We are on the way out of Iraq.
If you like what Saddam did to the Shia after the first gulf war, you will absolutely love what happens when the U.S. pulls the last forces out of Iraq.
In the short term, the vacuum will fill quickly. Syria will occupy the Al-Anbar Province and the Sunni triangle to protect Sunni Muslims when Iran occupies the Shia south and takes control of the southern oil fields.
To prevent the emergence of a Kurdish state, Turkey will invade Iraqi Kurdistan and slaughter the Kurds.
A three-way conflict between Syria/Hamas, Iran, and Turkey will commence for control of the northern oil fields.
Meanwhile, al-Qaeda will proclaim victory and enjoy a swelling in its ranks world-wide.
Militarily, al-Qaeda will turn its focus on the House of Saud and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, followed next by the Kuwait, the UAE, and Qatar, possibly Algeria and Libya, too. Jihadists sympathetic to al Qaeda will also seek to control Indonesia, the Sudan, Angola, and Nigeria.
If in the least part successful, this will give jihadist Islam control of OPEC interests.
The moderate governments of Jordan and Egypt will be next. The balance of ME countries will comply without much pressure.
Bin Laden’s vision to “establish the righteous Caliphate of our umma” will become reality.
Israel will be targeted for annihilation.
It is not clear to me whether the U.S. Government will be able to protect Israel. If able, I wonder what we’ll do…
The U.S. will still be dependent on foreign oil.
If jihadists achieve control over OPEC interests, they will control the U.S.
The kinds of economic black mail the jihadists will employ will make the games played by then Shah of Iran Mohammed Reza Pahlavi back in the 70s seem like child’s play. The U.S. Government will no longer be able to protect its citizens. Transportation will fail. Reliable food distribution will cease. Supply and demand will drive inflation rates to unimaginable heights. The value of the dollar will plummet, and the price of gold will sky rocket. Widespread starvation and poverty in north America will result.
How long will the beards be of the men who step up to save the American sheep?
Cheers,
Holy moly Mitch! And alpha6 thinks I am the dark and gloomy one!
In the first real opinion I’ve seen from you on international affairs, you are 99 percent correct. The first statement is your only error, and you go on to describe why in the rest of your text. Once the Project for a New American Century was initiated there was no turning back. We’re in for the long haul…or at least until the oil runs out. The invasion of Iraq was the first step in securing America’s “interests” in the Middle East. Now we’re there, we’re NEVER…EVER leaving…at least until the oil runs out.
Israel can perfectly well defend herself, and I would bet that she instigates the conflict with her neighbors, not the other way around. Once conflict occurs, we will jump in to help of course. This will further our goals of subduing and controlling the Middle East. Oh young ones, prepare to be drafted to the glorious purpose of looting and pillaging the lands of our enemies.
This could all turn nuclear, but I’m betting it won’t. The US and Israel don’t want to render the world’s last large remaining oilfields radioactive. The guys at EXXON wouldn’t be happy about that.
Holy moly Mitch! And alpha6 thinks I am the dark and gloomy one!
In the first real opinion I’ve seen from you on international affairs, you are 99 percent correct. The first statement is your only error, and you go on to describe why in the rest of your text. Once the Project for a New American Century was initiated there was no turning back. We’re in for the long haul…or at least until the oil runs out. The invasion of Iraq was the first step in securing America’s “interests” in the Middle East. Now we’re there, we’re NEVER…EVER leaving…at least until the oil runs out.
Israel can perfectly well defend herself, and I would bet that she instigates the conflict with her neighbors, not the other way around. Once conflict occurs, we will jump in to help of course. This will further our goals of subduing and controlling the Middle East. Oh young ones, prepare to be drafted to the glorious purpose of looting and pillaging the lands of our enemies.
This could all turn nuclear, but I’m betting it won’t. The US and Israel don’t want to render the world’s last large remaining oilfields radioactive. The guys at EXXON wouldn’t be happy about that.
So I’m wrong about leaving Iraq? OK, it’s more of a coin toss than a done deal.
Source: New York Times (Note the use of the terms “redeployment” and “withdrawal.” The terms have the same meaning–to remove troops from Iraq–but the NYT uses the former to describe Democrat positions and the latter to describe Republican positions. Bias?)
Subject: Withdrawal from Iraq
Democratic Presidential Candidates:
Biden: Phased redeployment with decentralization
Clinton: Phased redeployment
Dodd: Phased redeployment
Edwards: Redeployment within 18 months
Kucinich: De-fund war and redeploy now
Obama: Phased redeployment
Richardson: Redeploy by December, 2007
Republican Presidential Candidates:
Brownback: Gradual ceding of reponsibility to Iraqis
Gilmore: Maintain troop levels
Giuliani: Maintain troop levels
Huckabee: Gradual ceding of reponsibility to Iraqis
Hunter: Gradual ceding of responsibility to Iraqis
McCain: Maintain troop levels
Paul: Withdraw now
Romney: Maintain troop levels
Tancredo: Phased withdrawal
Thompson: Letting Iraqis decide
Clearly 52 percent of presidential candidates favor troop withdrawal; 100 percent of Democratic candidates are for withdrawal; 20 percent of Republicans are. If any pro-withdrawal candidate is elected, what do you want to bet he/she changes his/her mind upon taking office?
Cheers,
So I’m wrong about leaving Iraq? OK, it’s more of a coin toss than a done deal.
Source: New York Times (Note the use of the terms “redeployment” and “withdrawal.” The terms have the same meaning–to remove troops from Iraq–but the NYT uses the former to describe Democrat positions and the latter to describe Republican positions. Bias?)
Subject: Withdrawal from Iraq
Democratic Presidential Candidates:
Biden: Phased redeployment with decentralization
Clinton: Phased redeployment
Dodd: Phased redeployment
Edwards: Redeployment within 18 months
Kucinich: De-fund war and redeploy now
Obama: Phased redeployment
Richardson: Redeploy by December, 2007
Republican Presidential Candidates:
Brownback: Gradual ceding of reponsibility to Iraqis
Gilmore: Maintain troop levels
Giuliani: Maintain troop levels
Huckabee: Gradual ceding of reponsibility to Iraqis
Hunter: Gradual ceding of responsibility to Iraqis
McCain: Maintain troop levels
Paul: Withdraw now
Romney: Maintain troop levels
Tancredo: Phased withdrawal
Thompson: Letting Iraqis decide
Clearly 52 percent of presidential candidates favor troop withdrawal; 100 percent of Democratic candidates are for withdrawal; 20 percent of Republicans are. If any pro-withdrawal candidate is elected, what do you want to bet he/she changes his/her mind upon taking office?
Cheers,
[We are on the way out of Iraq.]
In 2009?
[To prevent the emergence of a Kurdish state, Turkey will invade Iraqi Kurdistan and slaughter the Kurds.]
NATO will follow?
[Meanwhile, al-Qaeda will proclaim victory and enjoy a swelling in its ranks world-wide.]
A political victory or a jihad victory?
[Militarily, al-Qaeda will turn its focus on the House of Saud and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, followed next by the Kuwait, the UAE, and Qatar, possibly Algeria and Libya, too.]
Al-Qaeda will fight a two-front war against the infidels and the fidels? Same mistake as the Germans in WWII? Instead of freezing in Russia, sweltering in Saudi Arabia will lead to a triumph of good over evil?
[Israel will be targeted for annihilation.]
Not already targeted?
[The U.S. will still be dependent on foreign oil.]
Most ironclad conclusion ever reached on Aspen Post?
[The U.S. Government will no longer be able to protect its citizens. Transportation will fail. Reliable food distribution will cease. Supply and demand will drive inflation rates to unimaginable heights. The value of the dollar will plummet, and the price of gold will sky rocket. Widespread starvation and poverty in north America will result.]
You’re not talking about the effects of Peak Oil?
Actually, that’s an interesting blog, Mitch. Just couldn’t resist trying the rhetorical question approach one time…exhilarating!
[We are on the way out of Iraq.]
In 2009?
[To prevent the emergence of a Kurdish state, Turkey will invade Iraqi Kurdistan and slaughter the Kurds.]
NATO will follow?
[Meanwhile, al-Qaeda will proclaim victory and enjoy a swelling in its ranks world-wide.]
A political victory or a jihad victory?
[Militarily, al-Qaeda will turn its focus on the House of Saud and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, followed next by the Kuwait, the UAE, and Qatar, possibly Algeria and Libya, too.]
Al-Qaeda will fight a two-front war against the infidels and the fidels? Same mistake as the Germans in WWII? Instead of freezing in Russia, sweltering in Saudi Arabia will lead to a triumph of good over evil?
[Israel will be targeted for annihilation.]
Not already targeted?
[The U.S. will still be dependent on foreign oil.]
Most ironclad conclusion ever reached on Aspen Post?
[The U.S. Government will no longer be able to protect its citizens. Transportation will fail. Reliable food distribution will cease. Supply and demand will drive inflation rates to unimaginable heights. The value of the dollar will plummet, and the price of gold will sky rocket. Widespread starvation and poverty in north America will result.]
You’re not talking about the effects of Peak Oil?
Actually, that’s an interesting blog, Mitch. Just couldn’t resist trying the rhetorical question approach one time…exhilarating!
By all means enjoy, Rat… Some of your questions have got me thinking…
Cheers,
By all means enjoy, Rat… Some of your questions have got me thinking…
Cheers,
[A political victory or a jihad victory?]
Is this a distinction without a difference?
Please listen to the words of Shiraz Maher…
Cheers,
[A political victory or a jihad victory?]
Is this a distinction without a difference?
Please listen to the words of Shiraz Maher…
Cheers,
I wonder why Mitch thinks that Iran would occupy southern Iraq and take over their oil fields. Has he not read that Iran with its large oil reserves is importing oil. Iran does not lack oil, it lacks the infrastructure to get its oil to market.
Iran is in need of a techological infusion in many of its industries, as well as, competition in its employment market and an increase in privately run companies. We could positively contribute to this end by ending sanctions that are designed to weaken Iran not change their policies. My comments come from my visit to Iran last year.
I wonder why Mitch thinks that Iran would occupy southern Iraq and take over their oil fields. Has he not read that Iran with its large oil reserves is importing oil. Iran does not lack oil, it lacks the infrastructure to get its oil to market.
Iran is in need of a techological infusion in many of its industries, as well as, competition in its employment market and an increase in privately run companies. We could positively contribute to this end by ending sanctions that are designed to weaken Iran not change their policies. My comments come from my visit to Iran last year.
Thanks, Mitch. That was fun to read/ponder. Wharf?… that was good too!
Whatever happens in that region… there are a select few companies and a handful of people/families that stand to gain enormous sums of money, just as many of them are now cashing in huge sums.
The creation of war and conflict and battle in other areas of the world is doing nothing for the true welfare and security of the people of this grand country. It is only rewarding to some.
Its like robbing Peter to pay Paul and Mary.
Perhaps the time is right for the introduction of some modern day Robin Hoods.
Jack and Jill went up the hill, each with a buck and a quarter. Jill came down with two fifty.
Think about it… and do so in not a silly dirty joke way. — J
Thanks, Mitch. That was fun to read/ponder. Wharf?… that was good too!
Whatever happens in that region… there are a select few companies and a handful of people/families that stand to gain enormous sums of money, just as many of them are now cashing in huge sums.
The creation of war and conflict and battle in other areas of the world is doing nothing for the true welfare and security of the people of this grand country. It is only rewarding to some.
Its like robbing Peter to pay Paul and Mary.
Perhaps the time is right for the introduction of some modern day Robin Hoods.
Jack and Jill went up the hill, each with a buck and a quarter. Jill came down with two fifty.
Think about it… and do so in not a silly dirty joke way. — J
Cathleen,
Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
[I wonder why Mitch thinks that Iran would occupy southern Iraq and take over their oil fields.]
Two reasons.
First, the Iraqi government has just agreed to privatize the construction of new refineries. Older Iraqi refineries, looted and damaged in the days prior to the Operation Iraqi Freedom, have gradually come back on line, but production levels remain subject to attacks on refinery gas lines and infrastructure, and the gasoline production levels remain around 2 million gallons per day, down from pre-war levels of 5 million gallons per day. Iran just completed construction on their first refinery. According to US General John Abizaid, Iran has the largest, most formidable military force in the Middle East. Militarily, multiple local sources of gasoline means the elimination of dependence on gasoline tankered in from foreign countries…
Second, Muktada al-Sadr has spent a considerable amount of time in Iran lately. Sadr will repel any attempt by Sunnis to share control of (profit from) the southern oil fields, and Iran will back him up. This may not constitute an occupation in the strict sense of the word, but Sadr will give the Iranian army carte blanche in the Shia south. Furthermore, Iran has been supplying weapon support to insurgents for some time. This ought to serve as sufficient evidence of Iran’s willingness to “get involved” in Iraq.
Cheers,
Cathleen,
Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
[I wonder why Mitch thinks that Iran would occupy southern Iraq and take over their oil fields.]
Two reasons.
First, the Iraqi government has just agreed to privatize the construction of new refineries. Older Iraqi refineries, looted and damaged in the days prior to the Operation Iraqi Freedom, have gradually come back on line, but production levels remain subject to attacks on refinery gas lines and infrastructure, and the gasoline production levels remain around 2 million gallons per day, down from pre-war levels of 5 million gallons per day. Iran just completed construction on their first refinery. According to US General John Abizaid, Iran has the largest, most formidable military force in the Middle East. Militarily, multiple local sources of gasoline means the elimination of dependence on gasoline tankered in from foreign countries…
Second, Muktada al-Sadr has spent a considerable amount of time in Iran lately. Sadr will repel any attempt by Sunnis to share control of (profit from) the southern oil fields, and Iran will back him up. This may not constitute an occupation in the strict sense of the word, but Sadr will give the Iranian army carte blanche in the Shia south. Furthermore, Iran has been supplying weapon support to insurgents for some time. This ought to serve as sufficient evidence of Iran’s willingness to “get involved” in Iraq.
Cheers,