Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 28 to 32 of 32

Thread: Stop the hate.

  1. #28

    Default Re: Stop the hate.

    I would call it ... "The Global War Against Islamic Extremists - Battlefield Iraq"

  2. #29

    Default Re: Stop the hate.

    The incursion into Iraq was...."Daddy, I'll finally get him for you!"

  3. #30

    Default Re: Stop the hate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ground&Pound View Post
    I would call it ... "The Global War Against Islamic Extremists - Battlefield Iraq"
    Bin Laden was in Afghanistan (or Pakistan). Not Iraq. In fact all along Pakistan has been much more of an aid to Islamic fanatics than Saddam ever was. Correct?

    Why not attack Pakistan rather than Iraq if terrorism was the name of the game (and the name of the war)? For that matter I would argue that Saudi Arabia helped Islamic terrorists much more than Hussein.
    DSCH: a Soviet artist's reply to unjust criticism.

  4. #31

    Default Re: Stop the hate.

    "The Global War Against Islamic Extremists - Battlefield Iraq" is a perfect name.

    The key word is GLOBAL.

    Of course Saddam wasn't an Islamic Extremist. However, his antics gave us* reason to take him out and gain a foot hold in the heart of the middle east. After he was gone, we were (are) most certainly fighting religious zealots, many of which were (are) foreigners from surrounding countries. Again, the Global War Against Islamic Extremists.

    * us = The United States (backed back >2:1 votes in both House & Senate) along with 40+ other foreign countries.

    To say this is Bush's war for oil is foolish and narrow minded. There are legitimate arguments against the war, but "blood for oil" is not one of them.

  5. #32

    Default Re: Stop the hate.

    "To say this is Bush's war for oil is foolish and narrow minded. There are legitimate arguments against the war, but "blood for oil" is not one of them."

    That we are in the region in the first place is all about oil. Oil could be a reason to be FOR the war, not AGAINST it (as well as vice versa). I'm talking about naming the war, which I suppose could signal as to whether one favored the war, based on a name chosen.

    Remember the first gulf war and why the USA was front and center in opposition to Iraqi's incursion into Kuwait, whereas we were completely indifferent (it seemed) to the Iraq-Iran war. That was about influence, allies, and economics--not terrorism. The War of Iraqi Succession is a child of the First Gulf War.

    Our concern about oil is also global and has gone on longer than the war with Islamic fanatics of the terrorist persuasion.

    "However, his antics gave us* reason to take him out and gain a foot hold in the heart of the middle east."

    This one sentence is very interesting. It's implications are serious, and whether you have accurately characterized USA action in Iraq, can be argued back and forth. For sure, what you have said was NOT what was told to the American people as the reason for the war.

    The contention that we purposely invading Iraq to draw terrorists into that theater for "close encounters" is the sheerest bunk. No more than an excuse for the war not being a quick "in and out" which was the expectation. The Iraqi people were supposed to rise up and finish throwing off the yokes of the Baath Party, completing what the USA had begun. One big happy family.

    History will judge the right name for this war, down the road.
    DSCH: a Soviet artist's reply to unjust criticism.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •