If we pull out of Iraq what will happen?

[Technosoul]

President Bush made a speculated guess that if we do not win in Irag the country would become a safe haven for terrorts who would use that location to attack America here and where we do business or vacation elsewhere in the world. Are those fears well founded in your opinon

[Scribbler1]

He's probably right. And it will have been his own damned fault if it does.

[theco805]

Iraq is in a civil war now...yes, it will get worse....but it will be better then us taking forever to force democracy upon them, which they don't even want, which is ironic cause thats not democratic

[Jack]

The terrorists we need to worry about the most don't call any country home. Like OBL, they'll keep moving and avoid congregating in any one place long enough for us to learn about it and send in the bombs.
Sure Iraq will probably harbor some terrorists, like Saudi Arabia and Iran do now. But what difference does that make? Do we honestly think that if we control Iraq the terrorists will disappear? Best I can tell, we have no idea how to remove the threat of terrorism.

[Technosoul]

I do not think the people of Iraq will allow outsider terrorist occupation nor the same from Iran. I feel if there are terrorist there from Bin Laden they are attacking American troops and if we leave they would have no other objectives for staying in Irag.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Technosoul I do not think the people of Iraq will allow outsider terrorist occupation nor the same from Iran. I feel if there are terrorist there from Bin Laden they are attacking American troops and if we leave they would have no other objectives for staying in Irag.

Why would they care, as long as these terrorists don't attack anyone inside Iraq? The Taliban didn't worry about Al-Queda(sp). I don't think warfare against troops IS terrorism and terrorism is what Al-Queda does. I believe the people killing our people are insurgents and that's completely different, although Bush has trouble telling the two apart. It would seem a lot of Iraqis have no good reason to like us and every reason to hate us to the point of turning a blind eye to terrorists camps. At least until we have been gone for a good while. They should know we will be keeping an eye on the place.

And if Bush is somehow right, if he gets to really get a solid government in and wipes out any insurgents, he would have a good bargaining chip with the Iranians.
I know, given his record it seems impossible that he could call ANYTHING correctly, but as a broken clock is right twice a day he might be due to be right ONCE.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Technosoul If Bush fails to win in Iraq will terrorists use that location to attack USA ?

I do not think, so.
Islamic fundamentalists have no support, even within Muslim world, except for some alike ones.

If you mean conditions that promote Islamic fundamentalists to establish some source of governing body within a state, then we may expect political, administrative, cultural, etc. disaster within those created states.
A complete regress in almost all the fields, with pain and suffering to become the most common events those days are going to be filled-with.
A sort of modern-era Communism (in its worst from) made-by Islamic fudnamentalists.

[Osborn F Enready]

I don't think they will use "that" location to attack the U.S.

They may attack oil, which is attacking us indirectly, but not use directly.

[RickSp]

Bush's claim that Iraq without the US will become a "safe haven for terrorists" isn't wholly convincing unless you think all Iraqis and Muslims are alike.

AlQaeda in Iraq is Sunni and is not likely to prosper in a predominantly Shia country. They take credit for the bombing of the Golden mosque in Samarra. Not a great way to win Iraqi Shia hearts and minds. AlQaeda in Iraq has a chance only so long as the US continues its occupation. Without the foreign infidel occupier there will no longer be a common enemy to unite the insurgency. In any civil war, AlQaeda will probably be one of the losers.

The longer the US has occupied Iraq the worse conditions have become. That was true last year and year before. All the promises of "turning the corner" have been puffery as the country slips into the abyss.

How can anyone think with any certainty that things will be worse once the US leaves? It may be better or worse when we leave, but the longer we stay, it is almost guaranteed to get worse.

[brien]

Quote by: Technosoul President Bush made a speculated guess that if we do not win in Irag the country would become a safe haven for terrorts who would use that location to attack America here and where we do business or vacation elsewhere in the world. Are those fears well founded in your opinon

NO.It is merely pandering to the average American's fear of Islamic Fundamentalism by linking it to the quagmire in Iraq.

[Blueangel347]

This President has ruined our Country..... With a lot of luck maybe our next leader will turn things around. This President has worked at spreading fear to the American people to justify his own desires.

[Technosoul]

[quote=Osborn F Enready;326854]I don't think they will use "that" location to attack the U.S.

They may attack oil, which is attacking us indirectly, but not use directly.[/QUOTE)

In his speech Bush mentioned (in around about way) that if the terrorists get control of the oil fields in Iraq that they could fund terrorism by selling the oil.

Also, his new plan calls for giving each person who lives in Iraq a share in the money made from selling the oil produced in Irag. He wants to re-inact the same plan that Saddam had in effect for their new "Democratic socialism".
Cuba would apploud that new welfare plan.

But bottom line is this. Bush wants to maintain USA control over the oil industry in Irag so that the terrorists cannot distroy it or use it to their own advantages. (Being that the current Irag government has little control outside of Bagdad and that area is even questionable). In other words: Halliburton stays and Tricky Dick #2 who masterminded sending in his company (which he was the CEO within) can profit and then he and his friends can work for that company once they leave Washington.

This control will be done under the pretence that the Iragis are controlling that industry and just getting "our help". Halliburton will hire some Iragis as managers and effect a new sub-company of Halliburton with a Arab sounding name - and become an "International company". So says my crystal ball.

[Athena]

Quote by: Technosoul President Bush made a speculated guess that if we do not win in Irag the country would become a safe haven for terrorts who would use that location to attack America here and where we do business or vacation elsewhere in the world. Are those fears well founded in your opinon

You forgot the most important thing he said. He said the terrorist would have control of oil and the US would be seriously hurt. They do not need to come to the US or wage war; just cut the oil supply.

911, the number we use for emergancies, took out the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The US made moves to befriend Arab oil countries long ago, at least since Eisenhower was President. The US did not need the Arab oil then, but Japan and the UK did, and these are major trade partners for the US. To keep the US economy strong, the US had to assure their trade partners had oil. The more the Brits pulled back, the more the US stepped in. Without cheap oil industrial nations are in big trouble! 911.

The trouble really began with Johnson who backed the brutal Shaw of Iran- who was overthown, and he backed Israel which Eisenhower didn't do to develop good terms with the Arabs. Johnson thought nothing matter but power, and got on the US on a very negative path in the Mid East, something every president since has maintained. So we come to war. We need that oil and are no longer on friendly terms with Arabs. BAD POLITICS! War only mistakes a wrong worse.

[Athena]

[quote=Technosoul;327081]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I don't think they will use "that" location to attack the U.S. They may attack oil, which is attacking us indirectly, but not use directly.[/QUOTE) In his speech Bush mentioned (in around about way) that if the terrorists get control of the oil fields in Iraq that they could fund terrorism by selling the oil. Also, his new plan calls for giving each person who lives in Iraq a share in the money made from selling the oil produced in Irag. He wants to re-inact the same plan that Saddam had in effect for their new "Democratic socialism". Cuba would apploud that new welfare plan. But bottom line is this. Bush wants to maintain USA control over the oil industry in Irag so that the terrorists cannot distroy it or use it to their own advantages. (Being that the current Irag government has little control outside of Bagdad and that area is even questionable). In other words: Halliburton stays and Tricky Dick #2 who masterminded sending in his company (which he was the CEO within) can profit and then he and his friends can work for that company once they leave Washington. This control will be done under the pretence that the Iragis are controlling that industry and just getting "our help". Halliburton will hire some Iragis as managers and effect a new sub-company of Halliburton with a Arab sounding name - and become an "International company". So says my crystal ball.

Didn't Cheney begin with oil? His move from oil to Halliburton comes from understanding Hitlers New World Order. WWII was an extension of WWI, and understanding that history explains what is going on today, only as Bush senior and junior said, the US is leading the New World Order today. From a 1914 book "The Anglo-German Problem" by Charles Sarolea, I bolded the most important words, explaining Bush, Cheney and Halliburton.

"It is interesting to compare Bernhardi's views with those of one of the ablest parliamentary leaders and publicists of Germany. Dr. Fredrich Naumann has emphasized the fundamental differences between the war of yesterday and the war of to-morrow, and has pointed out what will be the chief difficulties the military command will have to contend with. The war of the future is a problem of economic organization of the most difficult nature and the highest technological achievement, such as has never been hitherto demanded from any army. The old military qualities must give way to the organizing qualities. No doubt the courage and endurance of the individual soldier must remain for all times the foundation of military power, but organizing genius is required in order not to waste that courage and endurance. This is clearly shown from a mere examination of the colossal numbers engaged. To transport, to locate, and to feed these masses of men is the daily preoccupation of the military authorities. That they rightly understand the nature of the problem is certain, but it is very doubtful whether the problem can ever be adequately solved by commanders who are recruited from the Junkertum. Mere military capacity does not suffice here. Both enemies and friends admit that our corps of officers possess such military capacity. Anxiety only arises with regard to the other qualifications. We know that our industry possess in its industries successful organizers, brains accustomed to direct great quanties of material and "personnel"- men who create new conditions of life for whole economic districts without having to appeal to any authority. As democratic politicians we may often have to oppose bitterly those captains of industry, but if it comes to war we shall be willing to be led by them, because we know that they have the brains. It is true that they must not meddle with the technical duties of the officers, but the administration of the war material must be their province. And even with regard to the technique of war, it becomes from year to year more questionable whether this can be managed more efficiently by a corps of noblemen than by the representatives of middle class technique. However much we may value the moral qualities of the ruling class-and, with all political difference of opinion, we shall not minimize those qualities- we must admit that we are witnessing a transformation of methods of attack and defence which in addition to the old question of iron discipline raises the modern question: how far shall we be able on the battlefield to replace the human unit through machinery? It is obvious that this will never succeed completely, for there does not exist a machine which does not need a human soul to work it. At the same time it is doubtless that in this direction mighty changes are at hand. We can see here a repetition of the process which we notice in nearly all industries- the subordination and displacement of human labour in mines, machines, and means of transport. If you examine a weaving mill you shall find comparatively few men; the whole place is already full of the produce of labour which has been accomplished elsewhere. Even so in war: the front ranks must be supplied with human units in as limited a quantity as possible: but those units must have the mechanical ability in the blood. Those conditions do already exist to a large extent in naval warfare. Ships are built and equipped with an insignificant number of men compared to their fighting power. But those men must work like animated machines. Even so the air fleet of to-morrow will demand a large amount of technical application and technical ability, but very few military units. War is becoming impersonal, and is becoming reduced to a rivalry of money and economics. That even here military members of the nobility may achieve great results is shown by the admirable example of Count Zeppelin. But the impression remains that there still survive in the army the traditions of the pre-industrial age- traditions not only of loyalty and discipline, but also of technical ignorance. We have still too much of the parade soldier whose knees are more pliable than his fingers or brain. The industrializing of the army is coming, but very slowly. It begins with the artillery, but it ends at the Calvary. We have still failed fully to realize that under a system of universal service a nation pays labours in order that its weapons shall be absolutely of the first class. The nation which can put the best technique into the military service will probably, in the altered conditions of modern warfare achieve victory."

[Technosoul]

The war of the Robots? Hmm?

Oil and specially made gasolones are important to maintain the milarty and it's many machines. Jet fighters, large bombers, ships, tanks, and long range rockets need fueling. It would seem unlikely to me that they can operate on solar power or most of the other alternatives. That is something to think about. Even rockets that put those spy and communicaitonal sytems into orbit need fosil fuels. I doubt if "clearn technology" is at the top of the list at those companies that desing and build tanks and other such military equipment or transportational systems.

So not only do we have industry but also military concerns that are dependant on oil resources to remain "great". (currently and in the near future).

So if terrorists cut off our oil we will gave to learn how to sword fight, I guess.

But what if we run out of oil because we use it all up? Then what kind of a "military world" would we have? We cannot convert all our farming areas for growing fuel products, we need them to grow food. And flowers for the gravesites of those killed in battle.

Do we believe that oil wells are a bottomless pit that we can open to pump out the fosil fuels of the prehistoric Serpent - an unending supply? (sounds almost biblical .. eh?). If we run out of oil then we will have to transform some of the weapons into plows so we can grow crops that can be used to make our fueling products. (Gee, I could make a whole "the Bible told us so" sermon out of this).

The question is "was the war with Irag really started to get that oil before the terrorists did, along with the oil pipe line in Afganistan? As well as to insure the security of Kuwait oil. Or was that just an afterthought now by Bush as a reason to upgrade our military presense in Irag?

And what did the close relationship of the Laden family with Halliburton before 911, when one of the Ladens (Bin) attacked the USA and gave us a reason to go to war in those important locations for oil, have to do with the overall momentum? Could the Ladan family and Vice President's (Hallibuton) company have constructed a conspiracy that was so brave that no one wanted to even dare imagine that such a plot was underfoot?

Would anyone in Congress even dare to investigate Halliburton about why we are in Iraq, or is it just too "wild" of a idea to warrent concideration.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Blueangel347 This President has ruined our Country..... With a lot of luck maybe our next leader will turn things around. This President has worked at spreading fear to the American people to justify his own desires.

I was completely surprised as sheite when Bush was voted back in..... I was surprised when he was voted in the first time.... but I guess there was a lot of BS around that too, where Gore got screwed out of it.

I can bet that after Bush is out of power, if he doesn't get impeached or put on trial for what he's done, he best go hide in a bunker somewhere for the rest of his life, because I imagine he'll have a entire world looking for him.

[brien]

Quote by: Blueangel347 This President has ruined our Country..... With a lot of luck maybe our next leader will turn things around. This President has worked at spreading fear to the American people to justify his own desires.

This President has worked at spreading fear to the American people to justify his own desires.

This is a reasonable statement.

This President has ruined our Country.....

This statement is a bit of a stretch. You attribute too much to GWB. The country was ruined over the last century by a number of individuals.

[Praxius]

Quote by: brien This statement is a bit of a stretch. You attribute too much to GWB. The country was ruined over the last century by a number of individuals.

It was better when Clinton was running imo..... one of the only presidents I actually held respect for.

[Chris]

I fixed your typo in the title technosoul.