Posted on 05/18/2015 7:40:50 AM PDT by AnalogReigns
The latest progressive stance is to say that Islam is not a religion, and those who perform acts of violence in the name of Islam are not Islamic.
The progressives appear to be succeeding in their quest to confuse everyone on the issue, which in turn aids tolerance for special inclusions of Sharia law within states governed by western constitutional principles.
Yeah, well, there’s that. Maybe I’m giving Bush too much credit for figuring it all out on is own.
If Obama had doggedly worked out a status of forces agreement with the current Shiite gov. of Iraq and we had American forces there, ISIS would of never become as organized or large enough to be the world peace threat that it is.
Now, in the typical idiotic Democrat inconsistent isolationism, we are facing a major war in the Middle East which we will be dragged into....
Read the key points in the article, lightbulb, ISIS leadership are virtually all ex-Saddam men.
I still think utter incompetency, over and above a deviously brilliant pro-Islamic strategy, is to blame for the mess.
Mr. 0, our first Affirmative Action president, really isn’t all that smart.
Dumbest thing we did in Iraq. Iraq ... if it is to be 1 country ... cannot succeed as a democratic entity because it there is no drive toward unity. Iraq was a geographical convenience invented by England in 1916 and assigned to Britain in 1921 by the League of Nations. The Brits installed their king, and made his brother King of Jordan (both direct descendants of Muhammed!)in exchange for the Hashemite provinces in Western Arabia, which went to The House of Saud.
There literally is no such thing as Iraq. There probably are such things as Mesopotamia ... and Kurdistan. The Iraqi Shiites (The overwhelming majority) probably seek union with Iran. The Kurds want (and probably deserve) their own nation with slices from Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran ruled from Kirkuk or Erbil. They seem to be the only entity in the region capable of self-goverment or self-defense ... and above all some sense of religious tolerance. `
We never should have done anything in Iraq without facing that reality of having to stomp out Islam in Iraq, which alas, is a fool's errand. You cannot change the enemy into a friend unless you change the worldview of the enemy, and that means war on Islam, not terrorism.
I don't see any way out of this without declaring Islam as a totalitarian and supremacist worldview and not a religion. And that it is not welcome here.
By anything, I mean nation building, democratization, all that stupid, PC, liberal condescension crap.
No more moslem nations.
Exactly, but most of the blame belongs to the pointy heads at Foggy Bottom. They fired the Baathists and started the insurgency. Apparently, they don’t read history at the Foreign Service.
“The king is dead. Long live the king!”
A bit too apropos
Roger that. George Bush was an idiot for calling the murdering thugs of satanic islam a peaceful religion. Maybe it has been best that he has virtually disappeared and we don’t see his face any longer. Never saw a president fall the map and not be seen as he has. Basically, good. Don’t want to see him any more. I voted for him twice. Thought he would be a great president. Too me he was a total disappointment and his bunch lead us into the financial mess that we have been in the past few years.
Good point, as was pointed out Islam is a religion as a front but in reality a political system that wishes to take over the world.
By forced submission or death of those who will not submit.
Islam declared war on the USA in the nineties and also the whole world (that started at the inception of Islam actually), since then we have been engaged in WWIII.
He also said that "islam is peace"; that muslims around the world are appalled by 9/11; that muslims have made incredible contributions to America, and that their values are our values.
Exactly. But you will get crucified here for saying that.
This is a sectarian religious civil war (Sunni vs Shia) and the USA keeps taking sides.
Why? Why do we care which branch of Islam comes out on top?
Why are we asking our military men and women to lay down their lives so either Sunni or Shia are the top dogs in any particular portion of the region?
But instead of fighting Islam as a whole we have been taking sides in an ISLAMIC civil war (Sunni vs Shia) which has been going on for over 1000 years.
Why?
Bush kicked who’s ass?
He had us fight Sunnis on behalf of Shias ... two religious factions that have been fighting each other for over 1000 years.
That’s not kicking ass That’s taking sides in a religious civil war that we should not be taking any part.
The question I want to know is WHY? Why do we care which faction of Islam wins out in any particular region? Is there that much of a difference? What is it to us?
If you read history both Sunni and Shia have been equally brutal to each other over the many centuries. Bagdad alone has been sacked and re-sacked dozens of times. Ditto other major cities in the Middle East. Sometimes the Sunnis are on top and sometimes Shias are on top.
What does it matter to us?
Now we have a narcissistic President who at least is highly sympathetic to Muslims and anti-Semitic and anti-Christian, who is being controlled by God knows how many people in the background and VJ who apparently wants to bring about the Mahdi she grew up learning about. Somebody wants Islam to take over the world (besides the obvious Satan) and set it on fire and they're telling him what to do and then sending him to the golf course to stay out their way
And lest any of of you think electing a Republican president will stop this I offer you exhibit A: The 2014 Congress and B: The Republican leadership and the rest of the "R"s in the Senate. Whoever is controlling Obama, the DOJ, the State Dept., and the Democrats are controlling Republicans. They are all puppets. Bought and paid for.
Bremer retired from the foreign service in 1989, and mainly managed Kissinger and Associates after that.
"Bremer was appointed By President Bush as Presidential Envoy to Iraq on May 9, 2003. His appointment declared him subject to the authority, direction and control of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld"
The State Dept had very, very little influence in Iraq, which is why both Colin Powell and Richard Armitage resigned.
The NeoCons ran the show, which is why Bremer(NeoCon) got the appointment.
The NeoCons' authority would later diminish:
Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith was fired in 2005. Deputy Sec of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was fired in 2006. Sec of Defense Rumsfeld was fired in Nov, 2006.
In 2007, authority over Iraq went to Gen Patreaus, Gen, Allen, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker(who was a State Dept Careerist). Ryan Crocker negotiated and signed the SOFA with the Iraq foreign minister, after which the Iraq Parliament approved it, after which Bush and Maliki signed it.
An interesting tidbit is that in 2010, Obama put the same three men(Petraeus, Allen, & Crocker) in charge in Afghanistan.
This is an old article from 2003 but it describes the problems as they existed in Iraq then:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.