• 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!

Al-Qaida Surges Back in Iraq, Reviving Old Fears

And the islamic caliphate is a contradiction to the American theory of separation between state and church; I believe that church can play an important role in politics and that it is necessary in the middle east to have such a government!

Unless the people of the Middle East embrace a separation of church and state similar to what we have in the USA, they will never be free.
 
Unless the people of the Middle East embrace a separation of church and state similar to what we have in the USA, they will never be free.
you mean like they were under Hussein?
 
Cant have it both ways. Obama didn't surrender our position. He really did absolutely nothing except NOT **** up the withdrawal agreements Bush signed before he left office.

I am mistaken. Thank you for keeping me honest.
 
Unless the people of the Middle East embrace a separation of church and state similar to what we have in the USA, they will never be free.

That has nothing to do with having a free society. Freedom of religion does.
 
Obama gave them the whole show when he surrendered our position to them.

Deflection. Like clockwork. Don't conservative EVER take responsibility for their failed ideology?
 
Deflection. Like clockwork. Don't conservative EVER take responsibility for their failed ideology?

Are you now agreeing that we should have maintained a force in Iraq?
 
Are you now agreeing that we should have maintained a force in Iraq?

Pssst: we had no choice thanks to the fiasco Bush initiated. That's what happens when you invade a country and that's why only stupid conservative presidents tend to do that.

Think Libya and Syria as the smart way to go.
 
Al Qaida works for US strategy.

In 1990, Soviet bloc collapsed. US intelligence turned its resource which used to deal with Soviet bloc to the new target - Mid-east countries which are rich in natural resource. Bin Laden, an asset of the CIA in Afghanistan war(against Russian), was revived in this new project as a false flag - Islamic extremist. He went to Sudan first in 1991.

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia .

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

Saudi and US didn't take the offer with various excuse because Bin Laden is a living plant they deployed there.

In 1995, Bin Laden tried to set up a connection with Saddam but was refused.

Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam, al Qaida

A September 2006 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Saddam was "distrustful of al Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qaida to provide material or operational support."

The Senate report, citing an FBI debriefing of a senior Iraqi spy, Faruq Hijazi , said that Saddam turned down a request for assistance by bin Laden which he made at a 1995 meeting in Sudan with an Iraqi operative.

Yahoo!

Sudan may have felt the danger to accomodate Bin Laden. In May 1996, the Sudanese asked bin Laden to leave. He went to Afghan and stay there until now.

In August 1998, Sudan and Afghanistan were bombed by US missiles.

In 2001, after 911, Afghan, facing US invasion, made an offer but failed.

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over
* Taliban demand evidence of Bin Laden's guilt

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 14 October 2001 22.19 BST

http://www.politic.co.uk/18142-remember-osama.html

In Bin Laden's recent 20 years, the countries he went or tried to go, have something in common: They all have rich natural resources. Sudan and Iraq have oil. Afghan has rich mine. '

Afghanistan to develop $3 trillion in mining potential
DUBAI | Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:14pm
Afghanistan to develop $3 trillion in mining potential | Reuters

He didn't go to Yemen, Somali or Syria for his "revolution" because they are resource poor countries, not in US interest list. He didn't go to Saudi or Kuwait. Because they are US allies. He only went to Sudan, Afghan, or Iraq (intended to) because these three countries were not controlled by US at that time. As a living plant, he gave US the excuse to activate attack on these three countries. (Even Saddam realized that Bin Laden was a dangerous living plant and rejected him, Iraq at last was invaded with an unexisted WMD)

The reviving of Al Qaida in Iraq is to give US an excuse to return to Iraq.
 
Al Qaida works for US strategy. The reviving of Al Qaida in Iraq is to give US an excuse to return to Iraq.

Under whose American leadership? And why would the US want to return to Iraq?
 
Now, youre getting your terminology mixed up.

OK, then, if you don't like the term "theocracy", can you think of an example of a nation where the church and state are one, but still has religious freedom?
 
OK, then, if you don't like the term "theocracy", can you think of an example of a nation where the church and state are one, but still has religious freedom?

England.
 
So basically my hope of a credible source is not going to happen...
Colin Powell thought so, and said so during a speech at the U.N. You can go look it up. I'm not bothering with a link.
 
W signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Here is Sec 2 (5)
"(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement"

So congress and the president saw eye to eye on Iraq's WMD's among other violations of the ceasefire from 1991.
 


No Al Qaida was heard in Iraq of Saddam's regime. Who brought them in?


I'm not surprised. Iraq is a major petroleum producer. Many are reluctant to get behind viable alternatives because trusted pundits have effectively communicated American ingenuity cannot be believed in and unlike every other new technology, the present state of electric cars will never improve and come down in price once introduced to the market. Besides, defunding Al Qaeda is far less important than winning an ideological sparing match with the environmentalist wackos. Instead the best we can do is add about 20% more oil to the global petroleum market, trick Americans into thinking oil drilled domestically will not be sold on the global market but instead will replace Middle Eastern Oil and hope we end up forcing the Middle East into dangerous alliances with China and Russia, their new strategic trading partners and allies. Meanwhile, the dictators celebrate because they know as long as America is as committed to oil as they are, they'll be able to rake in trillions for decades to come and Al Qaeda benefits from the trickle down oil economy. We dig our heels in resisting new innovations that could be exported globally that would dry up Al Qaeda funding like a prune. Dictators control our economy and get rich doing so and we're happy because we get to thumb our noses at the lefty environmentalists while spending $3 to $4 a gallon at the pump on a vitally needed monopoly.
 
Back
Top Bottom