Why We're Fighting in Iraq

phoenix80

Banned
Why We're Fighting in Iraq [SIZE=+1][/SIZE]

December 6, 2005 | WILLIAM TUCKER


PRESIDENT BUSH'S war critics have made a remarkable discovery - some people in Iraq want us to leave! "The people of Fallujah love Cindy Sheehan," Farouk Abd-Muhammed, a Sunni candidate for National Assembly, told The Washington Post in a front-page story fetchingly titled, "U.S. Debate on Pullout Resonates As Troops Engage Sunnis in Talks."

After describing how Abd-Muhammed had "watch[ed] recent television reports with his family showing Americans waving banners that read 'Stop the war in Iraq,' " The Post quoted him again: "I salute the American people because we know after watching them on satellite that they are ready to leave."

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., was right in the thick of things, too, condemning the presumed "scandal" of our military paying for newspaper stories.

"The Pentagon's devious scheme to place favorable propaganda in Iraqi newspapers speaks volumes about the president's credibility gap," the senator declared. "If Americans were truly welcomed in Iraq as liberators, we wouldn't have to doctor the news for the Iraqi people."

Let's get a few things straight. The Sunni are unhappy we are in Iraq.

The Shi'ites, a 60 percent majority, are generally glad we came. The Kurds, a persecuted minority in the north, think we're the greatest people on earth.

Why is this so?

Maybe it's time for a little historical background. The Muslim world is divided into two main sects, the Sunni and the Shi'ites. The Sunni are a kind of aristocracy, claiming to be the original followers of the prophet. The Shi'ites are centered in Iran and Iraq. The division goes back to the wars of succession after Mohammed's death in 632 A.D.

Under the banner of Islam, the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula quickly conquered most of the Middle East, from Granada to Kabul. In the process, they subjugated many people, forcing them to convert. All were now Muslims, yet the Sunni held themselves apart.
Those outside this Meccan old guard grouped around Ali ibn Abi Talib, a cousin of the prophet, who had married his daughter Fatima. A scholarly man, Ali abjured the wars of succession but was finally asked to become caliph in 656. Five years later he was assassinated, but his mantle fell to his son, Hussein.

In 681, Hussein and an entourage of 72 soldiers were intercepted by a Sunni army of 40,000 in southern Iraq. The Sunni demanded Hussein yield his claim to the caliphate. After deliberating eight days, Hussein rejected the offer and elected to do battle. He and his small band were slaughtered to the last man. The Shi'ia still celebrate this martyrdom in the "Ten Days of Muharram."
Today, the rivalry between Sunni and Shi'ia persists, with the Sunni a ruling caste and the Shi'ia an underdog splinter group.
Although a minority in Iraq, the Sunni have ruled since the days of the caliphate.

Saddam Hussein's Baathist party was a minority-within-a-minority, the entire clique coming from one small town, Tikrit. It was as if the Los Angeles Crips or the Chicago Mafia had seized control of America.

Inevitably, they ruled ruthlessly.

In invading Iraq, we have deposed the Sunni and are trying to give power to the Shi'ites. Naturally, the Sunni are unhappy. The real test is whether the Shi'ites will be mature enough to govern democratically or will degenerate into vengeance and repression.
When the radical young Shi'ite mullah Moqdata Al-Sadr assembled militias and started fighting both Americans and Sunni, we were in big trouble. But Al-Sadr has calmed down and agreed to join the political process.

The Baathist holdouts are a desperate and fanatical lot, ready to die before submitting to minority status. Worse, they are ready to kill any Sunni who show signs of compromise. It is an old story - extremists wiping out the middle so they can go toe-to-toe with the other extreme.

The communists were experts at this. The Viet Cong always made a point of assassinating South Vietnamese village officials.
"So aren't we just in another Vietnam?" you may argue. But there are differences. Vietnam was a peasant country that had been arbitrarily split in half. Although most South Vietnamese wanted peace, our only true supporters were the thin Westernized elite.
In Iraq, we are on the side of the majority.

In truth, the Sunnis are skilled and educated enough to hold their own in an elected government. The problem is the Baathist die-hards - plus al-Zawahri and his al-Qaida brigades - who are determined to rule through violence. It will take patience to get through this. But the Dec. 15 election should be another step in the right direction.

http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzOTcmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTY4MzE3MjkmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkxNA==
 
The only thing i can hope is that this doesn't turn out like Vietnam War, 55,000 soldiers dead. I hope they pull out the soldiers as soon as possible.
 
the military should get out once the job is done and Iraq is a secure place or at least Iraqis can put up the fight to defend their free society
 
Bunk

The real reason we are fighting in Iraq is because Bush Jr. got a hair up his bum because Saddam planned to assassinate Bush Sr. (PURE AND SIMPLE) and out of revenge sent our young men and women into harms way.

The rest of it is just plain camouflage. (Whether you agree or not - my opinion).
 
Chief Bones said:
The real reason we are fighting in Iraq is because Bush Jr. got a hair up his bum because Saddam planned to assassinate Bush Sr. (PURE AND SIMPLE) and out of revenge sent our young men and women into harms way.

The rest of it is just plain camouflage. (Whether you agree or not - my opinion).

:bang: :stupid:
 
Chief Bones said:
The real reason we are fighting in Iraq is because Bush Jr. got a hair up his bum because Saddam planned to assassinate Bush Sr. (PURE AND SIMPLE) and out of revenge sent our young men and women into harms way.

The rest of it is just plain camouflage. (Whether you agree or not - my opinion).

Nothing to do with oil or weapons of mass distraction then?:)
 
For the crude oil , showing military power in middle east and stimulating domestic economy rising.
 
Remember - I said it was "my opinion" that the "REAL" reason was personal on Bush's part.

Oil or ten thousand other things may ("MAY") have entered Bush's mind when he made his decision - but (six-two-even) - revenge was uppermost in Bush's mind when he ordered our forces into harms way.
 
Chief have you read the manifesto of the Neo-Cons aka the Center for A New American Century?? This war and others were laid out in detail with all of their reasoning and its available on the net in a nice 70 something page PDF download. I highly recommend it for reading. ;)

Nothing in life is as simple as a soldier must see it.
 
nasa88 said:
For the crude oil , showing military power in middle east and stimulating domestic economy rising.

Interesting...

bulldogg said:
Chief have you read the manifesto of the Neo-Cons aka the Center for A New American Century?? This war and others were laid out in detail with all of their reasoning and its available on the net in a nice 70 something page PDF download. I highly recommend it for reading. ;)

Nothing in life is as simple as a soldier must see it.

I've not read it myself. Does it say that Wolfowitz, Cheney and others wanted to invade Iraq? If this is so, then Chief Bones' "He tried to kill my daddy"-theory would have less of a base.
 
Last edited:
Yes it does. It calls for simultaneous theatres of operation (ie open combat) in the middle east Iraq, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan are named as well as calling for open warfare against North Korea. What they needed was a "trigger" they got this delivered to them on 9/11. Sad testament to the lengths politicians will go for their agendas.
 
While you paragons of mental gymnastics play patty cake with each other in a desparate attempt to attach some conspiracy motive to this obviously successful military answer to avenging a blatant attack on America resulting in the demise of over 3000 innocent souls, try to remember that the most benevolent ruler of Iraq had refused to deny any connection to helping fund and develop a terrorist network fully capable of producing a nuclear or biological attack on any Country of their choosing. If there is one among this esteemed group of deep thinkers who can point out better targets for an initial strike than Afghanistan and Iraq, in that order, please disabuse me so that I might see the error in my thought process.
 
Missileer said:
While you paragons of mental gymnastics play patty cake with each other in a desparate attempt to attach some conspiracy motive to this obviously successful military answer to avenging a blatant attack on America resulting in the demise of over 3000 innocent souls, try to remember that the most benevolent ruler of Iraq had refused to deny any connection to helping fund and develop a terrorist network fully capable of producing a nuclear or biological attack on any Country of their choosing. If there is one among this esteemed group of deep thinkers who can point out better targets for an initial strike than Afghanistan and Iraq, in that order, please disabuse me so that I might see the error in my thought process.

Yes I can! Better targets? Abosultely none.There were no WMD's in Iraq(Even GWB admits that, now) so why the invasion? Could it be about oil perhaps? Would you like to inform the esteemed readership why we are in Afghanistan? Any oil or drugs in that neck of the woods? Come on Missileer, admit it, you work part time for the Whitehouse PR staff.:smile:
 
Its one of the most bizarre things anyone ever saw/heard of. Saddam was giving ever imaginable indication that there were WMD's: Refusing access to various sites all of a sudden, acting a lot like he's hiding something. He refused to allow unrestricted access, acting ever bit like a man who had what WMD's and didn't want it proven.

The intelligence of every interested world power confirmed they were there. France, Britain, Russia, etc. Everyone reaffirmed the same conclusion. WMD's are/were there in Iraq.

We invade, and somehow or another, we found jack squat. The bigger question is: How could so many nations independently confirm the same thing independently, yet each and every one of them was dead wrong??

There's plenty of conspiracy theories, most are pretty elaborate. But it doesn't answer why everyone started with the same wrong info.
 
Because those idiots in the intelligence community told those idiots in power who still believe in Santa Claus that there was WMD's there. oh somebody also mentioned that there might be some oil there too.
 
Welshwarrior said:
Yes I can! Better targets? Abosultely none.
So, you would wait for another, more deadly attack on your country? I think you need to rethink the "warrior" part of your screen name.

Welshwarrior said:
There were no WMD's in Iraq(Even GWB admits that, now) so why the invasion?
Something we knew for sure AFTER the invasion. A little cooperation from Hussein would have gone a long way to proving his good intentions.

Welshwarrior said:
Could it be about oil perhaps?
Simple answer to that one. NO! The US wasn't then or now getting oil from Iraq.

Welshwarrior said:
Would you like to inform the esteemed readership why we are in Afghanistan? Any oil or drugs in that neck of the woods?
Sure, esteemed reader. Ever hear of "Operation Enduring Freedom?" It was the first step in the war against terror. The Taliban was a known terror organization who were threatening Afghanistan and it's neighbors. They had occuppied the Country and carrying out attacks from there.

Welshwarrior said:
Come on Missileer, admit it, you work part time for the Whitehouse PR staff.:smile:
Nope, they never asked but I would if they did.
 
Russia, France, United Kingdom and the United States were all in on a grand conspiracy for seizing the world's oil supply. Now that's a reasonable conspiracy, but those four nations don't seem very likely to have cooperated on such a thing. If you are right, shame on them all!! But doesn't it seem a bit farfetched?? We have hard evidence that all of those nations had corresponding independent intelligence that Iraq possessed WMD's. Do you have evidence of the four nation conspiracy that you are suggesting?

BTW, does it seem like such an outrageous thing for the war on Terror to have targetted the world's #1 funder of global terrorism??
 
Last edited:
Missileer said:
While you paragons of mental gymnastics play patty cake with each other in a desparate attempt to attach some conspiracy motive to this obviously successful military answer to avenging a blatant attack on America resulting in the demise of over 3000 innocent souls, try to remember that the most benevolent ruler of Iraq had refused to deny any connection to helping fund and develop a terrorist network fully capable of producing a nuclear or biological attack on any Country of their choosing. If there is one among this esteemed group of deep thinkers who can point out better targets for an initial strike than Afghanistan and Iraq, in that order, please disabuse me so that I might see the error in my thought process.

Go to the source- Iran.
 
The biggest mistake: Iraq was "sold" all wrong. It would have been a more sure thing if the Bush Administration had bothered to emphasize Saddam Hussein's enormous financial contributions to numerous terrorist causes. Nobody outspent Saddam when it came to Terrorism.

I can see why they went with the WMD reasoning, but it's just not as obvious of a connection. It should have been the secondary reason for invading. I suppose its mostly the fact that the peace agreements with Iraq from '91 specified dismantling WMD programs, but its still a pretty hard mental leap to make it the next obvious target for the War on Terror. Pointing out Saddam's Terrorism funding would have been a lot better thing to point out.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top