speculation

[jk the sooner fan]

just curious to see what kind of answers we get here.

lets make a hypothetical scenario, then i'd like to see what kind of speculative responses we get in reaction


Hypothetical - Pull the troops out of Iraq now.


now, what happens in Iraq once thats done? What happens in the region?

What effect (if any) does that have on us here?

[OUAndy1807]

everybody lives happily ever after because the foreign invaders are gone.

[yermom]

the same thing that happens when we eventually pull out ;)

[JohnnyMack]

Muqtada al Sadr tears up his cease fire and makes his push for control of the Baghdad. Turkey continues its invasion of northern Iraq and starts playing whack-a-mole.

Since it would take upwards of 6 months to pull the U.S. troops out, I think we would see the level of violence increase (no "surge" and no cease fire from al Sadr to keep things in check). We'd add 10% to the currently casualty numbers before we got out completely.

I would hope that on the home front the soldiers would be welcomed home and cared for in the manner they deserve. I don't envision a Viet Nam-like backlash from the populace towards the troops. Those who oppose the war have their axe to grind with the higher ups, not the ground pounders.

[Beef]

This thread gets locked after 4 pages.

[SoonerProphet]

I'll take a stab. It is all pure specualtion as to what will occur anywhoots.

Scenario A:
While I think most of the ethnic strife has occured and the neighborhoods have been cleansed of their ethnic minorities, the real prize is oil wealth. Who gets it? Seeing how we have been re-arming Sunni's, its seems possible that full scale civil war goes down, dragging in Turks, Persians, and other Arabs to fight it out.

Scenario B:
While the US is the police force, it is an unwelcome one that only fuels animosity in the region. It is the prime creator of the jihadist movement and upon its withdrawal, jihadis have no more scapegoats. A "balance of power" has been established and full scale civil war will get in the way of economics. The Shiite and Sunni sects work out a plan that marginalizes the Kurds and spreads oil revenue somewhat equally.

Just for starters, but I think either one could play out.

[jk the sooner fan]

Muqtada al Sadr tears up his cease fire and makes his push for control of the Baghdad. Turkey continues its invasion of northern Iraq and starts playing whack-a-mole.

Since it would take upwards of 6 months to pull the U.S. troops out, I think we would see the level of violence increase (no "surge" and no cease fire from al Sadr to keep things in check). We'd add 10% to the currently casualty numbers before we got out completely.

I would hope that on the home front the soldiers would be welcomed home and cared for in the manner they deserve. I don't envision a Viet Nam-like backlash from the populace towards the troops. Those who oppose the war have their axe to grind with the higher ups, not the ground pounders.


what about Iran? what role do they play? how does it effect our economy?

[jk the sooner fan]

I'll take a stab. It is all pure specualtion as to what will occur anywhoots.

Scenario A:
While I think most of the ethnic strife has occured and the neighborhoods have been cleansed of their ethnic minorities, the real prize is oil wealth. Who gets it? Seeing how we have been re-arming Sunni's, its seems possible that full scale civil war goes down, dragging in Turks, Persians, and other Arabs to fight it out.

Scenario B:
While the US is the police force, it is an unwelcome one that only fuels animosity in the region. It is the prime creator of the jihadist movement and upon its withdrawal, jihadis have no more scapegoats. A "balance of power" has been established and full scale civil war will get in the way of economics. The Shiite and Sunni sects work out a plan that marginalizes the Kurds and spreads oil revenue somewhat equally.

Just for starters, but I think either one could play out.

which one would you bet on?

[JohnnyMack]

what about Iran? what role do they play? how does it effect our economy?

SP is right that the ultimate prize in Iraq is the oil. It's still my contention that regional stability was one of if not the primary reason for our war in the first place (This is one of the reasons I think McCain is going to pound on Obama in the upcoming debates is that McCain seems to have a better "vision" for the region than Obama does). I think W's long term goal in Iraq, well beyond the failed concept of nation building, was at establishing a long term presence the region, and he realized Iraq was the only place he was going to be able to try it. The blueprint is to be found in post WWII Germany and Japan. Obviously and W thought that he could pull it off in Iraq. I contend he felt it was necessary to 1) help the flow of our most precious resource remain at a stable and affordable level and 2) to keep the fighting in their backyard as opposed to ours.

That being said, to up and leave Iraq as fast as we entered it would allow Turkey from the north and Iran from the east make a push inwards. Would they do it? I'm not smart enough to know. If they did, are the Sunnis strong enough to push back? No. Would it be ugly? Yes.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

jk, what does your son think? What do the ones over there right now think would happen if they left?

[jk the sooner fan]

i dont know if my son is forward thinking enough to answer what would happen if they left in any kind of detail

i do know that he and everybody in his unit believe in what they are doing, and that they feel they are making a difference - they (most of them) want to finish the job they started

they catch "bad guys" on a regular basis - he gets pretty pumped about it when he comes back from a mission

[yermom]

SP is right that the ultimate prize in Iraq is the oil. It's still my contention that regional stability was one of if not the primary reason for our war in the first place (This is one of the reasons I think McCain is going to pound on Obama in the upcoming debates is that McCain seems to have a better "vision" for the region than Obama does). I think W's long term goal in Iraq, well beyond the failed concept of nation building, was at establishing a long term presence the region, and he realized Iraq was the only place he was going to be able to try it. The blueprint is to be found in post WWII Germany and Japan. Obviously and W thought that he could pull it off in Iraq. I contend he felt it was necessary to 1) help the flow of our most precious resource remain at a stable and affordable level and 2) to keep the fighting in their backyard as opposed to ours.

That being said, to up and leave Iraq as fast as we entered it would allow Turkey from the north and Iran from the east make a push inwards. Would they do it? I'm not smart enough to know. If they did, are the Sunnis strong enough to push back? No. Would it be ugly? Yes.

ok, why does "Iraq" even need to exist?

what would be the big deal if half of it was Turkey and half was Iran?

it's not like there was an Iraq before someone decided that region should be a country so we could get oil from it. the whole region doesn't really share a culture, language, or religion. what makes Iraq Iraq exactly?

[Howzit]

I believe pulling out immediately would result in extreme instability, but not full-out war in the region. Heck, Iran, Syria, and Turkey don't want war on their own turf. I believe it would be very bad for Iraq itself.

I know I've made comments about it being 'pointless,' that's more in reference to why we went in in the first place. We're there now and the point is how to approach it from here on out. But I do believe there needs to be an exit strategy....SOME kind of strategy. We are spending, and wasting, billions over there.

[SoonerStormchaser]

You're a pretty, pretty bunny Howzit, so how would you know? ;)


Say what y'all will about the lack of exit strategy...but the truth of the matter is that we can't leave Iraq til it's completely STABLE! If we leave it with the slightest instability, Iran, Syria, Al-Qaeda, Al-Sadr and Al-Gore will all move in and try to assert their influence in the vacuum.

[JohnnyMack]

Say what y'all will about the lack of exit strategy...but the truth of the matter is that we can't leave Iraq til it's completely STABLE! If we leave it with the slightest instability, Iran, Syria, Al-Qaeda, Al-Sadr and Al-Gore will all move in and try to assert their influence in the vacuum.

So you're familiar with McCain's 100 year plan I see.

[jk the sooner fan]

we're still in germany, how long has it been since the end of world war 2?

[SoonerStormchaser]

we're still in germany, how long has it been since the end of world war 2?
...and Japan


So you're familiar with McCain's 100 year plan I see.
Ugh...it's gonna be a clothespin vote...but at least I'll still have a job with him as President...more than Hillbilly or O'Bomba can assure.

[jk the sooner fan]

and Korea

[Mjcpr]

....and S Korea

[yermom]

is that supposed to help or hurt your case?

[rufnek05]

they keep killing each other and it slowly becomes another "terrorist" run state.

[BigRedJed]

We can blame the Brits for most of this. Nice borders you drew there, guys.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

What happens if the whole world got together and did something like this:

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/6594/mapofiraqut2.jpg

Each get a giant chunk of land and people to clean up and control. Each country is responsible for establishing infrastructure and stability. Each surrounding country that is strong enough to bear the economic burden of rebuilding gets piece of everything.

They each get a piece of the rivers so no one country could control the movement of goods and services through the region.

In return for taking on the addional responsibilty, they each get a piece of the oil.

:norm:

[sooner_born_1960]

It looks like he'd have to get on all fours right dab in the middle of the Euphrates.

[Position Limit]

i know one that that's not speculating a resulting outcome. we save alot of money. the most important start to regaining national security that i'm comfortable with. everything else is just talk.

[sooner_born_1960]

BSG, you do realize they'd spend years at the bargaining table just deciding exactly where those lines should be drawn?

I'm not saying I disagee with your solution. The world does not need a place called "Iraq".

[Mjcpr]

Each get a giant chunk of land and people to clean up and control. Each country is responsible for establishing infrastructure and stability.

So, Iraq needs mods?

Meh, all the Iraqi's would just bitch and moan then all the mods would tell them get over it, it's just Iraq. It would never work.

[BigRedJed]

The glaring question here is whether Booty drew those lines herself.

My vote: yes.

[sooner_born_1960]

The JB has got mad map skills.

[Vaevictis]

I think the Kurds might have a real problem with that map.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

BSG, you do realize they'd spend years at the bargaining table just deciding exactly where those lines should be drawn?

I'm not saying I disagee with your solution. The world does not need a place called "Iraq".

I was just thinking crazy out loud. I don't even know that I'd call it a 'solution'. :D

What if it was decided for them? Yeah, they'd have to agree but it would be fair. As fair as it could be, I guess.

Not sure about the gulf, though. That could get tricky.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

Even Howzit feers mah paynt skillz.

:eddie:

[JohnnyMack]

What happens if the whole world got together and did something like this:

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/6594/mapofiraqut2.jpg

Each get a giant chunk of land and people to clean up and control. Each country is responsible for establishing infrastructure and stability. Each surrounding country that is strong enough to bear the economic burden of rebuilding gets piece of everything.

They each get a piece of the rivers so no one country could control the movement of goods and services through the region.

In return for taking on the addional responsibilty, they each get a piece of the oil.

:norm:

E-mail that to the State Department. See what they think of it. Srsly. Do it.

[sooner_born_1960]

Upon further review, I'd slice off a bit for Kuwait also. Sort of a pay back.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/5897/mapofiraq2mv8.jpg

[SoonerProphet]

which one would you bet on?

I think Scenario B is more likely. First of all I think the notion of the United States as a stabilizing force in the Mid-East is hogwash. We do more to stir up the hornets nest and create instability than ease tension and create stability. We have a base of operations there and can project power when needed without having a large landforce on anyone's turf.

Secondly, the longer we stay...like Germany, Korea, and Japan, the harder it will be to extract ourselves. The host country poltically speaks out and occasionally gets its feathers ruffled, by they do not want to foot the bill to defend themselves. They also don't want to see US service dollars dry up in both the open and black markets. It also gives the Iraqi politicians cover to play both sides of the street and for many of the same reasons. They do not have to defend themselves or address any of the serious issues affecting their country...they get a free ride.

Lastly, there is going to be blood shed when we pack up and leave no matter what. Whether it is tomorrow or in 100 years. Those folks have the memory of elephants and it is a cultural thing. The amount of bloodshed and the level of involvement from other local powers is a complete guessing game, especially when dealing with as many factors that go into this specific equation.

While I think Germany, Japan, etc. make for useful rhetorical devices, this region is not Germany, Japan, and Korea. They did not sign formal surrender papers, did not have their country bombed to Bolivia, nor face the threat of a well armed and well funded army to the North. The Phillipines might provide a more accurate model.

Suffice it to say, it is a devilish problem with no real solid solutions. The idea of spreading democracy would allow for Hamas and Hezbollah like groups to gain power, supporting Saddam like figures flies in the face of the democracy movement...so you are damned if you do and damned if you don'.

[jk the sooner fan]

I think choice A is much more realistic than choice B - but you're the smart history dude

[shaun4411]

just curious to see what kind of answers we get here.

lets make a hypothetical scenario, then i'd like to see what kind of speculative responses we get in reaction


Hypothetical - Pull the troops out of Iraq now.


now, what happens in Iraq once thats done? What happens in the region?

What effect (if any) does that have on us here?

id say it'd have the same effect as pulling out an arrow after shooting someone with it. you need a surgeon to remove the arrow, and it has to be calculated. no president would just remove 'em all just like that. the second obama/mccain becomes president, he'll have the necessary military intel and realize why all the bickering about "taking our boys out" was all for naught.

[SoonerProphet]

I think choice A is much more realistic than choice B - but you're the smart history dude

I'm just not sure that the emirates or the Persian are willing to risk regional war and a serious disruption of oil flow. In most of the emirates it is the way to pay off dissent. And as we have discovered in Iraq during the surge and to misquate Churchill, to pay-pay is better than to war-war.

[jk the sooner fan]

all i know is that Iran is chomping at the bit to get involved - they are sending both weapons, money and bodies in to that region

so for the first time in "forever", a HUGE chunk of big oil producing land is available to the strongest bidder and you dont think all hell breaks loose to control that?

puhleeze - sorry, but your choice B seems a bit pie-ish in the sky to me

[BigRedJed]

See, I agree with that. I've said from the beginning that this war is mostly about oil. But I say that differently than war opponents, who seem to think this means it was a war to get oil companies rich.

This war was started over U.S. national security, but only partially of the terrorist-related flavor. If the oil producing countries in that region fall into the hands of our enemies, we are, in a word, ****ed. We are WAY to dependant on cheap oil. And I'm sorry, the direct price we pay for oil is still cheap. The indirect price is the price of the war, among other things. Paid for by your income taxes rather than your road taxes.

The other concern is what would happen if that oil supply falls into the hands of people who want to use the wealth it generates to further the cause of fanatical religious conversion of that region and beyond. Or to create nuclear weapons. Whatever. Use your imagination.

The thought of "pulling out" of that region is fantasy.

[jk the sooner fan]

BHO will pull us out within 60 days

[Sooner_Bob]

An even more interesting bit to speculate on would be the wailing and gnashing of teeth if we pulled out and one of the local groups took control and limited our access to the oil.

[sooner_born_1960]

Jed, that was one absolutely spot on post.


Yes, timing is everything.

[BigRedJed]

I grudgingly agreed from the beginning (and continue to agree) that the war was necessary on some level. Certainly, it has been mishandled in many ways, many of them public relations related.

But I disagree that the Iraq war was ever about "freedom." Freedom will just be a nice byproduct, if everyone can get their **** together.

[OUDoc]

I'm afraid that whenever we do it, it'll be like we were never there.

[TexasLidig8r]

Iran covets complete control over the Shatt-Al-Arab waterway to control the flow of oil from the region.

When we pull out, especially sooner rather than later, Iran will manufacture an alleged oppression committed against their Shia brothers in Iraq, and with this as the excuse, will invade, will overwhelm the undersupplied and undermanned Iraqi forces and will take over the vast majority of Iraq, combining it with Iran into a United Arab State.

They will negotiate with the Turks to allow them control over what is now, Northern Iraq and the Kurds will become Turkey's problem.

Meanwhile, the world (see, the UN) will sit back and do nothing fearing another US led, unpopular military action in the area.

Oil prices will soar leading to worldwide economic instability as the new, United Arab State imposes its will through control over oil production.

[Mjcpr]

I'm afraid that whenever we do it, it'll be like we were never there.

If your wife can live with it, so can we.



(I'm sorry)

[BigRedJed]

Iran covets complete control over the Shatt-Al-Arab waterway to control the flow of oil from the region.

When we pull out, especially sooner rather than later, Iran will manufacture an alleged oppression committed against their Shia brothers in Iraq, and with this as the excuse, will invade, will overwhelm the undersupplied and undermanned Iraqi forces and will take over the vast majority of Iraq, combining it with Iran into a United Arab State.

They will negotiate with the Turks to allow them control over what is now, Northern Iraq and the Kurds will become Turkey's problem.

Meanwhile, the world (see, the UN) will sit back and do nothing fearing another US led, unpopular military action in the area.

Oil prices will soar leading to worldwide economic instability as the new, United Arab State imposes its will through control over oil production.
And then they will use the revenue from that oil production to finance the imposition of their fanatical ideology in the region and beyond. Those who resist will be nuked or otherwise destroyed, in the name of Allah.

This is not a comment on Islam as a whole, it's a comment on the leadership of Iran and any other muslim fundamentalists who wish to gain power/regional domination through oil riches.

[shaun4411]

Iran covets complete control over the Shatt-Al-Arab waterway to control the flow of oil from the region.

When we pull out, especially sooner rather than later, Iran will manufacture an alleged oppression committed against their Shia brothers in Iraq, and with this as the excuse, will invade, will overwhelm the undersupplied and undermanned Iraqi forces and will take over the vast majority of Iraq, combining it with Iran into a United Arab State.

They will negotiate with the Turks to allow them control over what is now, Northern Iraq and the Kurds will become Turkey's problem.

Meanwhile, the world (see, the UN) will sit back and do nothing fearing another US led, unpopular military action in the area.

Oil prices will soar leading to worldwide economic instability as the new, United Arab State imposes its will through control over oil production.

you know, just dropping a couple large bombs on capital cities will allow us to impose our will. the civilized world (the world outside of the middle east and the uae) will only accept so much when it comes to oil prices.

[shaun4411]

And then they will use the revenue from that oil production to finance the imposition of their fanatical ideology in the region and beyond. Those who resist will be nuked or otherwise destroyed, in the name of Allah.

This is not a comment on Islam as a whole, it's a comment on the leadership of Iran and any other muslim fundamentalists who wish to gain power/regional domination through oil riches.

like saudi arabia? where their 5000 some princes all live in lavish palaces, while the majority of the country lives in poverty and buying into their bs blaming the infidels and the west for their living conditions. yea, its our fault that very rich country ran by oil rich billionaires has a 30%+ unemployment rate.

[JohnnyMack]

you know, just dropping a couple large bombs on capital cities will allow us to impose our will. the civilized world (the world outside of the middle east and the uae) will only accept so much when it comes to oil prices.

So we should ignore the systemic failures that led us to this point and just bomb the hell out of what would be almost entirely innocent civilians? Do you wonder why the rest of the world thinks we're a bunch of cowboys prone to bullying to get our way?

America, **** YEAH!!!

[shaun4411]

So we should ignore the systemic failures that led us to this point and just bomb the hell out of what would be almost entirely innocent civilians? Do you wonder why the rest of the world thinks we're a bunch of cowboys prone to bullying to get our way?

America, **** YEAH!!!


i made that comment in jest. i didnt mean it. but the thing is, we could. all these people think we're so bad. when we have the firepower to literally turn the region into a char-broiled radiated parking lot. the whole bully term comes to mind, but i mean, its not like we're doing what we're actually capable of. we're kind of fighting with a blind fold on, and arm tied behind our back.

[SoonerProphet]

all i know is that Iran is chomping at the bit to get involved - they are sending both weapons, money and bodies in to that region

so for the first time in "forever", a HUGE chunk of big oil producing land is available to the strongest bidder and you dont think all hell breaks loose to control that?

puhleeze - sorry, but your choice B seems a bit pie-ish in the sky to me

I realize Iran is the bugaboo da jour, but i really don't see them being any more than a regional power and I cannot fathom them being a hegemon, especially with the Turks, Saudi's, and Pakistani's hemming them in. Do they have interests to protect in the region, you bet, as do most of the nations.

It is my contention that the major interest in that region, and the interest of that region for at least the last 2000 years is making money. Whether it be via the spice trade with Asia or the current cartelization of oil resources, those folks are barterers extraordinaire, they like to make money.

I think the fear of the region spilling over into all out war is over played. Hell, the Arabs couldn't even garner enough testicular fortitude to join forces and rout the start up state of Israel.

[jk the sooner fan]

i respectfully disagree

iraq took over kuwait without so much as a word boo from the arab nations. it was only when we ponied up military support that they all fell in line, but nobody made any kind of first strike

iran has never forgotten their war with iraq and what happened to them under Saddam's hand

the power vacuum in iraq would be overwhelming and there's not an arab country in that region that has the stones to stand up and take the lead militarily

[TexasLidig8r]

We could always do something incredibly stupid like.. oh. .I don't know. .offer tax breaks for domestic production... and for R & D.. and for domestic exploration.. oh.. and... tax breaks for alternative fuel and energy sources. and R & D.

:texan:

[SoonerProphet]

right on, I can live with that.

but...

Iraq had a powerful US backed military prior to its invasion to Kuwait and mixed messages regarding our will if indeed the "lost province" was reeled in. And the second point seems to support my assertion that the Arabs aren't interested in war...but profits.

Yep, and Iran already has plenty of snakes in the grass in Iraq. If they can get what they want with jumping into the abyss of war, why go there. They control SCIRI and Sistani, the Shiite still look to Qom, not Karbala, they have some strong diplomatic ties with the Kurds and Turks, and the Persian have enough influence to dissuade the Sunni domitated state of Syria to get involved. So why use warfare when you can exert regional influence into the eastern half of Mesopotamia via established methods?

[Scott D]

You're a pretty, pretty bunny Howzit, so how would you know? ;)


Say what y'all will about the lack of exit strategy...but the truth of the matter is that we can't leave Iraq til it's completely STABLE! If we leave it with the slightest instability, Iran, Syria, Al-Qaeda, Al-Sadr and Al-Gore will all move in and try to assert their influence in the vacuum.

the book of revelations will come to fruition before that ever happens.

[Scott D]

i respectfully disagree

iraq took over kuwait without so much as a word boo from the arab nations. it was only when we ponied up military support that they all fell in line, but nobody made any kind of first strike

iran has never forgotten their war with iraq and what happened to them under Saddam's hand

the power vacuum in iraq would be overwhelming and there's not an arab country in that region that has the stones to stand up and take the lead militarily

it's a little deeper than that jk, but it's along the same lines.

[jk the sooner fan]

it's a little deeper than that jk, but it's along the same lines.

sorry, i'm just not as deep and academic as you are

[Scott D]

sorry, i'm just not as deep and academic as you are

that's not quite what I meant, but Iran's hatreds go just a little bit further back than just the war with Iraq back in the 70s-80s. It goes back to Britain's colonialism in that region of the world dating back well over 100 years.

[JohnnyMack]

sorry, i'm just not as deep...as you are

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff149/debo3539/ThatsRacist.gif

[jk the sooner fan]

that's not quite what I meant, but Iran's hatreds go just a little bit further back than just the war with Iraq back in the 70s-80s. It goes back to Britain's colonialism in that region of the world dating back well over 100 years.]

yeah i get that the history of the region extends beyond the 70's but thanks for being so kind to point it out

i was trying to keep the topic a little more up to date

[Scott D]

Well since much of the dislike between the two countries stems from roughly 80 years ago and has only built more resentment over time, it's still pretty valid. I doubt you'd see Iran get friendly with anyone that might have any semblance of British friendship.

Anyhow to your original point, I'd give Iran 6 months at most before they put a large military presence in Iraq under the guise of "stabilizing" the situation.

[Frozen Sooner]

that's not quite what I meant, but Iran's hatreds go just a little bit further back than just the war with Iraq back in the 70s-80s. It goes back to Britain's colonialism in that region of the world dating back well over 100 years.

Hate to break this to you, Scott, but Persia and Babylon have been fighting for a LOT longer than 100 years.

[BigRedJed]

http://fuse.superglue.se/pwned.jpg

[Scott D]

Hate to break this to you, Scott, but Persia and Babylon have been fighting for a LOT longer than 100 years.

Hate to break this to you Mike, that's a hell of a lot longer than jk wants to go back in time. ;)

[GottaHavePride]

Hate to break this to you Mike, that's a hell of a lot longer than jk wants to go back in time. ;)

1.21 GIGAWATTS!

[Frozen Sooner]

Hate to break this to you Mike, that's a hell of a lot longer than jk wants to go back in time. ;)

'mjust sayin'. If we want to get at the roots of the Iran/Iraq conflict from a historical perspective it ain't like it was created by the British. They certainly didn't help a lot, but Persians and Arabs in that region have been gleefully chopping each other up for centuries.

[Scott D]

yes but it was all fun and games when they were chopping each other up and hitting each other with pointy sticks. It didn't get serious until the white man brought fire sticks to them ;)

[BigRedJed]

I still blame the Brits. Limey bastards.

[Vaevictis]

'mjust sayin'. If we want to get at the roots of the Iran/Iraq conflict from a historical perspective it ain't like it was created by the British. They certainly didn't help a lot, but Persians and Arabs in that region have been gleefully chopping each other up for centuries.

It ain't just the Persians and the Arabs chopping each other up, it's Arabs chopping up Arabs and Persians chopping up Persians too.

I swear, they just like killing each other. It's part of their cultural heritage. You look at me funny today, me and mine kill you and yours for the next 1000 years. Why? Because that's how we roll.

[Frozen Sooner]

Yeah, but it's something special when it's between Babylonians and Persians.

Plus, I just wanted to say "gleefully chopping each other up."

[Vaevictis]

Yeah, but it's something special when it's between Babylonians and Persians.

Babylonians and Persians? Bah. Jew, Christian, Kurd, Shiite, Sunni, American, Iranian, Iraqi, whatever. If they don't have a distinction they can kill each other over, they'll make one up.

It don't matter to them as long as they get to make someone bleed.

[CatfishSooner]

The US won't pull out for a long time (maybe not 100 years, but a long time)...but when we do,Iraq will be just the 2nd democracy in the ME and have an economy not entirely reliant on oil...

[BigRedJed]

Bah.

[CatfishSooner]

Bah.


We're not in stoolwater...that doesn't work here...

[Jimminy Crimson]

I still blame the Brits.

If it weren't for the Brits in Iraq, I wouldn't be here.

How do you feel now? :texan:

[Jerk]

I think that if two nefarious groups are killing each other with spears and blades, it would be much more humane if both sides are given rifles. That's just my opinion. FWIW.

Remember the genocide in Rwanda (or one of those African countries) a few years ago? 250,000 people hacked up by knives? eww... Must've been teh white man's fault.

[sooneron]

The US won't pull out for a long time (maybe not 100 years, but a long time)...but when we do,Iraq will be just the 2nd democracy in the ME and have an economy not entirely reliant on oil...
Uh, yeah, democracy. Ok.

[Howzit]

The US won't pull out for a long time

We ruv them rong rong time...

[Mjcpr]

It knows a LOT about baseball.

[OUDoc]

If it weren't for the Brits in Iraq, I wouldn't be here.

How do you feel now? :texan:
He's ruining The Pride and now his family has screwed up the Middle East?
What a bunch of dorks.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/2765/mapofiraqif8.jpg

[sooner_born_1960]

Hell, I thought it was a pretty good idea.

[BigRedJed]

If it weren't for the Brits in Iraq, I wouldn't be here.

How do you feel now? :texan:
Pretty much the same.





;)

[BigRedJed]

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/2765/mapofiraqif8.jpg
Why do I have the urge to print your drawrings out and stick them on a refrigerator with a magnet?