Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (188348)	6/5/2006 10:57:43 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Jihadist militants weren't doing anything in Iraq before the experiment began. The invasion of Iraq gave the militants an opportunity they didn't have. Based upon what facts do you make this statement? Can you explain why this allegedly secular ruler, who should fear promoting the power of clerics and imams, would be willing to cater to them to such a degree as Saddam had done in the years after Desert Storm?? He changed the Iraqi flag to include "Allah-Ahkbar" (god is great). He was building the world's largest mosque (and many others). He had a copy of the Qu'ran inked in his own blood. Bottom line.. he spent a huge sum of money to appease the religiously devout. And he wouldn't have done this without good reason. The invasion of Iraq gave the militants an opportunity they didn't have. Apparently THEY DID have that opportunity. The IIS was flush with Jihadists and Al Qai'da collaborators. Their OWN historical records record their communications and coordination with Al Qai'da leadership. jamestown.org frontpagemag.com weeklystandard.com Former high official of the IIS led major Al Qai'da-affiliated terrorist group: defenselink.mil tkb.org wnd.com Jihadists don't need to "win" in Iraq; all they need is for the US to lose. And conversely, for the Jihadists to lose, they have to fail to overthrow the democratically elected government and win greater support from the Iraqi people. And it's hard to discern exactly how blowing up innocent civilians and police is going to accomplish this if US forces remain in Iraq confronting these terrorist factions, and continue to train the Iraqi police and army to carry on the battle for themselves. These continuing terrorist actions against Iraqis is not endearing Al Qai'da or the Jihadist to the more moderate Iraqies. In fact, we've seen Zarqawi "demoted" and the Mujahidin Shura Council take the dominant position in Iraq. Furthermore, we've seen Sunni tribes taking action against Al Qai'da and Ansar Al Sunnah elements: worldthreats.com However, I DO SEE the Jihadists winning if we follow your idea of completely pulling out. In fact, it practically guarantees that a civil war will ensue, possibly becoming a regional war between Sunni countries and Iran. The Kurds have been effectively independent of Iraq since Desert Storm. Yeah.. tell that to the 50,000 Kurds who died AFTER Desert Storm when they rose up against Saddam's government. The UN had to set up a no-fly zone in N. Iraq to prevent a genocide amongst the millions of refugees who fled there and into other countries. Saddam has been comparitively mild to other dictators around the world. You're a sick man Jttmab.. If you TRULY believe that. Saddam has been one of the more brutal dictators in recent history. And this is especially true if you consider the number of people who were tortured and/or killed, compared to the size of the overall population.. But keep saying telling us that kind of BS.. It only reveals just how callous you really are. And it's part of the reason we're in Iraq in the first place. Because people like you try and convince the world that Saddam "wasn't so bad"... We never should have gotten involved in Afghanistan to begin with. Again... you display your utter ignorance of what happened there. Pakistan WAS ALREADY supporting the Mujahidin to resist the Soviet invasion. All we basically did was support the Pakistani Intelligence so they could carry this plan out. The US will only uphold it's "obligation" as long as there is some marginal public support to do so. When support for the war erodes enough that a political candidate can't get elected on a "be tough" platform, the US "obligation" will be irrelevant. Listen you spineless, liberal sock puppet.. You're talking about getting elected, and I'm talking about what is required to defeat the enemy. Now if people want to vote for a President that immediately extracts US troops from Iraq, that's the decision of the American people. But my job, as I see it, is to present the consequences of such an action. And it's my job to point out that the only manner in which to defeat the Jihadist threat is to foster democratic change in the region, and pressing the point to Muslims that these terrorists are as much of a danger to their lives, as they are to ours. Hawk