I believe Saddam Hussein needed to be dealt with, he was being very uncooperative with UN weapon inspectors. However we decided to bring far more force and destruction into play than I believe was necessary. I personally believe we should have given him an ultimatum to either cooperate fully and immediately or be taken out. If he continued to be uncooperative we should have gathered intelligence (even if it took months) and made a strategic strike by bomb or a small team of commandos directly on him leaving the rest of the country alone. We should never have moved forces into the country.
Once he was killed and his successor was in place we give the same ultimatum and consequences to them, eventually whomever was in power would comply to UN weapon inspections the way they should.
The truth is that Kafirs, non Muslims, Infidels, are never the equal of Muslims.
That we Kafirs, et al, are fighting against a deeply held and deeply entrenched religious ideology, culture and tradition.
We would ONLY be able to assume that Middle Eastern Muslims would side with the West, the USA, the Coalition, the Kafirs and our abominable Western idea of Democracy (which doesn't exist in Islam**) through coercion, money and brute force.
And the minute that $, influence and military power was removed (even after 100 years...See the example of Turkey) the region would revert back to it's traditional Islamism.
In short, we could force our will on the people but if ever they were given the uninfluenced and free choice between freedom, Democracy and Liberty such as we know it and love it, vs the comforting restrictions of Islam, the people would overwhelmingly choose Islam.
Why do you think the Iraqi Army fled in the face of ISIS forces?
The Army soldiers KNEW they were fighting on the wrong side.
Just as crooks know they are in the wrong when they are fleeing the police. Just as the Soviets knew Ronald Reagan was right when he called the USSR the "Evil Empire."
In their hearts they know which side is right.
And in the hearts of virtually ALL Middle Easterners they know in their hearts Islam is right and we are wrong.
And with that understanding I don't think we would have or should have invaded such as we did.
Other ways should have been employed.
**
Amir Taheri: "Islam Is Incompatible With Democracy"
And we all know that equality is a foreign concept in Islam.
Ibid.
I'm not the one with the answers to that.
At least not yet.
:lol:
Well you appear to have a one sided view of Muslims.
Or is this just Muslims in the ME
Or does it include the EU and NA.
For one that appears to demonize Muslims, you must have solutions?
You cannot be serious.
Not relevant - hindsight is always 20/20.
Well, let me think. Iran- We wouldn't have had the ayatollahs running Iran. No hostage crisis. No anti-Americanism there caused by overthrowing their government and installing a US friendly dictator. The alternate Iran probably wouldn't be a covert supporter of Hezbollah, smuggling missiles into Lebanon.
Al Qaeda- From my understanding, the central motivation of the 9/11 attacks was the first war with Iraq and its aftermath, permanently stationing US forces in Saudi Arabia to enforce the southern no-fly zone. According to wahabisism, part of the public school education offered in Saudi Arabia, I suspect strategically included by the Royal family to the keep the peasant population disinterested in materialism so they can enjoy their lives of luxury without compliant, the presence of a non-Islamic military force in Islamic land is an abomination and must be driven out. This was the education Osama bin laden and most of the hijackers were raised with and paid for by Americans at the gas pump.
Iraq- Due to oil's monopoly status over American transportation, we've had to live in marriages of convenience with regimes we normally would have avoided. Iraq was one such relationship. OPEC, the antitrust oil cartel, was formed as a way for dictators to make out like bandits on the backs of the American people. Saddam Hussein broke ranks with them and bailed America out of the energy crisis of the 1970s. It wasn't until his invasion of Kuwait and more importantly, his next planned move, to take over Saudi Arabia, that he fell out of favor with the US. War and then sanctions claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis including many of not mostly children who did not have access to medicine. This created what turned out to be a major motivation for anti-American sentiment in the region as a new form of media emerged, satellite news channels. These Arab news channels made America out to be an evil society who could care less if hundreds of thousands of their children died as long as we got their oil. This turned out to be an inadvertent recruitment tool for terrorism.
In the meantime, we have the technology to add a new form of transportation energy in the form of electric cars. However, there is an entire segment of the population who have been convinced by their favorite talk show host to oppose anything except the oil monopoly if you love America and hate communism.
So yes, if we weren't entangled in the Middle East over oil, I think the jihadists would be as concerned with US as they are Brazil.
I don't know, but the results of the war demonstrate that the "know your enemy" phrase is an essential part of warfare.
I've wondered about that. Is it for the same reason they fled before the US forces, is it because of sympathy with the enemy, or is it a bit of both?
Jahiliyyah (Arabic: جاهلية ǧāhiliyyah/jāhilīyah "ignorance") is an Islamic concept of "ignorance of divine guidance" or "the state of ignorance of the guidance from God" or "Days of Ignorance" referring to the barbaric condition in which Arabs found themselves in pre-Islamic Arabia (in the non-Islamic sense), i.e. ...
Jahiliyyah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JahiliyyahWikipedia
That could happen.
But, who would replace him?
No doubt about that.
But what does Mohammed command of all Muslims?
he never wants them to attack US government naturally..........
When The Jihad Comes, Whose Side Will You Be On?
Oct 19 2013 | by Bill Warner
27
by Kenneth Roberts, Associate Writer
“My brother and I came to the Prophet and I requested him to take the pledge of allegiance from us for migration. He said, “Migration has passed away with its people.” I asked, “For what will you take the pledge of allegiance from us then?” He (Mohammed) said, “I will take (the pledge) for Islam and JIHAD.” – (Bukhari 4,52,208)
Mohammed says allegiance to Islam includes the political act of jihad. Jihad is holy fighting against the Kafirs; it is the personal duty of every Muslim. If a Muslim does not participate in jihad, he will die a ‘hypocrite’ and burn in hell. Mohammed is the authority on Islam.
Why don’t Muslims denounce the terrorists?
Islam is harsh on ‘hypocrites’ (munafiqoon in Arabic). Munafiqs are ‘moderate Muslims’. They give only lip service to Islam. Mohammed wanted to burn the munafiqs to death in their homes for not participating in prayers or jihad.
Nonetheless, participate or not, they must not hinder jihad by thought, word or deed. Islam’s ‘munafiqs’ sit back and look the other way, while jihadists fight the Kafirs and subdue them. When a munafiq helps Kafirs during jihad, he becomes a traitor to Islam; he is considered to be a Kafir at war with Islam, so jihadists may kill him too.
When jihad comes, a munafiq is not neutral. He is on the side of jihad, rather than on the side of Kafirs. A munafiq is silent when the jihadists knock on their non-Muslim neighbor’s door. The reason for this silence is in the Koran (28.86) ‘never be a supporter of the disbelievers’.
Well you appear to have a one sided view of Muslims.
Or is this just Muslims in the ME
Or does it include the EU and NA.
For one that appears to demonize Muslims, you must have solutions?
So says the person who has never even read the Koran or talked to a Muslim and instead gets his info from rightwing blogs and Glenn Beck. Your knowledge of Islam is equal to that of a Klansman's knowledge of black people.You must know very little about Islam.
Here. Let's dispense with the fol de rol.
So says the person who has never even read the Koran or talked to a Muslim and instead gets his info from rightwing blogs and Glenn Beck. Your knowledge of Islam is equal to that of a Klansman's knowledge of black people.
http://www.politicalislam.com/author/Islam is far more of a political system than a religion.
There is no unmitigated good in Islam for the Kafir non-Muslim).
Islam’s ethical system is dualistic and is not based on the Golden Rule.
Islamic doctrine cannot be reconciled with our concepts of human rights and our Constitution.
The great majority, 96%, of all Islamic doctrine about women subjugates them.
The Sunna (what Mohammed did and said) is more important than the Koran in a Muslim’s daily life.
Precisely. So taking out KJU without a backup plan would just be another Iraq in the making.
So says the person who has never even read the Koran or talked to a Muslim and instead gets his info from rightwing blogs and Glenn Beck. Your knowledge of Islam is equal to that of a Klansman's knowledge of black people.
How rude of me.
I have been monopolizing the debate on Islam here.
I think it is time for you and anyone else who knows more about Islam to share your interpretation of it from the point of view of doctrine and how it pertains to unbelievers, or Kafirs.
Kafirs are what most of our DP members are.
Please, take the floor.
Educate us non believing Kafirs about the goals and the true nature of Islam.
You accuse me of "blithely spewing ignorance," then quote the American Thinker?How do you know that termites can't eat your house from under you and from around you without doing an inspection of your house?
You remain resistant to educating yourself about Islam.
How can you look yourself in the mirror?
How can you blithely spew ignorance and still pose as a credible pundit?
:lol:
They have taken over other countries using a minimum of violence. And others with violent and non violent jihad.
And some by using the promise of Democratic rule only to abolish democracy once they achieved power.
You are woefully uninformed.
Please stop talking about things you have no idea about.
Here is a rough analysis of how they have done it and are doing it elsewhere.
Articles: The Five Stages of Islam
I agree.
And if we'd better understood Islam beforehand, I believe we'd have done things differently or not invade at all.
I vote for not having invaded at all, but then, it's way too late for that.
I believe Saddam Hussein needed to be dealt with, he was being very uncooperative with UN weapon inspectors. However we decided to bring far more force and destruction into play than I believe was necessary. I personally believe we should have given him an ultimatum to either cooperate fully and immediately or be taken out. If he continued to be uncooperative we should have gathered intelligence (even if it took months) and made a strategic strike by bomb or a small team of commandos directly on him leaving the rest of the country alone. We should never have moved forces into the country.
Once he was killed and his successor was in place we give the same ultimatum and consequences to them, eventually whomever was in power would comply to UN weapon inspections the way they should.
You accuse me of "blithely spewing ignorance," then quote the American Thinker?
That has to be the funniest thing I've read in some time.
Where the hell were you in 2002?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?