12-19-2005, 05:57 AM #1
Instead of an article, why not simply post questions about the Iraq War?
So, are 2,175 U.S. Soldiers' lives, as well as coalition soldiers' lives, and billions of dollars of tax payer money worth Democracy in Iraq? After all, technically, democratization has begun, albeit slowly and violently.
Do you think the Iraqis (overall) think its worth it or prefer things the way they were during Saddam's Baathist Regime era?
12-19-2005, 06:11 AM #2
This is tough question. I read an article that said the majority of Iraqis prefer to have a strong leader like Saddam to maintain the security rather than democracy with no security, which is understandable. But I hope things will change soon.
My concern is, for how long the democracy will last in Iraq? What if a new dictator takes the power after few years? Will we invade Iraq again?
12-19-2005, 06:37 AM #3Retired Vet
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
I'll tell you what I think. I think the Iraqi people will go with whatever type of government gives them a better price for their produce in the market. Be that Saddam or not, most (I believe) won't really care too much. At the moment Iraq is something like a scene from a Mad Max movie.
12-19-2005, 07:04 AM #4Originally Posted by BOUNCER
12-19-2005, 10:55 AM #5
The Iraqis might enjoy their "liberties" at the beginning, but eventually theyll be awakened and like it better under Saddam pre-sanctions (1st gulf war).
12-19-2005, 12:19 PM #6
Iraq elections has shown that Iraq will be a great ally to Iran because the parties winning the election have very close relations with Iran.
12-19-2005, 12:37 PM #7
You know, it's funny. I have yet to see an Arab-Muslim or Muslim on any of these threads pertaining to Iraq actually wish the Iraqis a good future, or cheers to freedom. I've seen other non-Muslims (or as you would say, "infidels") wishing the Iraqis all of the best. It's just one of those things that make you go
12-19-2005, 12:54 PM #8Originally Posted by AIZ
12-19-2005, 01:06 PM #9Originally Posted by MilitiaGuy
By the way, a true Jihadist like yourself would never say "Iraq"...rather "the land between the two rivers".
12-19-2005, 01:16 PM #10Originally Posted by AIZ
12-19-2005, 01:25 PM #11
I've read in a few places that Bin Laden, for example, would never refer to "Saudi Arabia" but rather "the land of the two holy places" b/c "Saudi Arabia" is a name given by the colonialists. The same for the all-lovely Mr. Zarqawi...his group is not called "Al-Qa'ida of Iraq" but rather "al-Qa'ida Committee for Mesopotamia"...something like that.
12-19-2005, 01:28 PM #12Originally Posted by AIZ
12-19-2005, 01:32 PM #13
Well its natural, Shias are majorities in Iran and Iraq. However the minority sunnis ruled the state of Iraq. Smells like time for revenge to me. Just have to wait for Georgy to leave. Iran has a GREAT interest to installing a pro-iran govt. Rather then the anti-baathist Saddam. Its just laying low while the US continues to acquire casualties until finally leave. Albeit the wheels are already in motion
12-19-2005, 11:06 PM #14
I can see why people would think that Iraq and Iran will work in collusion with one another. However, the likelihood is low, IMO, that anything significant will come of it.
12-20-2005, 07:36 AM #15
If I was a american I wouldnt think it would be worth 2175 lives. Hell I couldnt care less about what goes on in those countries. I dont think a country should run around and clean other peoples mess. Look after your own country and your own people and let others do the same no matter how incompetent they are at it.
If they turn out to be a threath. Flatten them.
12-20-2005, 04:29 PM #16Originally Posted by AIZ
12-20-2005, 05:41 PM #17Originally Posted by johan
12-20-2005, 10:28 PM #18Originally Posted by thegodfather
12-22-2005, 09:47 PM #19
for what it's worth, Zarqawi renamed his group to QJBR, which is an acronym for Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, or The Base of Jihad in the Land of the Two Rivers. He did this a few months prior to the October/November 2004 offensive against Fallujah, so that bin Laden would send $$$ and troops. Prior to that, he was considered too radical for Bin Laden, primarily because AQ looks to unite Shi'ites and Sunnis, whereas Zarqawi is a full-on Takfir, and kills anyone who isn't a hardline Sunni. He (and his like) believe Shi'ites to be polytheists because Shi'ites have the ole' Ayatollah thing going on, and they consider that polytheism.
As it stands, the United States is now FAR FAR FAR better equipped to fight the Jihadists than they were 3 years ago, as a direct result of the war in Iraq. Additionally, instead of the terrorists spending their $$$ to come to the US and wage jihad, they spend their $$$ going to Iraq to wage Jihad.
"I dont understand when we took on the role of trying to police the world"
shortly after WWII, when we became recognized as one of the 2 primary global superpowers.
Last edited by keth'naab; 12-22-2005 at 09:50 PM.
12-22-2005, 09:53 PM #20
an additional lil' piece o' information.
on the Nick Berg execution/beheading video, there is a bigass dude in the background with a white hood on.
that was Mohammed Khalaf Shakara, Al Qaeda's former emir of northern Iraq. I say "former" because we (my unit) captured his ass in Mosul in June. Here's one for you, AQ!!!
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)