Is US Establishing An Islamic Theocracy In Iraq?

I raised something along this line a while back. This was when it was becoming apparent that Chalabi himself was working more for Iranian interests, along with his own, than Iraqi interests.It was seriously looking like Iran used the US to wipe out the very enemy we created to handle it. The revelation of curveball and his intimate connection with Iran and Chalabi only cements that ironic possibility.About the only thing keeping me from thinking that is a fact is that Iran isn't openly mocking us for having defeated us in that fashion. It it isn't true, it still might as well be.I guess after we establish the new Iraq we'll eventually have to pit it against Iran again.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

The single biggest threat to the whole world, IMHO, for the US led invasion of Iraq, was to accelerate the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other WMDs in the most unstable reagion in the world. The most likely outcome is a band of nuclear powers stretching from Israel, through Iraq (and likely by gift including Syria), Iran, Pakistan, India and on to China.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

China already had plenty of nukes prior to Bush. In fact, Clinton helped them modernize their missile delivery system. Before he ordered transfers by Executive Orders, they could not hit the broad-side of a barn so to speak.Pakistan and India had already developed nukes as well, prior to Bush.So all this talk about accelerating nuclear development is bogus. Certainly, Bush stopped Pakistan's nuclear program cold. I don't know what India is doing, but Ghadaffy stopped his nuclear program as Bush showed he was willing to invade nations if necessary to stop such programs.Iran was already developing nukes prior to Bush, and probably if he had more support, he would force Iran to capitulate like he did with Ghaddafy.I really think your blaming Bush here is quite absurd.

I have taken part of your message to another topic, where we can look at things from a different angle.But for at this topic: I infer from that statement that while you don't approve of GWB's having started the war et all, you consider it secondary to other issues. I would be also interested in more detail on your "et al".George W. Bush has mistakenly started a war that has so far cost 231 billion dollars, not to mention all the lives, that appears to be having essentially nothing good coming out of it. You find that to be an insignificant blip on his overall performance as President?MooseAdded by edit:It seems to me that the only justification for the war is that it is part of a welfare system for the military/industrial complex.I also changed the subtitle of this message.Added by second edit:"Christian" George W. "God talks to me, God is on my side" Bush has done what he has done, and you condemn Islam?This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-03-2006 01:43 PMThis message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-03-2006 01:49 PM

The UN helped pass a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act. Countries with Nuclear Weapons must slowly depreciate the amount of weapons in their arsenal. The U.S. has ignored it, as has every country with Nuclear Weapons. It's really annoying that noone is doing anything about Nuclear Weapons.

I don't remember saying he shouldn't have started it. My problem is with the occupation and buildup of these nations. (See my answer in the other thread.) 1. He had quite a lot of support on both sides of the isle, as well as the majority of Americans when he declared it, as I understand, so it disingenuous for you to say it's his war.2. I did'nt imply that it was insignificant. My point was that domestic issues like life time Supreme Court appointments were significant enough to warrant support for him. Besides, nobody knew what Kerry would have gotten us into. Don't forget, if this is Bush's war, it was, by the same token, Kennedy and Johnson's Viet Nam war, Trumans's Korean War, FDR's WWII, and Wilson's WWI, all Democrats. I don't think that was the motivation for it at all. 1. I don't think Bush mixes his politics with his religion, nor does he base his decisions on his religion, but on what he thinks is best for the nation. I believe you falsely imply that God talked him into this war. Our first great president was a praying Christian. So were others. What's all the big beef nowadays about Christian GWB? Is it now open season on Christians by the bashers?2. My input here at EvC on Islam has not been to condemn Islam. It has been to be informative and objective, posting facts about Islam, facts which have yet to be refuted.

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

The plus side of the wars is that after the 9/11 wakeup call, our presence in the regions of Iraq and Afganistan has been a needed deterant to militant Islamic expansion in the region and to terrorism here in the states. Israel is constantly threatened with extermination. If Israel falls, LOOKOUT US of A!! Without us there, Israel is the single deterrant to a complete consolidation of the oil rich enemies of the US and with the help of Russia, the militants would be emboldened towards world conquest. We now have bases from which to operate for stability of the powder keg over there.The problem will be when we pull out completely, if we do. It will be a delicate situation to handle, needing a lot of wisdom and skill, so as to prevent a powerful Iraqi/Iranian Shi'a militant alliance, ambitious to ally with others in the region for ultimate domination of the entire Middle East. Biblical prophecies suggest that as a likely outcome for our times.

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

Buz, I gotta say you're blowing a lot of smoke here.George W. Bush is the commander in chief. He, and he only, was the one that said "Do it".You now see the results. A very expensive epic mess. Why are those life time Supreme Court appointments more important than what is looking to be the mother of all screw ups in the last 30 years? And it may yet turn out to be a bigger screw up than Viet Nam.Moose

Are you willing to respond to the specifics in my statements, one by one so as to clear away the smoke? .......with bipartisan congressional and majority public support. Right? How would you compare it with 50,000+ dead in the only war the US has lost so far which Kennedy got us into, Johnson promoted, implementing the no win policy and finally Nixon having to end because of previous admins messups, not to mention Truman's Korean messup, another long and bloody no-win war? The liberal activist revisionist judges, both federal and supreme court judges, are by far the greater threat to our freedoms via balance of powers than the war. If leftist liberal activist judges take over, we will be governed, essentially by nine life appointees who liberalize/revise the intent of the Constitution as hs been historically interpreted for over two centuries.

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

How many people wanted to invade Iraq before Bush started pushing for it?

I get so tired of hearing this. Yes, there was bipartisian support because they we mislead (dare I say lied to) by the Bush administration.

Heheheh... nothing to say about that except it was a nicely written response. Two people have already responded to this accurately but I want to expand upon their answers.Afghanistan was the only immediately valid target stemming from the 911 attacks. Bush had been given very large latitude to pursue what he saw as the correct targets related to 911 and he DIVERTED resources away from the main fight to engage Iraq.There was huge support to give him latitude, but not as much to actually engage Iraq, especially when and in the manner he did.Yes, it is true that there was supporters from both sides in congress, and I believe a slim majority within the population, for the war. That does not make the decision a correct one, nor does it remove responsibility from GWBs shoulders. That's the point of leadership. He himself states that he alone has to make decisions even if they are unpopular, well that means that he does not get to say his decisions are right simply because they were popular. If it goes kablooey, then it is his error for not checking his facts and making the unpopular decision not to go to war.But this is not to get into what has already been said: No one was pushing this except a small group of neocons before Bush pressed the issue, and most of the people outside the top administrators were being fed bad information by a bad system which he himself presided over and had responsibility for making sure worked properly.I agree that everyone who supported this war ought to be feeling some heat for their support. The evidence is in and it was botched. Even if it might lead to some good down the road (and I still hope it does for Iraqis) this was a terrible mistake for the US and the world. BUT, the person who spearheaded the campaign to divert resources to this new conflict, that oversaw the system that provided the evidence which made the case, and the person who oversaw the system which did NOT run the invasion correctly, was only one man... GWB, and the greatest weight falls on his shoulders.If not for him, this would have gone very very differently.I believe you are correct about Kennedy and others that began other wars. The only one I'd leave out is Roosevelt (WW2). That stands as a great counterpoint to what happened here. We stayed out of a war, which by rights we probably should have been engaging in long before. Once attacked we stayed on target and did not divert resources to other wars. That is just an assertion. What are liberal activist revisionist judges? Who are they? What exactly have they done? And please show how they revised the intent of the Constitution as it has been historically interpreted for over two centuries.The more accurate position is that the Constitution has historically been interpreted in many different ways, especially over time. This is done by any and all parties. Sometimes it is a return to "original" interpretations, sometimes not. Sometimes it is a change which is for the better, and sometimes not.The founders did not seem worried about expansions of freedom, which is what you seem to be fearing. The Bill of Rights was not created to set limits on what freedoms we have, but to give us an avenue for expanding rights by limiting the govt. That is why there is an amendment which specifically states that the ones clearly enumerated are not to suggest that those are the only available. There were expected to be more found.So called constructionists are just as "activist", often hypocritical (look at GWB and the wiretapping issue), and like to overlook that final (at that time) amendment which removes arguments that "if the right isn't listed then it's not there".This message has been edited by holmes, 01-04-2006 10:27 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

First, our involvement in Vietnam (post WWII) began under the Eisenhower administration. As one of the conditions of the treaties signed after WWII, France was obligated to get out of French Indochina and return it to Vietnamese rule. France refused to do so, and the issue was comparitively small seen in the light of what was happening in Europe and the South China Seas (Quemoy and Matsu). France, in rebuilding after the destruction of WWII needed the resources, particularly the rubber, found in the Michelin holdings. Eisenhower ignored their flagrant treaty violations.At the time, Ho Chi Min apporached the US with the request that Vietnam be granted the status of a US Protectorate like the Philippines. He was turned down and after the fiasco at Dien Bien Phu, the French retreated. The US supported the installation of one of the WWII warlords as President.The comparison with Korea is even more interesting. It might be possible to compare it to GHB's invasion of Iraq after Iraq invaded Kuwait. The biggest difference between that incident and Korea, is that Iraq had recieved the tacit approval from the Bush administration to invade Kuwait through Ambassador Glaspie. There is no similarity between Korea and the second Iraq invasion. Korea was a police action, called for and sanctioned by the UN. It was the result of one nation, North Korea, invading another soveriegn nation, South Korea.This message has been edited by jar, 01-04-2006 11:57 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That would be hard to determine, but that he was supported by the public and members of both parties is indicative of the wishes of those supporters of it. Don't forget, the whole nation was missinformed as to the extent of WMDs. Don't forget that the whole world also knew that Saddam used them against his own people and don't forget that there was the very real possibility that given Iraq had plenty of time before the invasion, Syria could have imported them.That this was during a period when 9/11 was still quite fresh in the minds of the people would incline the folks to be more supportive of the war than now, for sure.

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

Jar, Moose asked me a topic borderline question about Bush's justification for war and my point was to show that other presidents engaged us into questionable wars in the past, presidents who would likely be more of his liking than Bush whom he despises. I did not intend to get into the history of other wars which would lead the thread astray, but to discuss why Bush did what he did and that he was not alone in consideration of the need for action.Is there something in your post, you especially want me to address and which you see as useful to the topic?

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.