situation but maybe a little less violent...or maybe not.

I would like to see them gain control finally of their own government and get our stupid butts out of there.
I doubt the US will be in Iraq in ten years. I can smell a Democrat victory in '08.

[griftadan]

Another country RUINED by america

the country was pretty much ruined well before we got there

[ashman]

Winston Churchill said the biggest mistake he ever made was making Iraq a single country. It's just like in Africa; the country lumped together for geographical convenience with no regard to the ethnicities of the people living there

This post wins.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Here's a nice nutcase suggestion of how to solve the Middle East's problems (I doubt it would work though). http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899
Edit: go to the map on the right and click on the second map to enlarge.

[gregulus]

Another country RUINED by america

Don't act like Western Europe hasn't done more than its fair share of "ruining." Don't be such an elitist prick.

[Mr. Ron]

I doubt the US will be in Iraq in ten years. I can smell a Democrat victory in '08.

Don't mind me I'm a pessimist. :p

[Reaganista]

Don't act like Western Europe hasn't done more than its fair share of "ruining." Don't be such an elitist prick.

damn elitist euros grrr


what?

[White Riot!]

Don't act like Western Europe hasn't done more than its fair share of "ruining." Don't be such an elitist prick.

Context , baby.

America , Russia , Cold war?

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Here's a nice nutcase suggestion of how to solve the Middle East's problems (I doubt it would work though). http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899
Edit: go to the map on the right and click on the second map to enlarge.

That's a pretty interesting article. Towards the end it gets a little hand-of-Godly, but still interesting.


I think some sort of separation in Iraq is the only way to relative peace, but the question is if it will ever happen and who could make it happen. The way things are now, there are too many groups of people who would rather see each other dead than just get on with life, but even forming independent states wouldn't make the hatred go away, and imagine the plight of someone who lives in someone else's ethnic state. The last thing the Middle East needs is more ethnic groups that feel like theyve been booted out of their homeland and want to take it back.


The way things are headed now, I don't see the US giving up on its pipe dream of exporting freedom and democracy to Iraq any time soon. Perhaps in a few years they'll do like they did in the first Gulf War and simply pull out, but for now they're stuck there. My guess is at some point pressure in the US will mount to the point where an immediate pullout happens, and Iraq will be screwed all over again.

[Interviewer/surveyer]

Another country RUINED by america

If it wasn't for us in WW2, this planet Earth would be ****ed.

[Cain]

If it wasn't for us in WW2, this planet Earth would be ****ed.

god i hate this argument with a fiery passion.

everybody can see that militarily the nation most responsible for the military defeat of the nazis was the soviet union. this is because the nazis' racist heart had a bigger war with the soviets than the west, and so nearly 80 percent of their total military force was over there at any one time with the exception of mid-to-late 1944 when a bunch of ss divisions were sent west for refitting and the Battle of the Bulge

and the guy who helped name washington's international airport (mr. allen j. dulles, first director of the CIA) was gonna allow the nazis free reign in the soviet union in exchange for american occupation of italy as far north as florence. unfortunately this plan collapsed due to british disapproval. hell the united states was one of the only reasons himmler had these crazy ideas about being able to forge a seperate peace with the western allies in the latter days of the war. don't give me this crap about how the world would have been lost if it wasn't for us.

great and now we've turned another iraq thread into another wwii thread. people get your facts straight.

[gregulus]

Context , baby.

America , Russia , Cold war?

This post makes no sense. Care to type in complete sentences with complete thoughts?

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

If it wasn't for us in WW2, this planet Earth would be ****ed.

yeah, you almost ****ed that one up too. thank god the japs attacked you when they did or you might have waited until germany and japan controlled half the planet before waking up.

[Der Übermensch]

If it wasn't for us in WW2, this planet Earth would be ****ed.

Looks like Cain already covered the matter, but the United States were immaterial to winning WW2. It might have taken a little longer perhaps, the the Soviet Union was doing just fine, and would have won regardless of whether we were there.

[griftadan]

i think you guys are understating lend lease and the pacific theatre

[Der Übermensch]

The Pacific was, for all intents and purposes, a seperate war from the European theater.
We didn't have any obligation to declare war on Germany... Hitler merely did it out of solidarity.

[Reaganista]

talking in WWII hypotheticals as though the USA (or any other ally) didn't exist is one of the most innane activities people could possibly engage in

[Der Übermensch]

agreed. But people do give the US more credit then it is due in defeating Germany.

[Smokey D]

If the US hadn't involved itself in the War, Germany still would have lost but the Soviets would have had complete hegemony over all of Europe. Therefore, the US did play a very important role, even if its military contribution to the European theatre was immaterial to the ultimate conclusion.

Also, there is always the possibility that the Germans would have been successful in defeating the Soviets if they were able to dedicate all their troops to the Eastern front. But that's less likely.

[Mr. Ron]

I'm not sure if calling America's involvement in WW2 as "immaterial" is 100% correct. It would have dragged on for longer. But I do agree we weren't the final blow to the war at all.

[Der Übermensch]

Ja, maybe immaterial isn't the best word... It was an expedient, but hardly the clincher.

[MattSharpIsCool]

And like Smokey said, it kept the Soviet Union from steamrolling the rest of Europe after taking Berlin, which they very easily could have done.

[Der Übermensch]

And like Smokey said, it kept the Soviet Union from steamrolling the rest of Europe after taking Berlin, which they very easily could have done.

Agreed that that is very important, but it's a different issue.

[Apollyon]

Context , baby.

America , Russia , Cold war?

great britain africa ww2

if we're going to talk about political failures let's try not to be so one sided

[Smokey D]

Ja, maybe immaterial isn't the best word... It was an expedient, but hardly the clincher.

Not immaterial, but immaterial to the ultimate conclusion. That is, Germany was probably going to lose no matter what once it invaded the USSR.

[Woundweaver]

I've always thought the world would have been a much more bloodless place if Britain had of sided with the germans in the first world war. (not such a stretch of imanation when you think that the Kaisers were related to the Winsors) Think about it, that would have tipped the ballance against Russia and France, the Treaty of Versailles would not have come into play, therefore Britain would retain it's empire.

No world war II due to unfair and astronomical reparations upon Germany, therfore no need for a facist party to come into power. The Middle East would be in relative peace... sort of. (edit:) Plus the US would not have been dragged into the conflict due to war in the atlantic (and therefore the sinking of the lucitania) Soviet Russia still would probably have happened. But it would very much have carved the world back into empires rather than smaller states as it exists now.

It probably wouldn't have panned out that way, but it's interesting to think about it. And to note that one mans death (The Archduke Franz Ferdinand) has caused nearly a hundred years of war throughout various parts of the world...

[Smokey D]

Yeah, but to side with Germany would have been against Britain's strategic interest and another war would probably have occured between the two powers at a later date anyway.

Also, the British were obliged to declare war on the Germans because of the violation of Belgium.

[Interviewer/surveyer]

Looks like Cain already covered the matter, but the United States were immaterial to winning WW2. It might have taken a little longer perhaps, the the Soviet Union was doing just fine, and would have won regardless of whether we were there.So if we wouldn't have been there, how would the Japanese involvement in WW2 played out?

[Der Übermensch]

Once Germany was defeated, Stalin would probably attack Japan. Russia was still quite stung over their 1905 defeat, and would have loved to regan the lost territory. Stalin wasn't dumb enough to fight a war on two major fronts though. He prioritized.

[Mr. Ron]

Unlike Hitler.



I wonder what we could have done besides using the bomb on japan and invading them? Perhaps a naval blockade and wait them out?

[Der Übermensch]

Well, half the reason they attacked us was because we had an economical blockade of them already. We were witholding oil and rubber, which we used to trade to them. To they felt the need to expand south...

[Mr. Ron]

Well I mean if we surrounded the entire Island with our navy They couldn't last forever, even with their dedication.

[Der Übermensch]

Yeah, but the resupply would have made it completly unfeasable. It's one thing to maintain sub squadrons going into the Sea of Japan, but a surface fleet would almost certainly be annihilated without 100% air superiority, which I don't think could be maintained with a Carrier based force against Land fighters.

[Woundweaver]

Yeah, but to side with Germany would have been against Britain's strategic interest and another war would probably have occured between the two powers at a later date anyway.

Also, the British were obliged to declare war on the Germans because of the violation of Belgium.

Quite true, though it's always interesting to wonder about "what if" scenarios.

At least I think so anyway.

[Mr. Ron]

Yeah, but the resupply would have made it completly unfeasable. It's one thing to maintain sub squadrons going into the Sea of Japan, but a surface fleet would almost certainly be annihilated without 100% air superiority, which I don't think could be maintained with a Carrier based force against Land fighters.

Wasn't their air force almost completely destroyed by the time we dropped the bomb? I could be wrong.

[Der Übermensch]

Yeah, the real airforce was gone, but they had a huge reserve of aircraft. The reason they weren't using them was because they were all for kamikaze attacks on the expected invasion force.

[Mr. Ron]

Ah I see.

[Interviewer/surveyer]

Once Germany was defeated, Stalin would probably attack Japan. Russia was still quite stung over their 1905 defeat, and would have loved to regan the lost territory. Stalin wasn't dumb enough to fight a war on two major fronts though. He prioritized.

"probably"? well, we defeated Japan, and that is a huge success for WW2. I can see your arguement that our involvement in WW2 doesn't sway the outcome, but when you think of the two big enemies in WW2, you think Germany and Japan, and we ousted Japan, big time.

[MattSharpIsCool]

Russia didn't have much of a navy, did they? It would have been interesting to see how they fought the war in the Pacific with no navy.

[pedro durruti]

By the time Russia would have defeated Germany, Japan would have had a foothold in much of Asia.

All the same, this is just what-if nonsense.

[Woundweaver]

"probably"? well, we defeated Japan, and that is a huge success for WW2. I can see your arguement that our involvement in WW2 doesn't sway the outcome, but when you think of the two big enemies in WW2, you think Germany and Japan, and we ousted Japan, big time.

True, but the reason why the US beat Japan is because they dropped the bomb, which was a direct result of research due to the rest of the war in the western theater.

I dunno, when I think of the war, I always think of Germany first. *Shruggs*

Russia didn't have much of a navy, did they? It would have been interesting to see how they fought the war in the Pacific with no navy.

This. Because realistically they didn't need one, as any invasion force attacking from the east would probably die of exhaustion/cold/boredom by the time they got to Moscow. The country is fuggin 'UGE!

[Smokey D]

If Russia had been able to defeat Germany, Japan wouldn't have been very difficult. The only navy the USSR would have needed would have been one sufficient to protect even a small portion of its land forces while they crossed the sea.

However, whether the USSR would have felt compelled to declare war on Japan in the absence of US-Japanese hostilities is far from clear. From what I understand, evidence suggests not -- at least, not in the short term.

[Der Übermensch]

Russia didn't have much of a navy, did they? It would have been interesting to see how they fought the war in the Pacific with no navy.

They did until it got smashed by the Japs in 1905. But considering the proximity of the USSR to the Japanese homeland, a navy wouldn't have been nearly as important for them as it was for the US, who had to 'island hop' the whole way there.

However, whether the USSR would have felt compelled to declare war on Japan in the absence of US-Japanese hostilities is far from clear. From what I understand, evidence suggests not -- at least, not in the short term.
They were still very bitter about the loss to Japan earlier though, and viewed much of the northern japanese possessions as rightfully their own.

[ringworm]

Does anyone think America can regain a better image from "The Middle East"?

If so, what measures would need to be taken to help our bad PR with Islam/Arab/those who hate our foreign policies?

Can just a president acheive this or would it require massive numbers and actions?

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

True, but the reason why the US beat Japan is because they dropped the bomb, which was a direct result of research due to the rest of the war in the western theater.
Japan was pretty much doomed to be defeated once the island hopping campaign got going, I'd say Midway being the turning point. The bomb was only dropped to inflict as much damage as possible to sway the Japanese into surrender without sacrificing an estimated million American lives.

America's standing in the Middle East? It is and will be in shambles for some time.

[Dr Hooch]

Does anyone think America can regain a better image from "The Middle East"?

If so, what measures would need to be taken to help our bad PR with Islam/Arab/those who hate our foreign policies?

Can just a president acheive this or would it require massive numbers and actions?

It'd need a change in attitude on the part of many american people; if only to get said president elected. But everybody loves to hate, and I'm not sure if even if it was decided tomorrow to make friends with the ME, especially w.r.t. Israel.

[Interviewer/surveyer]

True, but the reason why the US beat Japan is because they dropped the bomb, which was a direct result of research due to the rest of the war in the western theater.

I dunno, when I think of the war, I always think of Germany first. *Shruggs*




Oh, i definitely do too, but Japan was right behind them, and we took them out. People say that our (America's) involvement in WW2 was not crucial to the winning of the war, and in our defense, we took out one of the two "Big" enemies. Id like to know how they would have been defeated had we not been involved in the war.

[Smokey D]

World War 2 was really more two independent wars than it was one big one. The Japanese and Germans had pretty divergent or at least unrelated goals. It was pretty coincidental that they happened to be fighting the same people.