Why is the Iraq invasion seen as anti-Islamic?
-
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
Why is the Iraq invasion seen as anti-Islamic?
Cause Saddam Hussain is an Islamic name. Now if he was called Johnny Brown or something, it'd have been a regular war :-)
So the next US president should call himself abdulla al america bin USA ??? :P
-
So the next US president should call himself abdulla al america bin USA ??? :P
Rutger Ellen wrote:
So the next US president should call himself abdulla al america bin USA ???
What the US needs to do, to confirm with its own elated standards of political correctness, is to have as its next President, a Muslim woman of African and Asian lineage, who is also gay. Then the rest of the world will have to shut up for 4 years :-D
-
So the next US president should call himself abdulla al america bin USA ??? :P
Rutger Ellen wrote:
So the next US president should call himself abdulla al america bin USA ???
And look like this ? :-D
-
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
When a Kurd is gassed by Saddams regime isn't a Muslim.
do i need to remind you that Saddam and Osama ,both were darling of US like Musharraf in 21st century? MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
What on earth does your reply have to do with his question? :confused: Really, you want to continue the discussion, stay on topic. This is not the place to flex your non sequitur muscles. Cheers, Vikram.
"When I read in books about a "base class", I figured this was the class that was at the bottom of the inheritence tree. It's the "base", right? Like the base of a pyramid." - Marc Clifton.
-
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
When a Kurd is gassed by Saddams regime isn't a Muslim.
do i need to remind you that Saddam and Osama ,both were darling of US like Musharraf in 21st century? MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
What on earth does your reply have to do with his question? :confused: Really, you want to continue the discussion, stay on topic. This is not the place to flex your non sequitur muscles. Cheers, Vikram.
"When I read in books about a "base class", I figured this was the class that was at the bottom of the inheritence tree. It's the "base", right? Like the base of a pyramid." - Marc Clifton.
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
sweety,
:laugh: are you going to get it !!!
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
do u think iraq was capble to expand war for sveeral years against without any AID?
As were the iranians who were financed by the USSR. AFAI(Understand), the Iran-Iraq was a war between the USA and USSR with proxy.
Maximilien Lincourt Your Head A Splode - Strong Bad
-
Rutger Ellen wrote:
So the next US president should call himself abdulla al america bin USA ???
And look like this ? :-D
Would he have to deliver a "State of the Union Fatwah"? Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
What on earth does your reply have to do with his question? :confused: Really, you want to continue the discussion, stay on topic. This is not the place to flex your non sequitur muscles. Cheers, Vikram.
"When I read in books about a "base class", I figured this was the class that was at the bottom of the inheritence tree. It's the "base", right? Like the base of a pyramid." - Marc Clifton.
Psssssssst, duplicate post :-D
-
Maximilien wrote:
AFAI(Understand), the Iran-Iraq was a war between the USA and USSR with proxy
The choices that the US faced - (a) standing by and letting the USSR control the middle east, along with the rest of the planet, or (b) resorting to a full scale nuclear exchange with the soviets or (c) supporting anti-sovient madmen as proxies against pro-soviet proxies - all seem to be lost on people. The Islamic world owes its very existence to the west, especially the US. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Reverend Satan wrote:
The choices that the US faced - (a) standing by and letting the USSR control the middle east, along with the rest of the planet, or (b) resorting to a full scale nuclear exchange with the soviets or (c) supporting anti-sovient madmen as proxies against pro-soviet proxies - all seem to be lost on people. The Islamic world owes its very existence to the west, especially the US.
Let's see now. Absent the Iraq-Iran war (which was started by Iraq, not Iran), the USSR would have controlled the Middle East? Is that right? How would this have come about exactly? John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Reverend Satan wrote:
The choices that the US faced - (a) standing by and letting the USSR control the middle east, along with the rest of the planet, or (b) resorting to a full scale nuclear exchange with the soviets or (c) supporting anti-sovient madmen as proxies against pro-soviet proxies - all seem to be lost on people. The Islamic world owes its very existence to the west, especially the US.
Let's see now. Absent the Iraq-Iran war (which was started by Iraq, not Iran), the USSR would have controlled the Middle East? Is that right? How would this have come about exactly? John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
The Soviet's stated ambtions were world domination. As the last time I checked, the middle east was part of the world, it follows that it was included. The Soviets were very active in the middle east, one of their most critical long term ambitions was (1) to control western access to oil supplies, and, (2), even more importanly, to control that area in order to have easy naval access to the Indian ocean since one of their largest problems militarily was that they only had access to international waters via the North sea. Most of our cold war activities in the middle east were designed specifically to thwart those ambtions. From supporting Israel, to establishing the Shah of Iran, to Saddam, we played a chess game with them in the region that, for all of our bad moves, ultimately had the desired affect (well, I mean unless, like most lefties, you actually wnated the Soviets to win). "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Maximilien wrote:
AFAI(Understand), the Iran-Iraq was a war between the USA and USSR with proxy
The choices that the US faced - (a) standing by and letting the USSR control the middle east, along with the rest of the planet, or (b) resorting to a full scale nuclear exchange with the soviets or (c) supporting anti-sovient madmen as proxies against pro-soviet proxies - all seem to be lost on people. The Islamic world owes its very existence to the west, especially the US. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Just apply historical hindsight to see that military meddling in the area (or any area, one could say) is almost always a bad idea. The Soviets wouldn't have had any better luck "controlling" the Middle East than we've had. Our involvement in Afghanistan was minimal, and yet Soviet ass was thoroughly kicked (just like ours in Viet Nam). The only controls any nation can exert on another that seem to have any lasting power or positive effect are economic and cultural, and the Soviets had neither deep pockets, nor a culture of personal freedom. We have both, although both are currently being depleted at an alarming rate.
-
What on earth does your reply have to do with his question? :confused: Really, you want to continue the discussion, stay on topic. This is not the place to flex your non sequitur muscles. Cheers, Vikram.
"When I read in books about a "base class", I figured this was the class that was at the bottom of the inheritence tree. It's the "base", right? Like the base of a pyramid." - Marc Clifton.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Really, you want to continue the discussion, stay on topic. This is not the place to flex your non sequitur muscles.
Ah, but you forget...he does this ALL the time. This is why it is futile to discuss anything with him. Besides, according to him, it's all in the Qu'ran anyways so it's actually irrational to question anything.
-
Trollslayer wrote:
This includes the Iran-Iraq war which he instigated.
sweety,saddam was US ally during iran-iraq war do u think iraq was capble to expand war for sveeral years against without any AID? MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
The Soviet's stated ambtions were world domination. As the last time I checked, the middle east was part of the world, it follows that it was included. The Soviets were very active in the middle east, one of their most critical long term ambitions was (1) to control western access to oil supplies, and, (2), even more importanly, to control that area in order to have easy naval access to the Indian ocean since one of their largest problems militarily was that they only had access to international waters via the North sea. Most of our cold war activities in the middle east were designed specifically to thwart those ambtions. From supporting Israel, to establishing the Shah of Iran, to Saddam, we played a chess game with them in the region that, for all of our bad moves, ultimately had the desired affect (well, I mean unless, like most lefties, you actually wnated the Soviets to win). "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
I note that you have made no attempt to answer the question. I can give you points for consistency, however. Just as the problem of anti-US terrorism provides Bush with an excuse to invade a country not involved in it, so the problem of Soviet expansionism provides an all-purpose justification for any and all US foreign policy interventions. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
I note that you have made no attempt to answer the question. I can give you points for consistency, however. Just as the problem of anti-US terrorism provides Bush with an excuse to invade a country not involved in it, so the problem of Soviet expansionism provides an all-purpose justification for any and all US foreign policy interventions. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
I answered your question directly, the Soviets would have taken the region by default given a power vacume created by the US not acting through what ever proxies in the region were the most convinient for our purposes or that could be propped up by us by what ever means necessary. Say what you want to about the means, the end was not a nuclear holocaust or a world subjegated to Moscow, so obviously we did something correctly. And, BTW, you're welcome. But you are correct, just as the left never appreciated the danger of the USSR, and was horrified at its final defeat which gave the US unparalleled hegemony, any success we might have elsewhere, including a perfectly justifiable and legal invasion of Iraq, is also seen as a dangerous increase in AMerican hegemony by the left. It is perfectly understandable that the left would feel threatened by such an overt exercise in American exceptionalism. Nothing is more important to the left than 'balanceing out' the capitalistic and social power of the US - regardless of how dangerous the threat that is required to do it. But get used to it, we saved the world from fascism, we saved the world from communism and we are going to save the world from Islamic fundamentalism, and in the process we are going to save it from the totalitarian leftists of the west. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
US Administration don`t show sympathy for muslims
That may be true. But it isn't because they hate Muslims, it's because they are too busy pursuing their own interests. It isn't right to wage jihad on someone because he is too busy to help you.
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
That may be true. But it isn't because they hate Muslims, it's because they are too busy pursuing their own interests. It isn't right to wage jihad on someone because he is too busy to help you.
Help?what kinda help?what sorta help do you get by War?don`t get ignorant delibrately.. do you even know the meaning of jihad? A/C to me iraqis are just fighting to getrid of *ENEMY* from their homeland..if saving of land is *Jihad* which is actually *Holywar* ,a/c to people like you then i find no intrest to respond you..what yo have been discussing,beeen said lotsa of time on Media. A quick question 4u, why uS attacked on iraq ,whats your thought,i would like to hear what kinda stuff come from your side comeup with your own views,rather being next Mohd.Al-bardai (IAEA guy) MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
What on earth does your reply have to do with his question? :confused: Really, you want to continue the discussion, stay on topic. This is not the place to flex your non sequitur muscles. Cheers, Vikram.
"When I read in books about a "base class", I figured this was the class that was at the bottom of the inheritence tree. It's the "base", right? Like the base of a pyramid." - Marc Clifton.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Really, you want to continue the discussion, stay on topic.
buzz of lame man,i have experienced yo more than one time here,you don`t know stuff about your own country and preaching me here,really,i woudn`t even bother to respond you further MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
sweety,
And now I guess I'll use camel dick as a condescending, cutesy name for you. Oh, wait. I already do. :mad: At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
hahaha,stay away filthy animal MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
it was not about saddam,you should realize that only muslim citizens are being killed in US attacks
When a Kurd is gassed by Saddams regime isn't a Muslim. If the same Kurd had survived and died from an American bomb he suddenly becomes a Muslim ?
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
When a Kurd is gassed by Saddams regime isn't a Muslim. If the same Kurd had survived and died from an American bomb he suddenly becomes a Muslim ?
-
Rutger Ellen wrote:
So the next US president should call himself abdulla al america bin USA ???
What the US needs to do, to confirm with its own elated standards of political correctness, is to have as its next President, a Muslim woman of African and Asian lineage, who is also gay. Then the rest of the world will have to shut up for 4 years :-D
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
What the US needs to do, to confirm with its own elated standards of political correctness, is to have as its next President, a Muslim woman of African and Asian lineage, who is also gay
And in a wheelchair. Don't forget the handicapped!
