• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If we'd known the truth about Islam would we & should we have invaded Iraq?

If we'd known the truth about Islam would we & should we have invaded Iraq?

  • Would we have invaded? Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • SHOULD we have invaded? Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    24
With the advice from Sun Tzu and von Clausewitz in mind, "Know your enemy," how could Islam NOT have been considered a crucially important part of knowing the enemy?

I don't know, but the results of the war demonstrate that the "know your enemy" phrase is an essential part of warfare.
 
Why do you think the Iraqi Army flees before the ISIS forces?

I've wondered about that. Is it for the same reason they fled before the US forces, is it because of sympathy with the enemy, or is it a bit of both?
 
I would support a well planned strategy to remove Kim Jong un.

The Chinese will be the ones that do it.
He takes ill suddenly and passes from a brain aneurism.
 
Do not know. Just know (opinion) the Chinese ain't to happy with him.
I'm sure they're not.
But, if they did decide to take him out, the chances are that someone equally bad would take over as absolute dictator of that unfortunate nation.

Which brings us back to having taken out Saddam Hussain without considering just who or what would succeed him.
 
The invasion of Iraq was one of the worst blunders ever,
nearly equal to having gotten bogged down in a ground war in SE Asia years ago. It has cost upwards of a trillion dollars and thousands of lives, and left the situation there worse than it was when Hussain was in power.

How anyone with 20/20 hindsight can't see that for what it is is a mystery to me. I was against the invasion from the start, having lived through and with the results of that other blunder in Vietnam. Anyone who was for the war has to have their foresight and leadership questioned.



I've been opposed to getting involved in Iraq since before Bush senior took us there in 1991.

I served in Vietnam 50 years ago (RA all the way.) and I see that now for the unnecessary mess that it was.

But 50 years ago I was glad to go there.
 
If we'd known the truth about Islam would we & should we have invaded Iraq?

Would we have invaded? Yes

Would we have invaded? No

Would we have invaded? Maybe

Would we have invaded? Other


SHOULD we have invaded? Yes

SHOULD we have invaded? No

SHOULD we have invaded? Maybe

SHOULD we have invaded? Other

If we knew the actual nature of Islam I wonder if we woulda or shoulda invaded.

One unknown aspect of the true nature of Islam is that Muslims are more Muslim than Americans are American, IMHO.

Another is that Muslims are commanded to make every other religion and form of government ion Earth disappear.

If we knew that we would not be overwhelmingly greeted as liberators would we have had that humanitarian motive to add to the reasons why we believed we SHOULD have invaded?

Your so-called "truth" about Islam...or even Islam, itself...had nothing to do with why we invaded Iraq, so in my opinion, your poll is useless.

But I voted yes for #'s 1 and 5, anyway.
 
I'm sure they're not.
But, if they did decide to take him out, the chances are that someone equally bad would take over as absolute dictator of that unfortunate nation.

Which brings us back to having taken out Saddam Hussain without considering just who or what would succeed him.
Well what worked for the Brits, French and the Romans.
Put a dictator in charge, but that would have been a no go from the get go.
The country could have been split along religious lines, a Federation with revenues split by population.
That would have still lead to a possible Kurdish state.
It matters not as the place is falling apart, and after ISIL another civil/religious war will take its place.
The Shia Militias will again be on their revenge kick as we say under Maliki, the present PM is weak.
Corruption will run rampant again, well it still is.
The Militias, loyal to Iran will run the place.
 
Well what worked for the Brits, French and the Romans.
Put a dictator in charge, but that would have been a no go from the get go.
The country could have been split along religious lines, a Federation with revenues split by population.
That would have still lead to a possible Kurdish state.
It matters not as the place is falling apart, and after ISIL another civil/religious war will take its place.
The Shia Militias will again be on their revenge kick as we say under Maliki, the present PM is weak.
Corruption will run rampant again, well it still is.
The Militias, loyal to Iran will run the place.

That's a pretty likely scenario.
Put a dictator in charge? We already had a dictator in charge, and one who we once treated as an ally.
 
That's a pretty likely scenario.
Put a dictator in charge? We already had a dictator in charge, and one who we once treated as an ally.
Sadly it worked for a time.
But Iraq is gong down the rabbit hole, quickly. Never know they could merge with Iran. If I recall correctly Iraq was once part of the Persian empire.

Saudi is nothing more than a Dictatorship, hiding behind a Monarch, and the Wahhabi Imams help keep them in power.
 
If we'd known the truth about Islam would we & should we have invaded Iraq?

Would we have invaded? Yes

Would we have invaded? No

Would we have invaded? Maybe

Would we have invaded? Other


SHOULD we have invaded? Yes

SHOULD we have invaded? No

SHOULD we have invaded? Maybe

SHOULD we have invaded? Other

If we knew the actual nature of Islam I wonder if we woulda or shoulda invaded.

One unknown aspect of the true nature of Islam is that Muslims are more Muslim than Americans are American, IMHO.

Another is that Muslims are commanded to make every other religion and form of government ion Earth disappear.


If we knew that we would not be overwhelmingly greeted as liberators would we have had that humanitarian motive to add to the reasons why we believed we SHOULD have invaded?

some radical islamists just hate the US governments politically .That is all.
 
Sadly it worked for a time.
But Iraq is gong down the rabbit hole, quickly. Never know they could merge with Iran. If I recall correctly Iraq was once part of the Persian empire.

Saudi is nothing more than a Dictatorship, hiding behind a Monarch, and the Wahhabi Imams help keep them in power.
Yes, Iran/Iraq was once Persia. While Iran annexing Iraq may not be a great thing from the point of view of the west, it would be better than an Islamic state run by ISIS.

and Saudi Arabia is really no different from what Iraq was, but we have to keep friendly relations with them because of the oil. Bin Laden and most of his cockroaches were Saudi, after all.
 
Yes, Iran/Iraq was once Persia. While Iran annexing Iraq may not be a great thing from the point of view of the west, it would be better than an Islamic state run by ISIS.

and Saudi Arabia is really no different from what Iraq was, but we have to keep friendly relations with them because of the oil. Bin Laden and most of his cockroaches were Saudi, after all.
Wonder if those pages withheld from the 911 Investigation will ever see the light of day.
 
Who are the "we" in the OP, and what is the "truth" about Islam that "we" were unaware of before invading Iraq?
 
Last edited:
Yes, Iran/Iraq was once Persia. While Iran annexing Iraq may not be a great thing from the point of view of the west, it would be better than an Islamic state run by ISIS.

and Saudi Arabia is really no different from what Iraq was, but we have to keep friendly relations with them because of the oil. Bin Laden and most of his cockroaches were Saudi, after all.

Your argument reminds me of that held by two Muslims somewhere on TV somewhere in the Middle East on 9/11.

And they were in a heated argument over the attacks.

And not that one was pro Islam and one was pro America.

No, no, no.

One argued that the attacks were the best tactic and strategy to carry out Allah's commands to conquer all of mankind for Islam.

The other argued that the global conquest was best done without violence as non violent Jihad would not awaken the sleeping giant.

Iran is just as committed to global conquest as ISIS.

They just differ in how to achieve that goal.

Choose your poison.
 
Your argument reminds me of that held by two Muslims somewhere on TV somewhere in the Middle East on 9/11.

And they were in a heated argument over the attacks.

And not that one was pro Islam and one was pro America.

No, no, no.

One argued that the attacks were the best tactic and strategy to carry out Allah's commands to conquer all of mankind for Islam.

The other argued that the global conquest was best done without violence as non violent Jihad would not awaken the sleeping giant.

Iran is just as committed to global conquest as ISIS.

They just differ in how to achieve that goal.

Choose your poison.
Iran, global conquest. Wow, thanks for that.
 
Who are the "we" in the OP, and what is the "truth" about Islam that "we" were unaware of before invading Iraq?

The truth is that Kafirs, non Muslims, Infidels, are never the equal of Muslims.

That we Kafirs, et al, are fighting against a deeply held and deeply entrenched religious ideology, culture and tradition.

We would ONLY be able to assume that Middle Eastern Muslims would side with the West, the USA, the Coalition, the Kafirs and our abominable Western idea of Democracy (which doesn't exist in Islam**) through coercion, money and brute force.

And the minute that $, influence and military power was removed (even after 100 years...See the example of Turkey) the region would revert back to it's traditional Islamism.

In short, we could force our will on the people but if ever they were given the uninfluenced and free choice between freedom, Democracy and Liberty such as we know it and love it, vs the comforting restrictions of Islam, the people would overwhelmingly choose Islam.

Why do you think the Iraqi Army fled in the face of ISIS forces?

The Army soldiers KNEW they were fighting on the wrong side.

Just as crooks know they are in the wrong when they are fleeing the police. Just as the Soviets knew Ronald Reagan was right when he called the USSR the "Evil Empire."

In their hearts they know which side is right.

And in the hearts of virtually ALL Middle Easterners they know in their hearts Islam is right and we are wrong.

And with that understanding I don't think we would have or should have invaded such as we did.

Other ways should have been employed.


**
To understand a civilisation it is important to understand its vocabulary.

If it was not on their tongues it is likely that it was not on their minds either.

There was no word in any of the Muslim languages for democracy until the 1890s. Even then the Greek word democracy entered Muslim languages with little change: democrasi in Persian, dimokraytiyah in Arabic, demokratio in Turkish.

Democracy as the proverbial schoolboy would know is based on one fundamental principle: equality.

The Greek word for equal isos is used in more than 200 compound nouns; including isoteos (equality) and Isologia (equal or free speech) and isonomia (equal treatment).

But again we find no equivalent in any of the Muslim languages. The words we have such as barabari in Persian and sawiyah in Arabic mean juxtaposition or levelling.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1138942/posts

And we all know that equality is a foreign concept in Islam.

Lest us return to the issue of equality.

The idea is unacceptable to Islam.

For the non-believer cannot be the equal of the believer.

Even among the believers only those who subscribe to the three so-called Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam ( Ahl el-Kitab) are regarded as fully human.

Here is the hierarchy of human worth in Islam:

At the summit are free male Muslims

Next come Muslim male slaves

Then come free Muslim women

Next come Muslim slave women.

Then come free Jewish and /or Christian men

Then come slave Jewish and/or Christian men

Then come slave Jewish and/or Christian women.

Each category has rights that must be respected.

The People of the Book have always been protected and relatively well-treated by Muslim rulers, but often in the context of a form of apartheid known as dhimmitude.

The status of the rest of humanity, those whose faiths are not recognised by Islam or who have no faith at all, has never been spelled out although wherever Muslim rulers faced such communities they often treated them with a certain measure of tolerance and respect ( As in the case of Hindus under the Muslim dynasties of India.)

Non-Muslims can, and have often been, treated with decency, but never as equals.

(There is a hierarchy even for animals and plants. Seven animals and seven plants will assuredly go to heaven while seven others of each will end up in Hell.)

Democracy means the rule of the demos, the common people, or what is now known as popular or national sovereignty.

In Islam, however, power belongs only to God: al-hukm l'illah. The man who exercises that power on earth is known as Khalifat al-Allah, the regent of God.

But even then the Khalifah or Caliph cannot act as legislator. The law has already been spelled out and fixed for ever by God.

The only task that remains is its discovery, interpretation and application.

Ibid.
 
Last edited:
Your argument reminds me of that held by two Muslims somewhere on TV somewhere in the Middle East on 9/11.

And they were in a heated argument over the attacks.

And not that one was pro Islam and one was pro America.

No, no, no.

One argued that the attacks were the best tactic and strategy to carry out Allah's commands to conquer all of mankind for Islam.

The other argued that the global conquest was best done without violence as non violent Jihad would not awaken the sleeping giant.

Iran is just as committed to global conquest as ISIS.

They just differ in how to achieve that goal.

Choose your poison.

I'll take the non violent poison, thank you.

I really doubt that Iran has the ability to conquer the world for Islam. Maybe they can pray the Twelfth Imam into existence or something. That should keep them busy for a while.

Meanwhile, let's keep on developing our own oil and researching ways to gain energy independence, so we can tell the Middle Easterners to go and pound sand. They have plenty of that as well.
 
The truth is that Kafirs, non Muslims, Infidels, are never the equal of Muslims.

That we Kafirs, et al, are fighting against a deeply held and deeply entrenched religious ideology, culture and tradition.

We would ONLY be able to assume that Middle Eastern Muslims would side with the West, the USA, the Coalition, the Kafirs and our abominable Western idea of Democracy (which doesn't exist in Islam**) through coercion, money and brute force.

And the minute that $, influence and military power was removed (even after 100 years...See the example of Turkey) the region would revert back to it's traditional Islamism.

In short, we could force our will on the people but if ever they were given the uninfluenced and free choice between freedom, Democracy and Liberty such as we know it and love it, vs the comforting restrictions of Islam, the people would overwhelmingly choose Islam.

Why do you think the Iraqi Army fled in the face of ISIS forces?

The Army soldiers KNEW they were fighting on the wrong side.

Just as crooks know they are in the wrong when they are fleeing the police. Just as the Soviets knew Ronald Reagan was right when he called the USSR the "Evil Empire."

In their hearts they know which side is right.

And in the hearts of virtually ALL Middle Easterners they know in their hearts Islam is right and we are wrong.

And with that understanding I don't think we would have or should have invaded such as we did.

Other ways should have been employed.


**

Amir Taheri: "Islam Is Incompatible With Democracy"

And what are your solutions to this?
 
I'll take the non violent poison, thank you.

I really doubt that Iran has the ability to conquer the world for Islam. Maybe they can pray the Twelfth Imam into existence or something. That should keep them busy for a while.

Meanwhile, let's keep on developing our own oil and researching ways to gain energy independence, so we can tell the Middle Easterners to go and pound sand. They have plenty of that as well.

How do you know that termites can't eat your house from under you and from around you without doing an inspection of your house?

You remain resistant to educating yourself about Islam.

How can you look yourself in the mirror?

How can you blithely spew ignorance and still pose as a credible pundit?

:lol:

They have taken over other countries using a minimum of violence. And others with violent and non violent jihad.

And some by using the promise of Democratic rule only to abolish democracy once they achieved power.

You are woefully uninformed.

Please stop talking about things you have no idea about.

Here is a rough analysis of how they have done it and are doing it elsewhere.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/05/the_five_stages_of_islam.html
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom