War in Iraq- likely more important than we'll ever know

I know, I know- everyone wishes Bush had gone after Iran, rather than Iraq( PART of me agrees with that)...but the more I think about it...I think ol' Bushie was on to something. Consider:

1. We were still having MULTIPLE problems with Saddam LOOONG after the Gulf War.

2. We invaded Afghanistan, won, and now we hear nothing about Afghanistan( for the most part), really. Iraq, however is a totally different story. Now, chances are the terrorists probably aren't fighting us too much in Afghanistan because there's nothing really left of importance to them there...oooh, but I think Iraq might be a TOTALLY different story. As Rush Limbaugh even mentioned: If Iraq is REALLY that unimportant in this war, why have the terrorists made it the central battleground for the war? Why, then, are they apparently so afraid to lose Iraq to democracy? I'm gonna tell ya right offhand, I think maybe the terrorists know something about Iraq that we dont'- they need it for some reason that we don't know about...in a way that they DON'T need Afghanistan as badly. I think Bush knows what the reason might be..but I can understand his remaining confidential about it.

I really think Iraq is truly more important to this war than anyone realizes. To paraphrase Gandalf the White in the Two Towers "The war in Iraq has ended- the real war on terrorism has JUST begun"

Post 1

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 12:37am

Russell, I'm glad to see this change in your opinion on the war. In some sense, the troops are already fighting Iran--many of the suicide bombers and terrorists trying to wreak havoc in Iraq are coming across the border from the east. The mullahs seem terrified by the the prospect of a liberally-governed neighbor.

Post 2

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 8:28am

Russell, I'd like to tackle a few of your points:

1. We were still having MULTIPLE problems with Saddam LOOONG after the Gulf War.

1700+ American lives worth of trouble? That's my question...

We invaded Afghanistan, won, and now we hear nothing about Afghanistan( for the most part), really.

You're implication here is that because the mainstream media doesn't cover Afghanistan very much these days, it can therefore be chalked up as an American victory in the history books. I disagree. The propped up regime in Kabul has little to no influence outside its city limits. Most of the country is run by drug dealers and warlords, who by the way are looking the other way at the Taliban in their midst, and are allowing free passage to Pakistan in the mountainous border area. America didn't even bother to try to occupy and socially re-engineer the society in Afghanistan because it would have been too difficult (believe it or not they DID learn that from the Russians).

Now, chances are the terrorists probably aren't fighting us too much in Afghanistan because there's nothing really left of importance to them there

The Taliban is still fighting us: http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=3545664
And I can think of at least couple insignificant, minor reasons as to why Islamists would want to fight us in Afghanistan....Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, perhaps?

If Iraq is REALLY that unimportant in this war, why have the terrorists made it the central battleground for the war?

The reason Iraq is important in the war is its strategic position in the region. It has tremendous oil reserves, borders with many nations (Turkey, Kuwait, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.), access to sea ports...if you want to control the Middle East, you have to control Iraq. At the moment, both the Islamists and the neocons want to control the Middle East, which is why both sides are focusing their energy there.

I'm gonna tell ya right offhand, I think maybe the terrorists know something about Iraq that we dont'- they need it for some reason that we don't know about...in a way that they DON'T need Afghanistan as badly.

Russell, there is no secret reason known only to terrorists and the Bush administration as to why Iraq is the hot battleground du jour. I believe my previous paragraph sums it up: this war is simply about who will control and dominate the Middle East.

Post 3

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 9:00am

I know, I know- everyone wishes Bush had gone after Iran, rather than Iraq

I imagine that one factor in going to Iran was that it actually was a fundamentalistic islamic state, and Iraq was secular. While this is often cited as a reason why we should have started the real war on terrorism in Iran, and not Iraq, it would make it much harder for the west to argue that this was a war against despotism and brutally oppresive regimes and not just merely one against islam had we attatcked Iran instead of Iraq. Attacking Iraq we removed the factor of fundamentalist islam statehood as an apparent reason to go to war.

think maybe the terrorists know something about Iraq that we dont'- they need it for some reason that we don't know about...in a way that they DON'T need Afghanistan as badly

They know that a successfull democracy smack dab in the middle of their arab sea of brutal oppression, tyranny, and murder would spell a quick end to their despotic rule. Iraq MUST NOT be succussfull because all the other middle eastern rulers would know their end would be on the horizon.

Given that every majority Islam / or Arab state is a brutal oppressive hell hole, with the now notable exceptions of Afghanstan and Iraq. And Sunni's rule most of the middle eastern states, even where they are minorities, why is anyone wondering where all those terrorists are coming from?

Michael F Dickey

Post 4

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 9:05am

Russell, there is no secret reason known only to terrorists and the Bush administration as to why Iraq is the hot battleground du jour. I believe my previous paragraph sums it up: this war is simply about who will control and dominate the Middle East.

Right, western liberalized democracies which respect property, individual liberties, and civil rights? Or brutal oppresive theocratic and despotic hell holes which breed hostility, poverty, ignorance, and worse, terrorism?

Michael F Dickey

Post 5

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 10:24am

Pete, I'd like to tackle your response, if I may:

1. 1,700 troops. My question, two words: that's all? Do you have any idea how many we lost in World War II? In fact, from what I've heard from Rush Limbaugh, in a TRAINING EXERCISE ALONE for the troops, we lost WELL over 700 men.

Battle of the Bulge- another example of where we lost...well, I really don' know the exact number, but trust me, it wasn't a small number.

2. As for Afghanistan, I never said everything's gone perfectly there- I just said things don't seem to be as hectic THERE as they are in Iraq...and that's ALL I said. I'm sure Afghanistan poses some importance to terrorists, but apparently not as much so as Iraq does.

And btw, if you're going to call Afghanistan a failure in war, you might as well say the same for both Germany and Russia( not the entire Soviet Union, per se, just Russia), since both are run by thugs who've ruined things for their country, and they just show no sign of improving. At the same time, you have to remember- they have to WANT to improve. There's only so much one can do. Remember, most Americans, despite what they say, don't even want things improved much here, so how can we expect people, even MORE socialistic than our own country, to improve so easily?

3. Yes, I'm well aware of the strategics of where Iraq is, and the oil reserves...I'm just saying maybe there's even MORE to it, is all.

Personally, one of the reasons I think we went for Iraq is that, aside for Iraq being a more secular terrorist-sponsoring nation, it was apparently the one nation where there was no rebellion to kick Saddam out. North Korea's got South Korea up their ass, and Iran's about to be overthrown any day now by its freedom-desiring citizens. At least from what I was told, none of that existed in Iraq- it was apparently the spark needed to energize every other country to try harder. Thus far, it has succeeded- Libya gave up their weapons, and Syria was kicked out of Lebanon. I'd say that's progress.

4. As for Iran- I think it'll come sooner than later, personally. I'm not gonna underestimate Bush. I seriously am gonna give him the benefit of the doubt- I think he knows what he's doing, and I think it just may eventually come to Iran...again, sooner than later.

One thing worth noting though- folks, Bush isn't gonna attack the Muslim religion...if he did, I'd think he's insane. Do I think the religion had much to do with the 9/11 attack? Well, naturally. But you also have to remember: Bush is a religious fanatic. And if you attack the Muslim religion, eventually, you wind up attacking religion overall. Now, I have no problem with that- but try pushing that platform to the American people, and succeeding with it. Granted, most Americans are about as honest with their "deeply religious beliefs" as they are with their patriotism, but good luck convincing them of that- I DARE ya.

Post 6

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 1:42pm

The fucker was putting people in wood chippers, head first if he was feeling grandiose. Three words: Iraqi Olympic Team. May the Divine forgive me, but for a moment I lingered happily on the death photos of those two prick sons of his. He is one of many.

Something we don't know about? More like not ever knowing how deep it runs. Look at what Halliburton is up to. BINGO!!

Notice how they pulled out of Afghanistan after things were good enough to get the oil line project running, with OBL right there waiting to be plucked.

Bin Ladin was NOT in Iraq.

The planning was poor, because he pushed at the military too fast. We're strained. Terrorism, like modern wars, just aren't clean anymore.

Post 7

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 1:59am

I've heard and read that the world oil supply is set to peak as soon as possibly 2025, and after that, the other half will be used up very quickly.

According the Zbigniew Brzezinski(sp?), that region of Iraq and Afghanistan is smack dab in the region of the world he calls "the Grand Chessboard"... Controlling Iraq means a key positioning to control these critically dwindling oil reserves.

The Muslim terrorists, informed by the Saudi government, know this too no doubt, and are also struggling to control the region for oil control purposes. The religious talk is all just camouflage.

The US can't keep enduring these attacks... We will have to go into Iran next. No question. We may take heavy losses, but it must be done.

Post 8

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 4:09pm

Vernon, "peak oil" has been predicted and discredited dozens of times over the past few decades, but it remains a fashionable theory among those who wish to cluck their tongues at the "hubris" and "arrogance" of man.

I doubt that oil production will really peak in 2025, but even if it did, the question is, how quickly will production levels begin to fall, and how quickly will we be able to engineer an effective substitute? Peak oil enthusiasts seem to think every well on Earth will run dry at exactly the same time, leaving us with no energy source with which to develop and install new power production and distribution infrastructures. Assuming we leave the market free to do its job (an ever more tenuous assumption, these days), I think the transition will go much smoother than these doomsday theorists argue.

Post 9

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 5:14pm