The Terrorists Have Won the War in Iraq

Originally posted by worldwatcher
who will more than likely use Sharia Law as a basis for their new country's laws???

you do know that women had more rights under sadam hussein than under sharia law don`t you?

Originally posted by worldwatcher
oil talk and dependency????

What happened to the discussion that Iraq has democratically voted to be an Islamic state run by religious leaders who will more than likely use Sharia Law as a basis for their new country's laws???

get back on topic and stop with the name calling (remember this thread was started by a mod, I will see the no's no's) now play nice boys.

Sorry about that, ill remember in future not to join threads that are started by mods.

Originally posted by Harlequin
you do know that women had more rights under sadam hussein than under sharia law don`t you?

I'm not sure enough about that to agree with you, I think it's might be about the same when it comes to women's rights in the country

but my point of this thread is that "real goal" of terrorists/al-qaeda which is set up islamic states around the middle east with religious clerics and sharia law running the people, is very close to being accomplished in Iraq in my opinion, hence the title "the terrorists have won the war in Iraq.

[edit on 12-21-2005 by worldwatcher]

Originally posted by Souljah Without oil all Warplanes of the USAF stand still on their runways. Without oil carrier battle groups have no more meaning. Without oil combat vehicles of the USArmy stand still.

You got much more to loose then any other Country - for you have the Majority of Armed Forces OVERSEAS - in combat zones.

I'm gonna take a step from the partisan debate and just take a technical view of this post. Souljah you should crack open a Jane's digest or maybe check out fas.org and learn up on your world's militaries. Last time I checked the supply of jet fuel (different from your regular oil) is routinely maintained in the strategic reserve and even if cut off from arabian suppliers is still attainable in other parts of the world. And the second point about carrier groups? WTF? Are you saying they would have no way of propulsion cause FYI good buddy carriers run on nuclear powerplants as does most of the high value ships in the US Navy. The carrier group is a vital component of any modern army because it offers quick and effective force projection across the globe. I don't remember Vietnam having oil but I do remember lots of carrier action in the gulf of tonkin.

And finally where is this immediate danger you keep talking about? Is the oil going to run out tomorrow? Oh wait theres a little thing called the strategic reserve. Believe me Souljah the military has all sorts of contingencies in the event the US encounters a major fuel shortage.

I just can't hold it anymore, Souljah You have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to the American military and to lesser extent oil because some fancy colored graphs don't mean jack when all you do is insert a bunch of smileys and remark of how much America is gonna fall.

[edit on 12/21/2005 by Agent47]

Originally posted by worldwatcher
oil talk and dependency????

What happened to the discussion that Iraq has democratically voted to be an Islamic state run by religious leaders who will more than likely use Sharia Law as a basis for their new country's laws???

get back on topic and stop with the name calling (remember this thread was started by a mod, I will see the no's no's) now play nice boys.

I am sorry miss worldwatcher - it is my Fault and I take full Responsiblity for this Thread going somewhere, you did not wish it to go.

I will stop Hijacking your thread and limit the Polygon for Attacks on me in my posts.

Purely out of Respect for You.

Originally posted by Souljah
Without Essential Oil Reserves your American Ecnomoy, based on Crude Oil, will Collapse like a Tower of Cards. So fragile it is, that the USA can not afford, that Crude Oil would be sold in PetroEuroes, therefore making the PetroDollar drop.

Without the US buying oil there would be no Saudi Arabia, no Japanese economy, and no Euro Dollar. Thats why we took Iraq to create more economic stability globally due to OPEC's inability of management and use of oil for a weapon and political means over the last 30 years.

This is my post from another thread. (I hope it's ok to copy my own post...)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The way I see it, what we've done in Iraq is similar to giving a bandaid to a person who has been seriously wounded in an accident and then proclaiming "There! He's much better! He has a bandaid! Yay! He's nearly well."

While the fact that there are elections (of sorts) being held in Iraq, I doubt they're the indication of freedom and democracy that this administration would like people to think they are.

I'm also leery of the wider implications of Iraq's elections as regards the Middle East. Sure, individuals are happy to be voting. But when taking into account the effect that this whole war and its outcome has on the region, it really might not be that different than it was before we went in.

Iran wins big in Iraq's elections

As the trends became available regarding the Iraqi elections of last Thursday, what has emerged is that contrary to all pre-poll projections, the Shi'ite religious coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), not only held together, but also can be expected to dominate the new 275-member National Assembly for the next four years.

More importantly, the "secular" candidates who were believed to enjoy links with the US security agencies would seem to have been routed. Former premier Iyad Allawi's prospects of leading the new government seem virtually nil. And Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Accord suffered a shattering defeat.

The prognosis that Sunnis would flock to Allawi or that Shi'ite constituents were disillusioned with the "fundamentalist" UIA and would be drawn to Allawi's secular platform has also proved to be highly faulty.

It's one thing to ask an individual how he feels about voting and get a purple finger Sure. The people love the idea of having (at least the illusion of) some power in how their country is run. But there are bigger and more serious implications of this election process and our supposed installation of democracy and freedom in this country.

I think it's important to look at the big picture. I hope for the sake of the Iraqis that this is a good sign for them and the Middle East. But I do have my doubts. And I definitely think "An election does not a democracy make."

[edit on 21-12-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The way I see it, what we've done in Iraq is similar to giving a bandaid to a person who has been seriously wounded in an accident

I have news for you thats how the American economy runs - thats how the big 3 runs. It's called taking initiative. Iraq will be one of the richest nations in the middle east. They are the new Saudi Arabia with American muscle controlling the oil reserves,

Originally posted by Harlequin
you do know that women had more rights under sadam hussein than under sharia law don`t you?

go back to your crack pipe,

Oh man I'm not one to say this in public but that last post albeit not contributing to discussion was pretty damn entertaining.

In all seriousness though this thread has totally strayed from what it was intended to discuss.

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Well, what can you feel for a people who choose slavery over freedom, except pity?

I don't see that we have any right to prevent this. We put them in a position where they actually had a choice for once. This was a noble endeavor in my opinion. If they have chosen chains and servitude to a religion that seems intent upon forcing the rest of the world to destroy it, then their fate is out of our hands, and we should not trouble ourselves to worry over them anymore. They had the choice.

The day Sharia law is adopted in Iraq is the day we should withdraw everything from there including all financial and diplomatic aid. We have no right to force them to choose our way, but neither do we need to reward a stupid decision. We should not withdraw to enact revenge or to punish, but for the simple reason that societies ruled by religion are incapable of coexisting with secular societies based on the rational assumption of basic equal rights and individual liberty.

It's quite simple. Religious States cannot be trusted. Who knows what their God will tell them to do tomorrow?

What more can be said? They have made their bed, now we should leave and allow them to lie in it. No finanacial aid, no political aid, no economic nor military aid - as you've said, a religious government cannot be trusted and will likely turn such aid and use it against the United States. They have chosen to live as an oppressed third-world country. It cannot be the job of the Americans to rescue people from their own stupidity and short-sightedness. I say bring the troops back home now and allow Iraq the pleasure of wallowing in their radical new government. The taliban has demonstrated how successful a religious government can be, right Afghanistan?

Originally posted by worldwatcher

Originally posted by Harlequin
you do know that women had more rights under sadam hussein than under sharia law don`t you?

I'm not sure enough about that to agree with you, I think it's might be about the same when it comes to women's rights in the country

under hussein it was near enough women biased - they had full claim on property , and men had to ask alot of permissions before they did anything (like marrying again for example) - so yes they are a different culture to `western` standards , but compared to saudi arabia women in iraq had it good - but that will change now

: Originally posted by kozmo
I say bring the troops back home now and allow Iraq the pleasure of wallowing in their radical new government. The taliban has demonstrated how successful a religious government can be, right Afghanistan?

Well, Iran and Saudi Arabia are examples of two successful radical governments. taliban basically, survived on aids from pakistan,saudis and us of course. but iran/saudi arabia are sitting on huge oil reserves.

I like to share a secret with you ........ Democracy just doesn't work in MiddleEast countries

Democracy was invented for secular regimes, not Islamic countries. According to Islamic faith, politics is religion and vice versa.
Syria is no exception. a regime change in Syria will empower the long oppressed muslim radicals under Assad's ruling (read reformists) and will most probably create yet another islamic radical government.

has anyone noted something in pres. bush's speeches: "A democratic Iraq will boost reformers in Tehran and Damascus". I am starting to think there are only two undemocratic regimes in MiddleEast, Iran and Syria, with the former being the most democratic of all ME nations after Iraq

Islamic Dictatorship is indeed the answer to growing problems with radical muslims in ME .

Iran has an Islamic semi-democratic structure,iran controls most of the me terrorist networks. after toppling of saddam, Iran is set to dominate the region after the us of course. its failures and shortcommings, I like to put the blame on its semi-DEMOCRATIC structure.
Saudi Arabia is a very good example of islamic dictatorship, stability, high oil prices, saudi family are having a lot of fun over here.