jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (31 posts)

Iraq withdrawl

  1. profile image60
    C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago

    Do you think we are withdrawing from Iraq in preparation for war with Iran?

    1. dutchman1951 profile image61
      dutchman1951posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      C.J., I think Irans' provocation of Isreal will take us there, not that we are preping for war. I think Obama is sincer in his want to end it, I am not so sure the Arabs do!!!

      I do not think we are really ready to handle events in real time that may lay out as steps up to a possible war with Iran.  I think we are not looking at the correct signs and opertunities to work the situation as we should.

      Our politics and or knowledge of History and place conviently not rememberd. It's a shame, it really is.

      I am not Pro Arab, and not Pro Obama, but I realisticly do not want another 1930's- 40's step up into world conflict. We seem to be repeating it. I hope not.

      1. profile image60
        C.J. Wrightposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I'm afraid we will get "drawn" in. However I don't believe the provocation of Israel will be the driving force. I believe that more likely it will be to pre-empt Israel. In other words attempt to avoid all out war in the region.
        I'ts a horrible situation. If we don't respond militarily, Israel will. If we do, what does that do to relations with Russia? China? Russia has "fueled" the plant. China is barking at us about drills in Korea. It appears our supposed allies in Russia and China smell weakness.

    2. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      No. Obama wants to be seen as the maker of peace with other nations at any cost, even at the cost of chaos within America.

  2. ledefensetech profile image69
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    Not under this Administration.  At least I don't think they have any plans to do so.  Given the way things work out, though, I wouldn't rule out events forcing our hand into some sort of military conflict with Iran.  Neither side really believes that the other will pull the trigger, so to speak, and that has always been a recipe for war.

    As an example look at the chain of events that caused the Great War or Britain's entrance into World War II.

    1. profile image60
      C.J. Wrightposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not going to get into my thoughts on the UK and WWII...

      1. ledefensetech profile image69
        ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Let's just say that situations have a way of spinning out of control.  Given the actions of this Administration, I'd not be surprised at all to see them "Forrest Gump" themselves into a war with Iran.  Given the megalomania of our President, I'd say there's a very frightening chance he'll consider a rejection of his "olive branch" as a rejection of him.  And we all know how smug, self-centered know it all's react to rejection.

        1. dutchman1951 profile image61
          dutchman1951posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          ledefensetech, I agree here, things get complicated and out of control and they can Gump us right into it.

          scares me when I read FDR, the 1930-1940's history and watch the comparisons. The real thing then was the Pre war manuvering, yes WWII pulled us out of recession, and even though that happend, I do not want to see us repeate any of the that History. But it looks like we are step for step. I can not help but think how Hitler tolerated FDR, welcomed his radical outlook, but when it came to shove he looked at the U.S. as enemy.

          Same today with Islam, yes Obama is pro Arab, but they will say and actualy do say He is still Americas President, and your right. 

          I am not so sure the Indignance and the pro Arab stance would hold against True Arab outlook towards us. I have to agree, we could step into something here. And very well may. The whole thing is ripe for a mistake that could prove catastrophic.

          1. ledefensetech profile image69
            ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            The fact that WW II pulled us out of the Depression is a fallacy.  Well, somewhat of a fallacy.  It's a sort of Forrest Gump way of pulling a nation out of a Depression.  The only way to really grow an economy is through saving and investment.  You'd think that post-2008 meltdown that it would be clear to even the most thick-headed person out there, but there are still those who think we can, like their 1930's predecessors, spend our way out of a Depression.

            The reason pre-War Depression did not recur is because during the war years people were forced to save.  Either you were fighting the war, or you were on the home-front where things were rationed so there wasn't anything to spend your money on anyway.  After the War the US, as the only true industrialized free market society out there, reaped the benefits of not only escaping the War's destruction, but the pool of investment capital saved by the Americans during the war.  That, incidentally, was where the government found the funds to pay back the war bonds it issued during the War.

            There's a story about Montgomery Ward, you know the department store guy, who believed Keynesian economists who said that the economy would collapse after the War because government spending would collapse.  So he sold off things and missed out on the boom just after the War.  So right there is a case study that proves the current emphasis on running up debt to "prop up" the economy is a bad one.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
              Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              "The only way to really grow an economy is through saving and investment."

              That's only half of it. People won't invest unless they have a reasonable expectation that their investment will pay off. WWII did pull us out of the recession, but not the way most people think.

              The US had the resources to fight the war before the war started. It didn't just magically become capable of recruiting, training, equipping, feeding, and moving a huge army and navy all over the world. The war made it so that people could be certain that they'd have a customer (the government) for pretty much anything useful they chose to make.

              So why didn't the economy collapse after the war, when the government was no longer the customer of last resort? Partially because of the savings that Americans now had available to spend, sure. But another part of it was the stability around the world. The war was over and Europe and Japan were in shambles; they couldn't fill their own needs right away, so the US had a market for its food and consumer products. And of course the Government had to stay armed to be ready to battle the Red Menace of Communism, so the USA didn't exactly disarm after WWII (the way it did after WWI).

              Government Spending didn't collapse after the war, but stayed about the same at first (and eventually went up), and in the 50s and 60s there was a huge boom. It's true too that during the 50s and 60s, spending more or less kept pace with revenue.

              "So right there is a case study that proves the current emphasis on running up debt to "prop up" the economy is a bad one."
              In all cases? I don't know that that's been shown. How do you feel about Regan's deficit spending in the 80s, for example?

  3. profile image60
    C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago

    Of course they do. Chaimberlan tried appeasement and look were it got him. Of course in the UK's case this appeasement came way to late. Germany was loaded for bear and ready to hunt

    1. ledefensetech profile image69
      ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I was thinking more about the Polish question.  Edward Bernard RaczyƄski decided "between two ash flicks" to accept a British offer of alliance.  What they didn't count on was that Ribbentrop had convinced Hitler that the UK would never go to war to support Poland.  Oops.  1914 of course is the ultimate case to study about things spinning out of control.

      1. profile image60
        C.J. Wrightposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Because it was duplicitous. It was a poor display of power and solidarity. It invited the attack from Germany. By the end of the Great War there were three countries that Germany had an axe to grind...Poland, Brittian and France.

        1. ledefensetech profile image69
          ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I could go on all day about the Treaty of Versailles.  Suffice to say, we warned Europe, but they went ahead and did it anyway.  Of course we also had that idiot Wilson at the helm and he did his part, mostly in Eastern Europe, to ensure that the Germans has a causus belli that the US government, at least, can't escape all blame.

          Supposed allies is right.  The only country we've ever really been able to count on is the UK.  The sooner people realize that, far from being a global village, the world is filled with nations that pursue their self-interest; the better off we'll be.  That's why I'm such a fan of separatism.  Let the world burn it's merry way to hell.  We've shed enough blood and wasted enough treasure trying to keep the world from learning the hard lessons.  It's time for a bit of tough love.

          It might be then, after the world is lit afire with petty regional conflicts, that people might value the special nature of the United States.

          1. profile image60
            C.J. Wrightposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I don't think many people see just how close we are to WWIII...Maybe closer than we were with the "Bay of Pigs"

            1. pisean282311 profile image53
              pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

              WWIII is distinct possibility...china wont want to enter war considering where it is placed now..russia is not in position ..europe is passing through bad phase..arab world is not one even when it looks like..so who would be parties in war?...it is not possible atleast for another decade...

              1. profile image60
                C.J. Wrightposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                All good points. However, its possible for many somewhat disconnected "Conflicts" to spawn all out war.

                1. pisean282311 profile image53
                  pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  wwii was entirely different scenario..today world is more inter dependent than ever..china is communist but needs usa market, usa needs china ,since china lends usa , russia is still to come on its feet, iran and saudi have their issues , iraq is struggling, arab world cannot do much without iran,saudi getting together which wont happen unless it becomes wholly religious war , africa is out of equation for war....suppose israel attacks iran and iran retailiates..usa enters the scene..would saudi back iran?..doesnot seem like..north korea attacks south korea..would world be interested in it?..India attacks pak and china enters scene in support of pak , would usa enter scene?..unlikely...for world war we need allies between number of countries with motives of aggression..

                  1. ledefensetech profile image69
                    ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Do you know who was Germany's biggest trading partner in 1939?


                    France.


                    Go figure.

            2. ledefensetech profile image69
              ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              I don't think so.  Say what you want about nuclear weapons, but if there is one thing that has prevent the Big III, that has been it.  War has become so destructive that people can no longer contemplate a war that will last years.  Consider World War II.  Alliances were created out of necessity.  No single nation can afford to fight a war.  Look at how bad Iraq and Afghanistan have jacked up the US economy and those was don't come near to the destruction exhibited in some World War II battles.

              1. profile image60
                C.J. Wrightposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Right, but the deterent is lessoned when you introduce too many "loose cannons" on the field. North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, etc. M.A.D only works when the possesor of these weapons are not..well MAD!

                1. ledefensetech profile image69
                  ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I disagree.  The thing is MAD doesn't work with these "rogue" states.  We, or Russia for that matter, can glaze them any time we want to.  It's the mutually part that is missing in cases like NK or Iran. 

                  In fact I think that these nations are going to find that nukes are a two-edged weapon.  We're too used to seeing these guys as monolithic, but any organization has people in it that want to rise to the top and are willing to use any method to do so.  Why do you think so many Cold War nuke scenarios began with a nutso general on one side or the other?

                  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anyone wins in a nuclear war.  Ever play Defcon?  The website is named www.everbodydies.com which is a pretty apt descriptor of what happens when you choose to use nukes.  I'm not sure glazing all of Iran is worth losing NY or LA, for example.

                  1. profile image60
                    C.J. Wrightposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    "The thing is MAD doesn't work with these "rogue" states."


                    Um, I think thats what I said.....

              2. profile image60
                C.J. Wrightposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Don't forget diplomacy often fails when the guy on the other side of the table percieves you as weak....

                1. pisean282311 profile image53
                  pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  you have a point..but no body dares to consider usa weak nor any one would dare to consider china weak..now there are only two big powers..usa being super power and china being rising power..yes many countries have great weapon but war needs money to sustain...pakistan cannot do any harm to any except India and India wont attack any other country than pakistan..right now soured relations are getting back to normal considering pakistan's flood and Indian aid for that.. Iran-Israel is tricky equation and north korea is also something which in unpredictable but who would support north korea..china would maximum give money but wont enter itself..it has population of more than billion and it wont want to get into situation which can hinder its economic growth...

  4. pisean282311 profile image53
    pisean282311posted 7 years ago

    attack on iran wont be good idea for usa..

  5. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image59
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago

    Either the Americans think Iran too big or think America is too small, equal to Iran.  A war with Iran will bring no good.

    Let Israel deal with Iran, Iraq or any other middle-east country. They are capable of doing it. It is enough if moral and material support is provided to them.

    The war in Iraq has ended. Let peace prevail in the region for at least some days.

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
      Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "A war with Iran will bring no good."

      That's the truth, no matter what the reasoning behind it.

  6. Atlas Shrugged profile image56
    Atlas Shruggedposted 7 years ago

    Well, whats the question here?  Are we withdrawing from Iraq to prepare for an Iran war?  No, I don't believe so for a couple reasons.  Number 1, we're not withdrawing completely from Iraq, we are ending combat missions.  We're still maintaining a presence of almost 50,000 troops making up 6 brigades country wide. I think this is a political move mostly.  It was something Obama pushed for and promised campaigning, so its no surprise really.  I also think its aimed to give the US some credit in the middle east and internationally where we have lost ground during the unilateral decisions of the Bush administration.  However, I do think a war in Iran could be imminent.  With Russia fueling Irans nuclear reactors the US will definitley step up intenlligence operations in the area and monitor it very closely.  I think the quotient for war is there, however, it will depend on Iran ultimately.  So as of now, I don't believe that this administration has made a decision yet and therefore ending combat missions in Iraq is not a prelude to an Iranian conflict.  With one war ending, one still on in Afghanistan and the economic woes at home, I don't think the Obama adminsitration is looking to jump into another conflict.  Obama knows the economy is the priorty to voters right now and I think thats where his focus is going into midterm elections.  I think if we see an Iran conflict, it will not be for at least 3 more years.

 
working