I have a question.
Who are we at “war” with right now?
This is a serious question (for a change). I would really like to see what you the readers think. (yes even you visitor’s that NEVER comment, now is your chance)
It can be one word, two or a million, but I would really like to know what you guys/ladies think.
Thank you
Tags: Bush's FUBAR War
America is not at War. America is at the Mall.
Bush at war with reason and common sense.
The United States Marine Corps has been placed in the middle of a civil war between Sunni and Shiite Muslims who are fighting for control of Iraq.
Bush and his base are at war with the Constitution. They want to silently alter it so all the money flows to themselves.
Dontcha know? We’re at war with the “ENEMY”*.
Duh.
* = may not include any actual identifiable groups or persons. Subject to the total complete and autonomous discretion of the “Decider” aka the “Commander Guy”
It is a fair question. The reason you get snarky answers (which I do enjoy) is that we don’t really know.
Our war with the Hussein government of Iraq was short. We won that one. There seem to be several sources of resistance to our current occupation of Iraq; some of them appear to be allies of ours.
In Afghanistan, we seem to have a more clear-cut enemy: the Taliban. But we hear so little about Afghanistan that I really don’t know.
We might be at war with Al Quaida (I’m not even sure how to spell that); maybe as an ally of the Taliban?
Analysts say that if we left Iraq – the Sunni and Shiites factions would kill off Al Q in short order.
“..we must find an enemy and defeat it.”
The 2001 classic from The Onion.
I really wanted to see what people would say for this post.
I think it is a question that people need to ask. It isn’t easy to answer, but after we “identify” the enemy I wanted to find out where they are located.
I think if you ask who we are at war with and really think about it, then ask why we are fighting them were we are then leaving Iraq is a no brainer.
We have seen the slow trickle of evidence that proves Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq. Ok, so since that is true, why are we there now? We aren’t fighting the Iraqi’s are we?
We didn’t go into Iraq to fight the Iraqi’s. We went into Iraq to rid them of Saddam, WMD’s and Al Qaeda.
Well we got rid of Saddam 4 years ago…so what is the deal now?
Is anyone else just plain sick how every day – day in day out – we are consumed by this war here at home as well as over there?
I think it will forever be impossible to calculate the opportunity costs this war has imposed on this country. We know, give or take a Halliburton billion or so, how much the actual cost is – or at least we think we do.
But what about the billions of lost hours and energy from millions of people who, rather than focus on charity, positive activism, or even just their families, have been compelled to speak out against, write, protest, discuss, or otherwise just keep up with this war?
What about all the political discussions and actions that could have happened in the last 5 years about things that really matter to our lives? Instead the all consuming focus is war war war. Iraq Iraq Iraq. We have politicians who are making careers out of being authorities on a war that never should have happened in the first place (*cough* BIDEN *cough*).
The cost of this blunder will end up setting this country back not by a few years but probably decades when all is said and done. No doubt Bush and his crooked clan will have plenty of money to spend when our economy can finally take off for real, like many of us thought the dawn of the 21st Century was to bring.
With Bush as this country’s president it is hard not to see how he has given some validity to those who label us the “great Satan”. The cowboy idiot played us right into their hands and soon he will just parachute out giving us all the finger :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJmmQ5y9eQ
SEN – Salifist Extremist Network
And the award for most bizarre comment goes to…..# 9 – “J”!
” This is a serious question (for a change). I would really like to see what you the readers think. (yes even you visitor’s that NEVER comment, now is your chance)”
I took that to mean he wanted to hear from someone who actually knows what he’s talking about.
Salifist doctrine, intent on re-establishing the Caliphate, and a return to the true form of Islam. Neither the Shi’a nor secular Muslims fit that “true” form.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Islam
Beliefs
Allah – Oneness of God
Muhammad · Prophets of Islam
Practices
Profession of Faith · Prayer
Fasting · Charity · Pilgrimage
History & Leaders
Timeline of Muslim history
Ahl al-Bayt · Sahaba
Rashidun Caliphs · Shia Imams
Texts & Laws
Qur’an · Sunnah · Hadith
Fiqh · Sharia · Kalam · Tasawwuf
Major branches
Sunni · Shia
Culture & Society
Academics · Art · Science · Philosophy
Architecture · Mosques · Calendar
Festivals · Demographics · Politics
Women · Children · Animals
See also
Criticism of Islam · Islamophobia
Glossary of Islamic terms
view
A caliphate (from the Arabic خلافة or khilaafah), is the Islamic form of government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world. The head of state’s position (Caliph) is based on the notion of a successor to Prophet Muhammad’s political authority; according to Sunnis ideally elected by the people or their representatives,[1] and according to the Shia an Imamate chosen from the Ahl ul-Bayt. From the time of Muhammad until 1924, successive caliphates were held by the Umayyad, Abbasid, and finally Ottoman dynasties.
The caliphate is the only form of governance that has full approval in traditional Islamic theology, and “is the core political concept of Sunni Islam, by the consensus of the Muslim majority in the early centuries.”[2] Andrew Hammond reports that medieval caliphates “enjoyed scientific and military superiority globally – both absent today”.[3]
Salifist doctrine – intent on re-establishing the Caliphate, and a return to the true form of Islam. Neither the Shi’a nor secular Muslims fit that “true” form.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Islam
Beliefs
Allah – Oneness of God
Muhammad · Prophets of Islam
Practices
Profession of Faith · Prayer
Fasting · Charity · Pilgrimage
History & Leaders
Timeline of Muslim history
Ahl al-Bayt · Sahaba
Rashidun Caliphs · Shia Imams
Texts & Laws
Qur’an · Sunnah · Hadith
Fiqh · Sharia · Kalam · Tasawwuf
Major branches
Sunni · Shia
Culture & Society
Academics · Art · Science · Philosophy
Architecture · Mosques · Calendar
Festivals · Demographics · Politics
Women · Children · Animals
See also
Criticism of Islam · Islamophobia
Glossary of Islamic terms
view
A caliphate (from the Arabic خلافة or khilaafah), is the Islamic form of government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world. The head of state’s position (Caliph) is based on the notion of a successor to Prophet Muhammad’s political authority; according to Sunnis ideally elected by the people or their representatives,[1] and according to the Shia an Imamate chosen from the Ahl ul-Bayt. From the time of Muhammad until 1924, successive caliphates were held by the Umayyad, Abbasid, and finally Ottoman dynasties.
The caliphate is the only form of governance that has full approval in traditional Islamic theology, and “is the core political concept of Sunni Islam, by the consensus of the Muslim majority in the early centuries.”[2] Andrew Hammond reports that medieval caliphates “enjoyed scientific and military superiority globally – both absent today”.[3]
thank you J.
now where are they located?
It’s the basis for AQ. They hit us here in order to drive us from Saudi (figured we collapse and defend rather than go offense). That would have allowed for the toppling of the Saudi Govt by UBL. Thus given him access to an army, equipment and location in which to drive his plan for implementing Sharai law worldwide.
The SEN is the common thread for Zawahiri (UBL’s #2 and native Egyptian and the late Zarqawi (Jordanian). From these three countries they would hit Israel then work their way to Europe…and on and on.
Sorry, forgot to answer your directly. They are located wherever AQ is throughout the globe and in some Sunni populated areas (Iraq) where they buy into the philosophy.
DV’s point (and this time I think he actually has one) is that in asymmetrical warfare things are different. This isn’t a set piece war with sandtables and front lines. The theater is murky at best. We’re fighting an enemy we really haven’t seen before. Tactically they’re similar to Japanese Imperialists (suicide bombers = kamikazi pilots) but they don’t have a traditional base of operations like the Japanese did. They are like the IRA, ETA and other terrorist groups in their tactics but those groups have/had limited objectives. Not so the Islamists (or whatever you want to call them). Their cancerous heart starts in Saudi Arabia. That’s where most of their funding comes from. They build the mosques and supply the radical imams to indoctrinate the locals.
Caliphate
What an idiot. The Sunni’s and Shiites in Iraq can’t even get along and he thinks the SEN is some real thing that can impose a caliphate. You proabbly also think that AQ, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Hezbollah are all the same thing.
Why don’t you just say we are at war with Hobbits? They are just a big a threat as a caliphate.
Common Sense.
# 17. Anon
I’m sorry and your response to the question was?
I agree with this statement.
America is not at War. America is at the Mall.
Even if going into Iraq was a good idea, which is clearly was not, Bush has done nothing to put us on a war footing (unless you consider blowing a couple billion bucks on re-election focused PR). And neither has he show any strategic insight or competence with regard to rounding up the various bogeymen you claim are trying to cobble together a Caliphate
You idiot.
I did have a point duffy…thanks 🙂
so can someone tell me why we are in iraq please?
David….
common sense is an enemy politicians will never defeat
I believe these are all threads that tie in to the war, but were used as rallying cries to get the variety of people together to justify going into Iraq in the first place.
I am persuaded that within our Shadow presidency (that sometimes seems to be run from an “undisclosed location”) that a systemic effort was made to tie these threads together into one rope capable of creating the circumstance that ultimately was necessary to get access to the oil.
I am perturbed by the fact that all evidence we needed to fight the Iraqi’s came from the Vice Presidents office, and rose to the top level of round table discussion, without being vetted by those who knew or suspected the information to be false.
After the inauguration in 09, or post impeachment, whichever comes first, and the perpetrators flee to Dubai, we will come to know the true extent of his involvement and this war will possibly go down thfoughout the annuals of history as ‘Cheney’s War.’
Good question…not going to Iraq is a legitimate debate…ignoring the goal of AQ is not.
Hopefully anon (#17and 20)and those that revert to name calling will allow for information to penetrate their blind ignorance…but then again, he sounds like a fuckin dope so don’t bet on it.
Good day.
OOhhh. I am cut to the quick.
And neither has he show any strategic insight or competence with regard to rounding up the various bogeymen you claim are trying to cobble together a Caliphate.
This is a good point. What aren’t conservatives calling for Bush/Cheney’s removal from office on the grounds of gross incompetence? Don’t you love America?
I know there are a rare few like Tyler Nixon who loathe Bush – but the Nixons of the world seem to be outnumbered by the Js and Chris’s of the world who insist that the emperor is still fully clothed.
and let me say, while I hope this discussion is not over,
thank you all for commenting especially what appears to be a few newbies.
J,
thanks and keep commenting. while I think you are a little misguided I think your point that we are at war with extremist is on target, but the other stuff is a little off base.
Duffy,
always a pleasure when you enter the fray.
again thanks to all and keep it clean
ding ding
round 2!
David,
beat it!
Anons 1 through 20 thanks
thanks to all for commenting. it is good to see some new people in here.
except david…no doubt you are some pathetic troll that has nothing better to do today.
“…Chris’s of the world who insist that the emperor is still fully clothed.”
I think Jason has a crush on me. He is fixated on me when I am not even in on the thread.
The question for the thread is a valid one. However the answer is not too difficult.
Our enemy is radical Islam. The problem is, as Duffy alluded to, they don’t exist within the confines of geo-political boundry. There were probably several places we could have gone to fight them. Iraq was chosen as the starting place for a couple of reasons.
1. It had a readily identifiable bad man in charge. Most reasonable people would agree that Saddam was a muderous dictator and that there was no doubt the country (ours and theirs) would be better off without him. This made a good starting point for unity sake.
2. We knew that he had a weapons program. We all currently debate on whether or not he had actual weapons, but their was no doubt about the program. If not, just what were the UN weapons inspectors….inspecting. It would help in the war on terror if we could take out a potential source of WMDs.
3. Iraq is in the heart of the middle east. It is surrounded on all sides by countries with known terrorist ties (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia). It makes since to hit them right in the heart of a concentrated area of terrorism. Yes, there are terrorists all over the world, but there is a strong concentration on them in the middle east. It made sense to hit them right in the middle.
4. Iraqs army would be (and was) easy to defeat. We could quickly get a foothold in the region and work outwards.
5. Saddam was well hated and feared by the other neighboring countries, and taking him out would indeed be looked upon favorably.
So we attacked Iraq. Our troops routed out Saddams government and eventually Saddam in short order. We freed thousands of Iraqis who were being tortured and saw to it that many of the torturers including Saddams two loving sons, were captured or killed. Our swiftness even caused Muammar Qadafi in Libya to give up (supposedly, we still need to check on that one) his weapons program, one we were not even particular aware of.
Why are we still in Iraq?
Iraq transformed into a physical battleground for the war on terror. We could not fight the war without a physical battleground. The terrorist, sensing how bad a U.S. presence in the heart of the Middle East would be for them, decided to take on the whole U.S. Military right there. There are still coming into the country to fight us, leaving the protective confines of a dozen or so other countries and presenting themselves to our troops.
We can pull up stakes in Iraq. But what then? We need to have a physical battleground to keep up this war. Unless you want to just abandon the whole war. I suppose we could do that. But unfortunately both sides have to agree to end a war…and I don’t see radical terrorists doing that.
So name the place. Where do we invade next?
Our enemy is radical Islam
How is this not like a “war” on poverty?
You can’t kill an idea with guns and bombs you can only lend legitimacy to the idea or de-legitimize the idea.
There is so much more wrong with your comment that I’ll have to pick just one item.
Our swiftness even caused Muammar Qadafi in Libya to give up
False. That was diplomacy.
chris,
1. so we attacked someone that had nothing to do with Radical Islam to make it the battleground?
does that sound lawful to you
2. we don’t debate. there aren’t any WMD’s. You debate it, but 5 years is a long time to wait for proof.
3. You are wrong IT DIDN’T make sense to attack Iraq actually. Baghdad is the 3rd holiest city in all of Islam, Muslim treat non muslims as infidels and occupiers ALL muslims do. Iraq was fighting and had fought Iran for years and millions were killed. Iraq has always been ruled by dictators. I could go on but your opinion that going to Iraq was correct is wrong. Dead wrong and 5 years later with no ground gained proves it.
4. The army was easy to defeat no argued it would be. the insurgents were predicted but ignored by Rumsfeld. We have no foothold there now, how can you opine that we do?
5. Uhhhhh, How is taking saddam out for us these days? Syria big fan of us now, Iran, well we are best buds, Saudi Arabia is distancing from us, How is Pakistan doing these days?
Take off the rose colored glasses my friend we have been over there for 5 years, half a trillion, 3000 dead americans and NOW we are extending stays to 15 months, increasing troops and making “one last push” gimme a break man, seriously.
so basically, we started a war with a country that was a pushover so we could kill radical islmics in a foreign country instead of our land?
uh, yea, great plan….
Just a couple of quick answers to Chris’s question as to Why we are still in Iraq?
Two reasons: we went in with too few troops. This was Rumsfeld’s decision. Even the 90,000 planned to enter after the war was won, were held back on Rumsfeld’s order. The generals, who the administration is fond of saying they listen to, all said the troop levels were too low for occupation of that country.
The second reason was DeBaathing the Iraqi army. The American generals were adamant that this was a huge mistake. However Brenner was allowed to continue. This drove 50000 men underground overnight. Up until this time there was no violence in Iraq; these ex solders were awaiting employment by the new Iraqi regime. The first bomb blew up two day’s after the order was signed.
Final comment. Thinking about Donviti’s comment, things could have turned out much differently. But it appears that domestic politics interfered with allowing the best practical ideas developed on the ground, to morph into policy and action.
We could have had a peaceful, democratic Iraq today, if better actions had been taken by members of this administration. Our policy mistakes, are why we are still there……….We just had the wrong persons in charge.
We are at war with the Islamic fascists. Whether they are seeking totalitarian control to impose an Islamic government, or using Islam to attract people to their efforts to impose their own kind of control (and both elements are present), they have to be fought, and they have to be destroyed.
While our friends on the left want to blame George Bush, this war was started long before he ever came into office. Al Qaeda launched its first attack on American soil (the first WTC bombing) in February of 1993; other attacks proceeded apace, though most were in American targets abroad. Osama bin Laden issued his two fatwah declaring war on the West in general and the United States and Israel in particular in 1996 and 1998, when Bill Clinton, who believed in diplomacy, was President, and when his only real example of using force was to protect Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The real difference is that under President Clinton, we weren’t fighting back, and under President Bush, we are. I’d guess that, under the next President, we’ll stop fighting back again.
Kavips says that we went in with too few troops, but that’s the wrong answer. We looked at the occupations of Germany and Japan, and saw populations without much democratic traditions embrace democracy, because, in the end, freedom and democracy were the best things to do — and we thought that the Iraqis would do the same, with the same kind of benevolent occupation and rebuilding as was used following World War II.
But we forgot one thing: in World War II, we had virtually destroyed their infrastructure and killed most of their fighting aged men. We defeated the countries of Germany and Japan; this time, we deposed the Ba’ath Party government, but wen never defeated the country of Iraq.
dana
your 2nd comment is dead wrong, it is common knowledge that we went into Iraq with to few troops. WE didn’t look at Japan, Rummy did, the generals and War College Professors told him not to, but he didn’t listen.
Now he has been proved wrong with disastrous results.