History shows Islam, democracy unlikely to mix in Iraq

What term would like to call it? Did it improve the situation or add fuel to the fire?

BBB
Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, on page 136 states exactly the intensions of the radical Islamists. When bin Laden declared war on the United States before Bush took office, he was very clear in stating his goals. "The ingredients al Qaeda dreamed of for propagating its movement were a Christian government attacking a weaker Muslim region, allowing the new terrorist group to rally jihadists from many countries to come to the aid of the religious brethren. After the success of the jihad, the Muslim region would become a radical Islamic state, a breeding ground for more terrorists, a part of the eventual network of Islamic states that would make up the great new Caliphate, or Muslim empire."

Unfortunately, the Bush cold warriors lack the understanding of the Islamic world, its life-dominating religion and its super nationalistic history. Al Qaeda represents the attempt by militant Islamists to restore the Arab empire to encompass as much of the world as possible. Mosque leaders pronounce the goal of converting non-muslims to the faith all over the world, for example, in countries such as England.

Bush and his cold warriors have failed to recognized that this conflict is, or is leading to a clash of world religions. Terrorism is only one tactic used to further this goal. By attacking Iraq, Bush and the cold warriors have forced the United States and its allies into the first battle of that war.

Why BBB thinks Bush is the wrong president at the wrong time:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/search.php?search_id=egosearch

Test of bin Laden's 1996 declaration of war against the U.S.:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23107&highlight=&sid=17df95b1bcb7a8eac6bd275318f686cc
BBB

I would call it a military action to root out the criminals who have been attacking US troops and Iraqi police forces. Is their a "term" for that?

If my recollection is right, insurgents or militant Sunni opposition, or terrorists or whatever name you wish to apply to them captured, murdered, burned, and mutlilated five civilian contractors who were doing nothing but helping provide humanitarian aid in Fallujah.

The way I see it, the U.S. and/or coalition had two choices. Pull back, let the the murderous thugs trumph and give up on a democratic Iraq. Or hit them with everything we had to signal that this kind of murderous activity will not be tolerated, will not stand.

I think we made the correct choice.

You really believe this, don't you?
You might want to read "Corpoprate Warriors," by Singer.


Agin, what a wonderful illustration of the manichaean thinking of the far right. tehre were not two, but thousands of choices. A better choice might have been to initiate an investigation into the deaths, or perhaps to stop using mecenaries. Have you ever wondered why there are mercenaries in Iraq?

that's pretty damn near exactly what was said about Vietnam in '65, a few more years and another 50,000 US dead and then we cut and run, perhaps this time we will think ahead and save 50,000 US lives. Probably not, I don't mind much though as I am too old to go back again so it doesn't really effect me. Must be fun to play chess with real lives just to make a point but I don't find it very amusing.