Posted on 04/05/2004 12:05:32 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
Nobody else is saying it, so, once again, it is left to me to explain what really happened in Iraq yesterday.
Iran declared war on the U.S.
The signs have been there for a long time. I don't know if they have been intentionally ignored by U.S. forces in Iraq, or whether there is some master plan at the Defense Department to deal with this scenario.
All I can tell you is we are now fighting a regional war. Our local opposition in Iraq is being trained, armed and directed with foreign support – by neighboring Iran.
The uprising yesterday was treated in many initial news accounts as a spontaneous uprising directed by Najaf cleric Moktada al-Sadr.
What the other news accounts left out was one significant, but well-established fact: Al-Sadr works for Iran. He is an Iranian agent. His authority comes from Iran.
Last April, an Iranian cleric, Kadhem al-Husseini al-Haeri, issued a religious edict and distributed to Shiite mullahs in Iraq, calling on them "to seize the first possible opportunity to fill the power vacuum in the administration of Iraqi cities."
The edict, or fatwa, issued April 8, 2003, showed that Shiite clerics in Iraq are receiving significant direction from Iran. The edict said that Shiite leaders have to "seize as many positions as possible to impose a fait accompli for any coming government."
"People have to be taught not to collapse morally before the means used by the Great Satan if it stays in Iraq," the fatwa read. "It will try to spread moral decay, incite lust by allowing easy access to stimulating satellite channels and spread debauchery to weaken people's faith."
The fatwa also instructed the cleric's followers to "raise people's awareness of the Great Satan's plans and of the means to abort them."
On April 7, the day American troops effectively toppled Hussein's government by seizing its main seats of power in Baghdad, al-Haeri sent a handwritten letter to the city of Najaf, appointing Moktada al-Sadr as his deputy in Iraq.
Haeri wrote: "We hereby inform you that Mr. Moktada al-Sadr is our deputy and representative in all fatwa affairs."
It added: "His position is my position."
Also last April, WorldNetDaily reported that Iran had armed and trained some 40,000 Shiite Iraqi fighters – most former prisoners of war captured during the Iran-Iraq war – and sent them to Iraq to foment an Islamic revolution. The report originated in my premium, online, intelligence newsletter G2 Bulletin.
The report said this small army represents the vanguard of Iran's effort to subvert the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq and use the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime for its own ends.
"Ayatollah Mohammed Bakir Khakim is on record pledging more than once to his followers a plan to impose Islamic rule over Iraq with the help of Iran," reports G2 Bulletin. "The Tehran ayatollahs, or the Pasadran, the powerful revolutionary guard, repeatedly have been telling the Iraqis they would be their legitimate allies and partners. In such a scenario, there is no room for the U.S. The coalition that liberated Iraq is seen by the Iraqi Shiite militants and their Iranian sponsors as a tool for handing Iraq over to them without the need to use a massive force of their own."
Iran has clear objectives in Iraq. The only question is whether the United States still has clear objectives in Iraq – and whether Washington recognizes that this war front just got wider.
Should be the other way around.
Syria and it's vassal state Lebanon can be done quickly from the Med and from Iraq.
I discount Jordan and the Jordanians calling themselves Palestinian as they can be controlled by Israel.
Once our rear is secure then Iran.
Those were critical concerns. Even wise men cannot see all ends, and he could not have known what would become of his descisions 20-25 years later.
However, I still maintain that when a nation initiates acts of war against us, it should be met with all force we are capable of mustering. To not do so will ALWAYS encourage more of the same.
The Iranians, mindful of Reagan's reputation, wisely released the hostages on the day of his inauguration. When he took no further action against them, they came to believe that he, too, was all talk. They tested him again in Beirut, with similar results. Their perceptions were confirmed. The rest is history.
As for Congress, Reagan wasn't known as "The Great Communicator" for nothin'. He was well able to make a case for war to the American people, much as he did for tax cuts and limited government. Congress would have had little choice but to follow along, as they ultimately did on his other programs, with the exception of spending, which they are genetically linked to.
It is called leadership. Reagan had it in spades, and could have done it. However, he didn't, most likely for the reasons outlined in post #55. I am sure that he would have if he made the choice himself, but as has also been pointed out, he had some advisors who had far less ball$ than he did. They may have convinced him not to act. It's happened many times, to many different Presidents.
Personally, I think he'd have, left to his own devices, cleaned up the whole Middle East in short order, sparing us what we have today.
Neutron bombs will kill them all
An enhanced radiation warhead is a nuke.
It does raise the question: Would the Soviet Union really go to war with us over a treaty signed prior to the communists even coming to power, and with a country that frankly got themselves into the mess in the first place?
Also, could the threat of nuclear retaliation have kept them out, were they to decide to intervene?
And finally, what part, if any, would their war in Afghanistan (ongoing at the time) have played in their thinking?
Ah, well, we can play "What If?" all day, I suppose. It still remains, however, that faced with acts of war against America, what should a President do? Letting it slide might indeed have been the only viable option available to Reagan at the time, but, with the benefit of hindsight, it was a poor option indeed.
We are winning ~ the bad guys are losing ~ trolls, terrorists, democrats and the mainstream media are sad ~ very sad!
The outside influences from the Shi'ites in Iran won't allow democracy to take hold in Iraq. The deep religious hatred by the Shi'ites towards America and the threat of democracy taking hold in the region simply won't allow Iran to stay out of it.
We really must assess how much we are willing to sacrifice in attempting to bring stability to a region where stability and democracy may be utterly impossible.
Not only that, we must also be aware of the great giants of Russia and China waiting in the wings to see how far we will take this thing.
Now, not only are we in occupation status in Afghanistan and Iraq, but we are also going to have to monitor the border between Iraq and Iran for insurgents coming into Iraq to stir and support subversion against the new government (which has yet to be even formed).
The picture is expanding daily - exponentially.
While this is occurring to the east of Israel, the Palestinians continue to plot the destruction of that country (with aid from who knows where).
The whole region from Israel to Iran continues to be a powder keg that could explode any second and cover the entire region in total war.
For example, what would happen in Iran and Iraq if Arafat were assassinated? What impact would it have on our mission to democratize Iraq?
This is a religious war in the minds of hundreds of millions of Muslims. But it is considered just a pain in the butt to the majority of Americans and Europeans - they don't consider it to be a "religious war" and really don't want to be bothered with it at all - as long as it doesn't come into their towns and neighborhoods.
We must act swiftly and with overwhelming force in Iraq within the next few weeks and months if we are to bring this disaster under control and prevent a regional war with Iran.
This being an election year isn't helping matters any either. We can't get enough occupation forces augmentation from other nations, so we are having to bear the brunt of this battle ourselves. We have activated units in the Guard and Reserve to levels unseen since WWII and that still may not be enough to stabilize the new Iraqi democracy.
Thee is no easy answer. But one thing we know for sure, the Iranian mullahs, the Palestinians, and the Islamic nations surrounding our forces in Iraq want to see but one thing come out of all of this and that is for the United States to fail miserably. And these forces will subvert with all the means in their power toward those ends.
Unless there is a major world war that changes the entire world political landscape, we will have U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq at least for the next twenty years.
Now there are (and will be) fewer jihadists (and their evildoer pals) to contend with...leading up to, if necessary, a far larger, immediate response, and then it would be a response which would be accepted by the majority of the freedom-loving (PC polluted) world, our noble troops having behaved honorably, sacrificing much - and this administration exhausting other, more 'reasonable' options for dealing with those bent on destroying civilization in the name of a hateful god.
We are already at war on two fronts. Are you suggesting we institute the draft so that we can wage war on a couple more at the same time? I'm not saying I'm opposed to that, just saying we don't have the resources as things now stand.
___________________________________________________________________________
However we have some excellent news here:
Report Details Saddam's Support for Terrorists Who Killed Americans
The above link is the FreeRepublic discussion thread.
The actual article is :
"Saddam Hussein’s Philanthropy of Terror"
It is a pdf document with substantial footnotes and put together by Dewey Murdock of the Hudson Institute.
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.