A poster at Jihad Watch recently asserted: "I think America did right going into Iraq. Iraq must be used as a foothold into the Islamic world, but it will not come without great cost. In the meantime, Islamists invade the West, but the free world will control the land that counts the most to them: Arabia."
If the stated goal -- to enter and destroy major weaponry -- was the real and only goal, then it at least was rational and defensible. However, if that stated goal was not the real goal, and the one that quickly replaced it, that of bringing "democracy" and thereby "transforming the Middle East," was all along the real goal and not something disastrously concocted after the invasion, then the original invasion itself was not justified. It was irrational, and was foredoomed to end in failure.
Clearly the real goal was never to do what would always have been justified: to enter Iraq, seize or destroy major weaponry, and topple the regime, a disguised Sunni despotism, of Saddam Hussein, and then leave. The power struggle within Iraq would then have continued for a very long time, and inevitably given vent to the natural aggressiveness and winner-take-all (there is the victor, there are the vanquished) attitude that comes naturally to peoples suffused with Islam.
That would have been not only defensible, but admirable.
But that, clearly, was not the goal. Those who made policy really were just as naive, and many remain so today, as they were then. They still prate, as one Dan Barrett did on NPR a few nights ago, about the "President's plan" and how it was working, how "democracy was spreading all over the Middle East" in such places as "Lebanon" (where true "democracy" would doom the Christians, so thank god the 1932 census is still the basis of the non-democratic power-sharing on which the government of Lebanon remains based, despite those "democrats" the followers of Nasrallah) and the "Palestinian territories" (where elections brought Hamas to power -- that is, the Fast Jihadists replaced the Slow Jihadists) as well as in "Iraq" (what "democracy" there? the winner-take-all democrats, enforcing the purple-thumbed nonsense, the Shi'a militias?). And others, including a great many "conservative" columnists, continue to support the effort, or to support it in part, because they remain Bush loyalists. But more than that, it is too disturbing for them to admit how wrong they have been all along. They would lose face. They would not recover. Start with My Weekly Standard and go from there, even unto Krauthammer and Victor Davis Hanson, the pets of so many.
They have all refused to identify Islam as the source of the menace, as the menace itself. And failing to do that, they have failed to describe the proper goal in Iraq, as elsewhere, as one of weakening the Camp of Islam and Jihad. In Iraq, that possibility presents itself on a platter. Of the three main divisions within Islam, sectarian, ethnic, and economic, that is between Sunni and Shi'a (the Ibadiya cannot conceivably count), the Arab and non-Arab Muslims, and the oil-rich and the Muslims without oil (which means without much at all, save in the case of the two states that hold Islam in check, Turkey and Tunisia, and that have therefore managed to overcome the inshallah-fatalism of Islam and have also been welcoming to Infidel tourists who still, as yet, feel safe), two are present: the sectarian and the ethnic.
It is criminal not to see this, and not to exploit those divisions by pulling out.
Oh, an "exit strategy" is needed? Why? The "exit strategy" is that the Exit itself is a Strategy, the very best Strategy of all. No need to apologize. We did not create, we did not exacerbate, the sectarian divisions and the mistreatment of non-Arab Muslims (the Kurds in this case) that are as old as Islam. For the Sunni-Shi'a divide goes back to the first century of Islam, and Sunnis have been persecuting and killing Shi'a ever since. See what happened to the Hazara in Afghanistan under the Taliban; see what Sipaha-e-Sahaba has been doing to Shi'a mosques and professionals for the last decade or more, see how Shi'a are treated in Saudi Arabia, in Al-Hasa province, see how Shi'a and Sunnis get along in Lebanon, in Yemen, in Bahrain, in Kuwait. As for the Arab mistreatment of the Kurds, where have the Arabs ever treated non-Arab Muslims as their equals, given the many ways in which Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacism? See the Berbers of the Kabyle, see the black Muslims of Darfur. The Muslim must read the Qur'an in Arabic, and even, ideally, memorize it, even if he does not understand a word, as so many madrasa students don’t. He usually takes an Arab name. He prays five times a day toward Arabia. He takes as his model of everything a seventh-century Arab and, for some things, looks as well at what that seventh-century Arab's Arab companions did. He often, in some cases, pretends to a lineage that makes him a descendant of the Prophet -- my god, a third of Pakistanis seem to be "Sayeeds," which would imply quite a polyphiloprogenitive Prophet indeed, and that is not what the Qur'an says.
And this "Exit Strategy" business, which long faces solemnly tell us we "must have," seems (according to them) to be something remarkably difficult, an as yet undiscoverable thing that no one could conceivably locate, no one had yet been able to come with. It is supposed to, in the words of the Iraq Study Group, proceed very slowly, very cautiously, with only combat troops to be taken out by 2008 (2008!), with some remaining for "force protection" (what does that mean? how open-ended is that?) and then others remaining, presumably in a situation of maximum peril to themselves, to "train" Iraqis by being "embedded with Iraqi units." American soldiers "embedded with Iraqi units" have already been killed (three, including a lieutenant colonel, died just last week). One naturally imagines that this would be the most dangerous of all jobs: to entrust your life to fellow soldiers who are Muslim, who do not wish you well, and at least one or two in each unit would be just as glad to see you dead. Yet this is the task our uncomplaining soldiers are being asked to undertake, and to keep doing, apparently, long after 2008. And who will they be "training"? The non-existent "Iraqi" army and possibly, to a now-lesser extent given its performance, the so-called "Iraqi" police.
How much longer will it take the Bush administration, and the Iraq Study Group people, to put aside entirely the use of this misleading adjective "Iraqi" -- or at least to hold it up for proper critical inspection, so that there may be some intelligent discussion of what it is that makes this adjective so misleading?
An American exit needs no further excuse. The Shi'a of Iraq will never give the Sunnis what they demand, and the Sunnis, who have convinced themselves that they constitute not 19% of the population but 42%, will never acquiesce in the permanent loss of power to the Shi'a Arabs. The only "exit strategy" that is needed is: who will protect the Americans from being attacked by their "Iraqi" friends as they depart, all of them scrambling no doubt to steal or waylay or divert as much American military equipment as they can possibly get their hands on, and also eager to kill a few departing Americans. The only local group the Americans can count on is the Kurdish pesh merga, and as it happens, the only group in Iraq that might deserve to have some equipment left for it is that same Kurdish pesh merga. For entirely unsentimental, un-Peter-Galbraithian reasons, an independent Kurdistan serves American interests and should be encouraged, and diplomatic overtures made to Turkey, with an American guarantee that Kurdistan will make no demands on Turkish territory, but will be free to do so on the Kurdish-populated territories of both Iran and Syria.
I believe it is a much much greater accomplishment for us to convince the LGF crowd that pulling out will be good for the camp of kafirs than it is instructing the useless leftowhackos of the dangers of Jihad. The LGF crowd which Im part of is so sensible and carries a breath of fresh air, but swallows and regurgitates in whole the nonsense spewed by the administration on Iraq. They are cognitively dissonant I believe as they perfectly well understand the contempt ANY established muslim political entity (a country) has for America whether Indonesia or Pakistan or the Arab states and just how they dont want to square this up with the implications of their definition of "victory" in Iraq. Its a really really sad situation to watch.
Hugh
We could also advertise this as "Operation Instigate Karbala" as somehow recreating conditions for the battle in Karbala-- a free-for-all Shia vs Sunni for supremacy in Mesopotamia. If Karbala had carried on for longer, much of the now-called "Muslim world" would not be it.
Agree with Tushar. BTW, I give up - what is polyphiloprogenitive?
They have all refused to identify Islam as the source of the menace, as the menace itself. And failing to do that, they have failed to describe the proper goal in Iraq, as elsewhere, as one of weakening the Camp of Islam and Jihad...
This MUST be said; repeated; SHOUTED OUT LOAD; until they "get it."
It is criminal not to see this, and not to exploit those divisions by pulling out.
A statement of the obvious -- people MUST be held to account for this!
The only "exit strategy" that is needed is: who will protect the Americans from being attacked by their "Iraqi" friends as they depart, all of them scrambling no doubt to steal or waylay or divert as much American military equipment as they can possibly get their hands on, and also eager to kill a few departing Americans.
The brass SHOULD be thinking like this AND acting accordingly!
Hugh -- when are your running for office?
I give up - what is polyphiloprogenitive?
Don't give up! Think Britney Spears after K-Fed. Paris Hilton after a couple drinks. Wilt Chamberlain after a ball game.
Hint: Mohammed didn't need a six-pack to get busy.
Hugh
Aside from WMD's (apologies for the TLA), if the goal was to destroy Iraq as a terrorist supporting base, that too was achieved, as by the execution of Abu Nidal by Saddam, and capture of Abu Abbas after the fall of Baghdad. But other than that, I agree - Iraq the model has no justification.
Beagle
The article above, and the Quran deny that Mohammed was polyphiloprogenitive. Which is why I'm still left wondering what it means.
Paris has been lucky, while Britney wasn't - she got knocked up a 2nd time.
"I give up -- what is polyphiloprogenitive?"
-- from a posting above
"Polyphiloprogenitive": prolific of offspring. Used by Matthew Arnold in "Culture and Anarchy" but most celebratedly -- very celebratedly -- by the well-known son of a St. Lous furrier, Mr. T. S. Eliot, as the first line of his poem "Mr. Eliot's Sunday Morning Service." Henry Reed, the English poet, author of the famous English school recital-piece "Lessons of the War" ("Today we had Naming of Parts"), parodied this early Eliot poem in "Chard Whitlow." The Naming-of-Parts (of a rifle by World War II conscripts) poem, the parodic "Chard Whitlow," and Reed's other verse, can be found collected in "A Map of Verona" (Reynal and Hitchcock, 1947 is the first American edition).
But why did you "give up"? You can find every conceivable dictionary on-line, and merely by googling the word you can find out much of what you might need or desire. But if what you need or desire turns out to be my first, London imprint (1946) edition of "A Map of Verona," I won't oblige. That I'm keeping.
Agree with Tushar. BTW, I give up - what is polyphiloprogenitive?
Posted by: Infidel Pride
I just read on an earlier post that's what the jihadis do before they go off to blow themselves up.
In the Middle East 60% of the population is under the age of 20,36% less then 15 years of age.Creating a youth bluge,a Islamic baby boom.By allowing Iraq become ground zero for the Sunni Shia war, by the process of attrition we can constrain ,reduce and curtail the effects of Islamic Demographics.One of the main weapons of Jihad.Iraq will become the meat grinder between two rivers for the Islamic World .They will eat up their young.War by other means.
The US could never confront Iran with a Hostile Saddam on the flank. Especially by Conventional means. Saddam was 3rd Fiddle in Axis of Evil. The weak link. Future bases even if necessary to use under Siege conditions. But now the Iraqi Army isn't much good. So they are not as much threat if
our forces are allowed to go back to shooting first and not bothering to answer questions.
Put the Army along the Iranian Border and tell them to change their Government or we will do it for them. In full Iraqi fashion. Set a date where it won't be safe to go to work in their Nuclear Facilities. But we are talking Air operations like the First gulf war, because the Iranians won't lie down. But they can be bombed back a century or two.
As for Democracy. I welcome it. Especially in the middle east. Not so much because It would help them(which it should)But because it shows them for what they are.
Hamas is a perfect example of the Fruits of Democracy. Free elections bring on a Government where the ambiguity of "peace" in the middle east is clearly rejected by the principle participants. So 30 years of Multiculturalism and all the aid pored down their Sewers is seen for what it always was. Useless. Now we have a clear reason to stop the aid. which we have. I think the new round of peace talks over Palestine will only act as a wedge between Fatah and Hamas. Get them to fight each other deflecting their agenda against Israel. Who in their right mind can really support Hamas? All they ever do is cry foul and promise to kill people.
It is more than a shame that the left framed this conflict as "Bushes War" from the get go. Like it will all just go away when he leaves office.
If Democracy is the vehicle necessary to crystalize our enemy as a nation state. then I consider it good policy. Better and easier for the public to wrap what is left of their minds around.
I see a lot of specualtion about the 'justifications for the war', but what I never see mentioned is that there was a human element that absolutely made the Iraq war a justified war- the innocent Iraqi civilians who were being murdered by the hundreds of thousands.
Why did we go into war against Hitler? WMD's? No! Because he was a maggot who murdered people en mass- Why did we go after Saddam? WMD? NO! because he was a maggot who murdered people en mass!
All other reasons were incidental! It was our moral imperative to take Saddam out and give his people a chance at democracy just as it was our moral imperative that we needed to take Hitler out.
To turn our backs on the Iraqi people now, would be an unconscionable despicable act that will bode heavy on judgement day! http://sacredscoop.com
Hugh writes:
"If the stated goal -- to enter and destroy major weaponry -- was the real and only goal, then it at least was rational and defensible. However, if that stated goal was not the real goal, and the one that quickly replaced it, that of bringing "democracy" and thereby "transforming the Middle East," was all along the real goal and not something disastrously concocted after the invasion, then the original invasion itself was not justified. It was irrational, and was foredoomed to end in failure."
Isn't this the crux of it?
As a conservative who seems to vote Republican most all the time-I once supported the "stay the course line," even having lost a relative serving in Iraq last year. I'm all for changing the world into a better place and even at the price or American blood.
But, thank G-d for JW and other freedom web sites that really get down to dealing in reality, though. Hugh, you and RS and a few others are serving such an important role in making us face reality--what is really going on and why.
It galls me to hear the "conservative talking heads" STILL saying we need to "stay the course"--hello? What is that course? To prop up a phony government that is like mixing oil and water? Is there any example anywhere in the world of an islamic nation that operates as a true democracy and friend of the USA? Or that has ever operated that way?
At one time maybe even less than a year ago, I would have said "Saudi Arabia" or "Egypt" or some other STUPID answer that we have been taught to believe by the media and our government.
We should have hit Iraq--leveled Iraq till we got Saddam and left and then got ready to do it again if necessary--if the next tyrant is as bad as Saddam, then we should nail him. Tyranny is the only way muslims can be ruled--show me even one exception to this?. The only good long term thing I see was Khadafy giving up his nuclear plans--but it is not the "nation building" that got his attention--it was the invasion . Ack-ma-nutjob should be taken out too.
With all the PC western governments we have--this would be a "go it alone USA" path for the most part. Oh well. Just like Israel has had to learn--you can only depend on yourself in the world community and in war anyhow.
Clearly the real goal was never to do what would always have been justified: to enter Iraq, seize or destroy major weaponry, and topple the regime, a disguised Sunni despotism, of Saddam Hussein, and then leave. The power struggle within Iraq would then have continued for a very long time, and inevitably given vent to the natural aggressiveness and winner-take-all (there is the victor, there are the vanquished) attitude that comes naturally to peoples suffused with Islam.
That would have been not only defensible, but admirable.
Ah, so true. But once again the West is bedeviled by its two old penchants. The first is the compulsion of the West to fix what it thinks it breaks regardless of the consequences. The US thought it "broke" Iraq so now it feels the need to "fix" it. Iraq was broken to begin with-when was it ever democratic? The US might as well spend a century there-it will do no good. Besides, even if the US does "fix" the place, would that be good? Maybe, maybe not. As Hugh says, better to let Islamania fight with itself than fight the West. The US freed the Iraqis from Saddam, now they need to "fix" their own country.
The second penchant of the West is its seemingly neverending quest to keep Islam alive and well. Why? How many times in history have the great powers come to the aid of Islam? In 1856 the Russians were set to demolish the Ottomans and might have accomplished it had Britain and France not sided with the latter. In 1912 the Serbs and Greeks and their allies nearly overran the last of the Muslim territories in Europe before the great powers put a stop to that. And what happens today when there's an earthquake or tsunami in the Islamaniac world? The West ALWAYS offers aid, even to its worst enemies. The West really needs to quit keeping the Islamic Frankenstein going if it expects to survive. Let Islamania take care of itself-when the West aids it the West is merely committing suicide. Anything that exacerbates tensions within Cesspoolia can only be a blessing for the West. Just let it be.
then i ask this. If the mujahadeen jihadis didnt have to run to iraq and afghanistan to seek to repell the infidel from muslims land, where do you supose these mujahadeen jihadis would be running to?
President Bush was correct in attacking sadaam and iraq for numerous reasons. I think the best reason he stated himself on sept.12,2001.
Any country that harbors and supports terrorist will be attacked!
If you plan to teach the muslims there is a cost to be paid for attacking america you dont do as clinton did and fire a couple rockets at a pharmacy distribution and expect that to stop them!
iraq and sadaam was the most feared tyrant and military in the middle east. Iraq was the world 5th rated military in the world at the time america attacked iraq and defeated them in less than 30 days!
Now that sent a message! thats why there has been no attacks on american soil since 9/11/2001!
But president Bush has only managed to create more terrorist you respond!I answer ,President bush doesnt create terrorist, allah does!!
Here is how it works, if america had of surrendered and submitted to the will of the terrorist on 9/11/2001 there would be no need for muslim terrorist! muslims hate when the kafir refuse to surrender and submit,when the kafir refuses to surrender and submit and choose to go to war against the ummah, it needs produce more jihadis and shaheed to fight the kafir!
when is jihad obligatory on all muslims?
permit me to show you what muhammad commanded!
>>>þ*** Found in: BOOK O: JUSTICE. Chapter O-9.0: Jihad.O-9.4: Who is Obligated to Fight in Jihad
Those called upon (O: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation are every able bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane.þ Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad.''The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b-7) is such Koranic verses as:
1- ``Fighting is prescribed for you'' (Koran 2:216);
2- ``Slay them wherever you find them'' (Koran 4:89);
3- ``Fight the idolators utterly'' (Koran 9:36);
and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:
``I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah'';
þ*** Found in: BOOK O: JUSTICE. Chapter O-9.0: Jihad. 0-9.3,,,Jihad is also (O: personally) obligatory for everyone (O: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (O: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means.whoever is found by non-Muslim and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in whatever way possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he knows he will be killed if he does not surrender, then he may either surrender or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to an indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible).þ
There is such an opportunity for a poem here. It might start something like
"Look, look, master, here comes two multiculturalist termites"
THen we could invent a superredundant set of prefixes to attach to an adjective somewhere in the neighborhood of "abrogative."
"Superderogative"
or
"Hyperperideracinative"
The rest of it pretty much follows from there.
Maybe a bit like this further along:
"And scuttling down the corridor
Emasculate George Galloway
Chews his furtive scone and brays,
'Away for 'slamic holiday.'"
Actually, they probably never say, Away FOR holiday in the UK. So let's make it,
"And scuttling down the corridor
Emasculate George Galloway
Chews his furtive scone and scowls,
'It's nearly Eid, the holiday.'"
While I use dictionary.com, I am open to using any others that are highly recommended, and likely to cover the bulk of what one encounters, particularly here (since most mainstream journals don't get this sophisticated.) One useful applet to have on JihadWatch might be a text box where one could enter in any arcane words used by you, and have it throw up the meaning. Anyway (which brings to mind yet another question - when did it become correct to say 'anyways'), thanks for the explanation.
A map of Verona? Does that help you navigate the place whenever you happen to read Shakespeare's Two Gentlemen of Verona?
Call me naïve but I’ve never been quite clear on what’s supposed to be going wrong in Iraq, nor what indeed is happening that is the slightest bit surprising.
Moreover, given that Iraq has a nice central location (within convenient striking distance of Iran, Syria, Arabia and for that matter Pakistan) and the famed Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and that we now have a nice sized deployment and several adequate bases there, and the fact that jihaddis and would-be jihaddis are crawling out of the woodwork from all over the place with a burning desire to rush into our kill-zone … well, I mean, how bad is this really?
Sounds just about ideal actually.
Now, I do have strong objections to half-hearted, dainty, mustn’t-bruise-a-civilian rules of engagement that place American soldiers in danger for the sake of protecting Iraqis. Frankly I think Fallujah should have been flattened immediately. And I still can’t figure out why we haven’t taken out Iran.
Nonetheless, given the excessive daintiness and “compassionate” thinking issuing from DC, things seem to be going along about as well as anybody could expect.
And if anybody in DC comes up with any fragment of a plan to start a serious and sensible propaganda campaign to start subverting totalitarian Islam with ideas of human rights and freedom, (as distinct from all this democracy baloney) and perhaps to start undermining the prestige of the moron jihaddis and their will to fight, our facilities are all already in place right there in scenic Iraq.
We’re not being aggressive enough, and that does make American casualties all the more grievous and awful. This is bad. This has got to change.
There is also another aspect to all this. Our very presence over there is a constant insult, a continual thumb in the eye of the most dedicated islamists. And they do need to be shown that if they don’t like the sight of us walking around our own oil wells on their supposedly sacred soil, then they better keep quiet about it or we’ll occupy their entire countries.
Cut and run? Hell, cart in the beer and TV’s and install some swimming pools -- make ourselves at home and hang around till they get their attitudes adjusted.
As I said, it just doesn’t seem so bad to me.
Call me naïve.
joeblough,
Sounds honest and I think that many flirting with this idea, but hesitate to put it on the table, because of political correctness.
Iraq has failed to take the chance, that's the way I see it. I believe it was an honest attempt to free this country, but just for us and themselves to find out that they cut into a full blown cancer speeding up the process of dying as a nation and jihadist stronghold.
Iraq doesn't exist any longer. Saddam Hussein and his clan were Iraq until recently and that's it. The neighbours know it and are afraid in losing an important jihadist territorial stronghold now.
The war in 'Iraq' is crucial for us and the outcome will determine our future.
There must be more engagement from Europe in order to overcome this situation.
"The Muslim must read the Qur'an in Arabic, and even, ideally, memorize it, even if he does not understand a word, as so many madrasa students don’t. He usually takes an Arab name. He prays five times a day toward Arabia. He takes as his model of everything a seventh-century Arab and, for some things, looks as well at what that seventh-century Arab's Arab companions did. He often, in some cases, pretends to a lineage that makes him a descendant of the Prophet -- my god, a third of Pakistanis seem to be "Sayeeds," which would imply quite a polyphiloprogenitive Prophet indeed, and that is not what the Qur'an says."
Being of a somewhat scientific bent more than religious or sociological I tend to cruise sites full of science news. Some time ago I ran across a report from someone who ran some reasonable numbers and concluded that the most recent common ancestor for virtually everybody on the planet may have been alive in the time of Christ or a couple centuries before. He also made an off hand guess that there is a small chance that the man was alive at the time of Mohammed and that Mohammed might be that one common ancestor. He also suspected that at least 50% of the people on the planet in or from the Middle East and Europe may be Mohammed's descendants.
I found this humorous then. I find it even more so in light of your comments above. Almost all of us in Europe and the US may be entitled to wear the black beanie. To be sure I always appreciate this sort of absurdity.
{^_-}
"when did it become correct to say 'anyways'?"
-- from a posting above
Never.
And as to this "applet" you refer to: I only know about some Pacific Northwest manufacturer of Aplets and Cotlets, fruit-based confections (apples, apricots) dusted with powdered sugar. The "applet" of which you write must be a computer term, which I do not know. I have a choice. I can look it up, by googling. Or I can ask you to tell me. Which would you prefer?
"The war in 'Iraq' is crucial for us and the outcome will determine our future."
-- from a posting above
Far more important than the war in Iraq could ever be, is the outcome of the American effort to prevent Iran, by whatever means it takes, from acquiring nuclear weapons. This is more important than whether the Shi'a in Iraq continue to play winner-take-all, or whether they pretend, for a while, that they will give the Sunnis what they want (so that the Americans can stay a bit longer, training and equipping those "Iraqi" forces -- which means mainly bringing the Shi'a military ability up to the level of the trained-under-Saddam Sunnis), until after the Americans leave, and at that point the Shi'a will rip off the mask of fake compromise.
Why should any Infidel care if at this point the country holds together, under what distribution of power, as long as one is assured that the Sunnis have their backers, and the Shi'a have their backers, and that neither side will ever give in, and that will merely use up men, money, materiel, morale, and attention from Iran and Shi'a volunteers from Lebanon, on one side, and Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, Egypt, Jordan, on the other, with Syria offering its government's support to both sides, by easing the transfer of Hezbollah forces from Lebanon into Iraq and at the same time waving a cheerful goodbye to Sunni volunteers from Syria itself, going to fight those same Hezbollah and other Shi'a.
And far more important than the outcome in Iraq is the islamization of Western Europe, that has to be halted and reversed. Halted in the minds of men, halted in the laws of their governments. The whole American waste and squandering of resources and squabbling about, and undue attention paid, and demoralization of armed forces caused by, Iraq, gets in the way. Everyone sensible can see that. Unfortunately, here are very few sensible people in positions of power in Washington, either in the government, or commenting upon its works and days.
Xaragma,
seems like they are in troubles though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin
Concerning the arrest of Rabbi Yisrael Ariel for interrogation
Translation from Hebrew of the 16 Kislev 5766 statement
Speaker for the Special Court of Nation and the State: Rabbi Prof. Hillel Weiss
Among the news items, it has come up that Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, Chief Justice of the "Special Court for Matters Concerning the Nation and the State", was taken today for interrogation because of rulings given by this court.
And far more important than the outcome in Iraq is the islamization of Western Europe, that has to be halted and reversed
Hugh your points are logical. What better way to identify islam as evil by causing the muslims show the world about the religion of peace. Is not the pressence of the US in Iraq creating fodder for the muslim terrorists? if the US had not went into Iraq, Europe would be still be in slumber over their
islamazation. Iran is still the prize, and l can
see the logic of having bases from Iraq.
What you want Hugh is extreme thinking of the European people who are so liberalized and controled by their elites, they practically need warfare in their vary own house to wake up.
Hugh,
You're right with your statement.
For me it means actually that all the islamists and their supporters will have to face what they try to impose on us. It's not limited to Iraq only.
Restitution in order to forgive them for the damage they have orchastrated are impossible in meanwhile, so the consequences are at hand.
We'll have to get our polititians more sensitive to the truth though.
It's our job to mobilize a mass of people to pressure the politicians. They wont find our by themselves.
Please don't forget who has declared war on us.
Germany right now is on high alert about new bomb belts that can't be dedected. Islamists now meeting in secret places in Germany. Frankfurt is the primary target. Information from the population is close to null. - from a news release right now.
We have to take the cause out now, which is the quran and outlaw it and forbid practising islam in any form, this is the only way to get out of the troubles.
The exit strategy Fitzgerald suggests has captured me: it's fascinating, since it predicts disaster for Islamism. "Pure" Sunni and "pure" Shia religious compulsions will make Iraq a "meat grinder between two rivers for the Islamic World.They will eat up their young." Might the consequnces of a simple exit divert Islamists from global jihad to their own detriment, until Iraq "settles"? Would the instability in the ME stress Western economies too much, perhaps aiding Islamist agendae?
Fascinating stuff.
Applet is a mini-application, just as a piglet is a mini-pig. Actually, an applet is a software component that runs in the context of another program, for example a web browser. An applet usually performs a very narrow function that has no independent use. Hence, it is an application -let. The term was introduced in AppleScript in 1993. You could go to Wikipedia, which is generally good when it comes to coverage of technical subjects, but the description there is one that only a Computer Science major will understand.
The one that I was talking about above would have been a mini application where one could enter a term one commonly expects to find here, and look it up. That way, no need to diverge to another website to look it up. But preparing that then may be a mammoth project all of its own.
Thank you, Infidel Pride.
I have, by the way, just bookmarked you as my new source of indispensable information. You come just after the O.E.D. but just before the Encyclopedia Britannica, llth edition.
Thank you, Hugh, although I wouldn't put myself that high.
11th edition? Which year was that? I recall having the Childrens Britanica growing up - a 1974 edition. Those were the days Encyclopedias were (relatively at least) free from political biases.
To answer American in Germany, and to shut up the nonsense that spouts from Flowerknife and Joeblough.
The big winners in the invasion were Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Gulf States and Iran.
Less you have forgotten, Osama's first fatwa was against the Saudis for allowing the infidel military to defile the holy soil of Islam (Arabia), well the moment the invasion started the US.Army encamped in King Khalid Military City moved out into Kuwait and Iraq..and the Air Force previously stationed at Prince Sultan Air Base, picked up and moved to Talas Air Base in Iraq..problem solved for the Saudis..
And as regards Iran.. you nitwits, Saddam was our ally against Iran, and the Iraq Iran war was never concluded only a truce a hudna.. Saddam sitting on the Shatt al Arab was the best insurance policy we and Israel had.
As regards the ability of the U.S. to hang around Iraq and stand by while the Iraqi's eat each other up.. what planet do you live on, or what alternate reality.. what will get chewed up in the process is our troops and our posterity (our economy).
As regards any notion of our invasion estopping Islamic Terrorism, bullshit...Saddam was an enemy of the Islamists.. even Osama had issued his own fatwa on him.. and he was as pestered by Jihadis as our troops and we are now.
What the invasion HAS done, is to create a recruiting station and training ground for Jihadis from all over the world.. they are flocking there in droves, as they did to Afghanistan when Ronald Reagan decided to create the Taliban by helping to fund (along with the Saudis) Osama bin Laden and the mujahideen..
All of what we are experiencing, from WTC1, to WTC2 to today is blowback from the misguided policies of Ronald Reagan and Zbignew Brzezinski, and now more blowback on the way because of Iraq..and who has really been behind it all, who is the real beneficiary..? Cui Bono? The Saudis and the Iranians, but the idea to create cadre of Jihadis (mujahideen), make Afghanistan an Islamic tyranny, and to invade Iraq came straight from Saudi Arabia, and of course the boys in the Likkud, and their allies and compatriots at the Project for the New American Century.