How will an Islamic rule in Iraq benefit the US?

[SteveMcKing]

Ban, yes. File a legal claim? That's different.

[SteveMcKing]

"Believe me, there are some real pricks on FR who make some trolls look like the Pope."

I know. There's a certain "B.H." we all know. And thank God Old Cracker got banned...

[KDD]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1468350/posts?q=1&&page=101#117

[Thunder90]

In Before the Zot!

[TomasUSMC]

How will an Islamic rule in Iraq benefit the US?

---

It will build another oil rich Islamic country like Saudi or Iran. But thats okay because those countries are in the habit of spreading a religion of Peace!

And when we are finished (hopefully finished in a good way) we can be proud that our blood was spilled for ISLAM. That our billions were spent for ISLAM and that our time was used to let nuclear bombs be built for ISLAM.

At least we postponed our own national suicide for 60 years. Back in 1945 we, instead of hiding behind words like kinder gentler compassionate, we stood by the word courage and took the right tough decision. We firebombed and nuked our enemies into unconditional surrender and then and only THEN, did we rebuild them. Rebuilding them in the image of a FREE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC with FREEDOM OF RELIGION!

We did not allow Germans to continue with Hitler's dream nor Japan with Tojo's dream. But today we allow the our enemy to continue with Mohamids dream.

Today INSTEAD of a Truman dropping the bomb, we have a Bush dropping the ball.

NO BLOOD FOR ISLAM. When we are done they will still consider us infidels.

[thorlock]

That's what I'm afraid of, so sorry if anyone that questions our policy is labeled a troll or anti-Bush.

I changed a term so I'm a troll? Wonderful.

[airborne]

I'll agree that what appears to be coming does not make me happy.

That being said, it may be possible to have an Iraq that will be more like Egypt and less like Iran.

In the men time, we've eliminated in excess of 50,000 terrorists.

The thought of an Islamic Iraq may not thrill us, but it doesn't come as a big surprise either.

[FreedomCalls]

Women are being forced to cover up in public or face the consequences.

Can you cite any information that would support your contention that "women are being forced to cover up in public or face the consequences" other than an isolated incident by locals egged on by the insurgents. I don't see it happening.

[FreedomCalls]

The constitutional crises now going on is pitting the various factions against each other.

Isn't that the basis of the "checks and balances" system that has made our government the greatest one in the world? That's a feature not a bug. I shudder what to think it would be like for one part of government to have unchecked power (actually, it would look a lot like Iraq under Saddam).

[FreedomCalls]

Is anyone saying a theocracy in Iraq would be a good thing?

It would be if the theocrats interpret Islamic Law in a progressive way that is 180 degrees from the way the Wahabbists do. The problem isn't Islamic Law, the problem is the interpretation of it. Just as we now see the Inquisition as a perversion of Christian Law, and we today would like to inject a little modern Christianity into the law-making process. We don't expect another Inquisition to follow from that. If a new Iraqi government interpreted Islamic Law as a progressive alternative to Iran or the Wahabbist Sect we would be better off would we not?

[FreedomCalls]

Japan is a Demoracy. When we defeated them we imposed a constitution on them.

It took two nuclear weapons to get them into a position to accept our rule over them.

[thorlock]

From what I understand, the Whahabists are the facilitator as well as the end goal of Islam.

[Eagle of Liberty]

I did not realize sanctions were about to be removed, can you provide a link about this? I would certainly have been against it.

This is probably the least-biased link that I could find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

The only way I'll be able to see if removing Saddam was in our best interests is to see what the new government brings - if it brings an alliance with Iran, then no. If it is friendly to the US, then yes.

What I do not like in your above statement is that you are waiting for future events before making your present decision. Hindsight not allowed. As the President of the United States, you do not have this luxury. You have to make decisions based upon information that you have at the time. Be it Kennedy or Nixon, Clinton or Bush, these Presidents have all had to make hard decisions.

Place yourself in George W. Bush's shoes. The situation with Iraq was deteriorating. The Iraqi Liberation Act had been signed in 1998. Saddam had been paying off UN officials to get sanctions lifted. Sanctions were up for renewal in 2002. Your choice was not whether or not to remove Saddam. Your choice was how to remove Saddam.

The question that I posed was would you rather have an Iraq with a stronger Saddam or the Iraq that currently exists? Being one that grew up right in the middle of the 80's Nuclear Missle Game with the USSR and then in the 90's with Iraq constantly in the background, today's Iraq is much preferrable.

Also, for a little background info on how this whole thing is bigger than Osama and Saddam, you may want to catch the new National Geographic Special - Inside 9/11.

The Fundamentalist Islamic Movement has been fermenting for more than 20 years and Osama provided the spark to ignite it.