Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1982 was the counter offensive against Iraq. You act like Iran started the war with the 1982 offensive.
Yes you are correct. Iraq invaded first. The point being that Iran was able to infiltrate Iraq and have a strong hold. Iran didn't have nuclear weapons then. One could only imagine what would have happened if it did. Iran supports terrorism. Terrorism can disrupt the flow of oil. That would be bad for our economy. If we leave Iraq vulnerable? Anything can happen. Brookings has an interesting article "Lessons from America's First War with Iran" : " America had no natural partners in the Iran-Iraq war, but its interests dictated that the United States allow neither Saddam nor Khomeini to dominate the region and the world's energy supply. For most of the war it was Iran that appeared on the verge pf victory, so Washington had little choice but to support Iraq." So you see it's irrelevant who started the war, but totally important how it ended. Just as it's in our best interest to ensure that the M.E. oil supply remains stable. Pulling out of the M.E. could be a disaster or it could be a great idea. We won't know until the cards fall on the table. Personally, I wouldn't want to gamble. I'd prefer renewable energy and an electric car. If we didn't need oil, we wouldn't need the M.E.
Yes you are correct. Iraq invaded first. The point being that Iran was able to infiltrate Iraq and have a strong hold. Iran didn't have nuclear weapons then. One could only imagine what would have happened if it did. Iran supports terrorism. Terrorism can disrupt the flow of oil. That would be bad for our economy. If we leave Iraq vulnerable? Anything can happen. Brookings has an interesting article "Lessons from America's First War with Iran" : " America had no natural partners in the Iran-Iraq war, but its interests dictated that the United States allow neither Saddam nor Khomeini to dominate the region and the world's energy supply. For most of the war it was Iran that appeared on the verge pf victory, so Washington had little choice but to support Iraq." So you see it's irrelevant who started the war, but totally important how it ended. Just as it's in our best interest to ensure that the M.E. oil supply remains stable. Pulling out of the M.E. could be a disaster or it could be a great idea. We won't know until the cards fall on the table. Personally, I wouldn't want to gamble. I'd prefer renewable energy and an electric car. If we didn't need oil, we wouldn't need the M.E.
We armed the terrorists in Syria (and elsewhere). We armed OBL. How exactly is that less evil? When did siding with the enemy of your enemy become a bad thing? Why is it that Iran should be held to a different standard than we hold ourselves?
Baghdad -- Iraqi lawmakers Thursday demanded U.S. forces leave the country in the wake of a surprise visit by President Donald Trump that politicians denounced as arrogant and a violation of Iraqi sovereignty.
Politicians from both blocs of Iraq's divided Parliament called for a vote to expel U.S. troops and promised to schedule an extraordinary session to debate the matter.
"Parliament must clearly and urgently express its view about the ongoing American violations of Iraqi sovereignty," said Salam al-Shimiri, a lawmaker loyal to the populist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
Status:
"Apparently the worst poster on CD"
(set 26 days ago)
27,645 posts, read 16,129,622 times
Reputation: 19062
Be gone then. Perhaps an apology as we pack up and leave.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.