Al Qaeda declares WAR--> on IRAN

[thx1138]

Quote by: GHook93 Eventually Sadam would falter his grip and the majority Shia's would do an uprising. Or Sadam would die of natural causes. Either way a civil war would be inevitable that some point.

Yes, but it would be their civil war.
Think about the U.S. civil war, what do you think would of happened in Britian and France were allow to come in on the side of the south?

This almost happen if not for the Czar of Russia warning both countries not to help the southern states. If Russia did not do this the south would have won the war, the U.S. would have been dissolved and divided among Britian and France (which is was before 1776).

Threat of international intervention Main article: Great Britain in the American Civil War Entry into the war by Britain and France on behalf of the Confederacy would have greatly increased the South's chances of winning independence from the Union. The Union, under Lincoln and Secretary of State William Henry Seward worked to block this, and threatened war if any country officially recognized the existence of the Confederate States of America (none ever did). In 1861, Southerners voluntarily embargoed cotton shipments, hoping to start an economic depression in Europe that would force Britain to enter the war in order to get cotton. Cotton diplomacy proved a failure as Europe had a surplus of cotton, while the 1860-62 crop failures in Europe made the North's grain exports of critical importance. It was said that "King Corn was more powerful than King Cotton", as US grain went from a quarter of the British import trade to almost half.[121] When the UK did face a cotton shortage, it was temporary; being replaced by increased cultivation in Egypt and India. The war created employment for arms makers, iron workers, and British ships to transport weapons.[122] Charles Francis Adams proved particularly adept as minister to Britain for the Union, and Britain was reluctant to boldly challenge the Union's blockade. Independent British maritime interests built and operated highly profitable blockade runners — commercial ships flying the British flag and carrying supplies to the Confederacy by slipping through the blockade. The officers and crews were British and when captured they were released. The Confederacy purchased several warships from commercial ship builders in Britain; the most famous, the CSS Alabama, did considerable damage and led to serious postwar disputes. However, public opinion against slavery created a political liability for European politicians, especially in Britain. War loomed in late 1861 between the U.S. and Britain over the Trent Affair, involving the Union boarding of a British mail steamer to seize two Confederate diplomats. However, London and Washington were able to smooth over the problem after Lincoln released the two diplomats. In 1862, the British considered mediation—though even such an offer would have risked war with the U.S. Lord Palmerston reportedly read Uncle Tom’s Cabin three times[123] when deciding on this. The Union victory in the Battle of Antietam caused them to delay this decision. The Emancipation Proclamation further reinforced the political liability of supporting the Confederacy. Despite some sympathy for the Confederacy, France's own seizure of Mexico ultimately deterred them from war with the Union. Confederate offers late in the war to end slavery in return for diplomatic recognition were not seriously considered by London or Paris.

[GHook93]

(1) Source Please?
(2) I agree it would be their civil war and NO foreign body has any right to interfere with it. The point I was trying to make was that the war was inevitable, much as the American Civil war was.

[billybobama]

Quote by: GHook93 Calm down and speak with less emotion. You haven't been around for a while, so you have read few posts of mine. Man how did a thread about Iran and its new problem of Al Qaeda get turned to a thread on an Iraq justification? I digress. Once there were no WMDs found in Iraq I was against the war. I am and have always been against nation building wars. I support Ron Paul's stance of bring all our troops home from all over the world. But Mr. Democrat, who are the war-mongers? Vietnam war --> Started by JFK and LBJ Korean War --> President Truman Bombing of Kosvo --> President Clinton WW II --> FDR WW I --> Woodrow Wilson What do all these guys have in common? They were are democrats. Now I am not stating that their were no justifiable wars. I believe WW II and Kosvo were highly justifiable. As I also see Desert Storm and the Afghanistan War as justifiable. The recent track record is for Republicans as the war-mongers, but look at all the military conflicts before Desert Storm and they were started by your beloved Democratic party.

Thanks for the History Lesson. I am sure you know the entire history of all these conflicts. I do know that WWII was started when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on the U.S.A. I tend to just talk about things I know. One lie out of five is better than you have been doing. I don't know enough about the other four situations to discuss them. I do know the Nixon Adminustration lied about Viet Nam and shot unarmed U.S. Citizens down in the streets. Nixon got this idea from China.

[GHook93]

Quote by: billybobama Thanks for the History Lesson. I am sure you know the entire history of all these conflicts. I do know that WWII was started when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on the U.S.A. I tend to just talk about things I know. One lie out of five is better than you have been doing. I don't know enough about the other four situations to discuss them. I do know the Nixon Adminustration lied about Viet Nam and shot unarmed U.S. Citizens down in the streets. Nixon got this idea from China.

of the 20th and 21st century I see 4 wars that America was just for entering:

(1) WW II
(2) Desert Storm
(3) The Bombing of Kosvo
(4) Afghanistan War

Man none of these were nation building wars. Besides that WW I was not necessary for us to enter. Korea and Vietnam were stupid battles for us. They were nation building exhibitions and not worth it. I wish the Big Bush would have not slept in his history classes and studied the lessons of Vietnam and Korea.

[shrike]

Quote by: ghook Al Qaeda declares WAR--> on IRAN

Not quite.

WASHINGTON — One of two known Al Qaeda leadership councils meets regularly in eastern Iran, where the American intelligence community believes dozens of senior Al Qaeda leaders have reconstituted a good part of the terror conglomerate's senior leadership structure. That is a consensus judgment from a final working draft of a new National Intelligence Estimate, titled "The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland," on the organization that attacked the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The estimate, which represents the opinion of America's intelligence agencies, is now finished, and unclassified conclusions will be shared today with the public. The classified document includes four main sections, examining how Al Qaeda in recent years has increased its capacity to stage another attack on American soil; how the organization has replenished the ranks of its top leaders; nations where Al Qaeda operates, and the status of its training camps and physical infrastructure. The judgment that Iran has hosted Al Qaeda's senior leadership council is likely to draw some criticism from those outside the government who doubt Iran plays a significant role in bolstering Sunni jihadist terrorism. Iran's Shiite Muslims are considered infidels by the Salafi sect of Sunnis that comprise Al Qaeda. Iran Is Found To Be a Lair of Al Qaeda - July 17, 2007 - The New York Sun

The main goal for fundamentalist Muslims is rid the world from infidels. Until this done they may be temporary alliance between Shia and Sunni

[GHook93]

Quote by: shrike Not quite. The main goal for fundamentalist Muslims is rid the world from infidels. Until this done they may be temporary alliance between Shia and Sunni

I don't think so. You won't see the problems in Iraq if this was true. Both sides don't think straight and are driven by irrational beliefs that their religions are the only way.

[shrike]

I don't think so. You won't see the problems in Iraq if this was true. Both sides don't think straight and are driven by irrational beliefs that their religions are the only way

They may battle each other in Iraq because they know that US will be out soon.But they acted together to reach this goal.

[rmnunez]

No acting together at all, just pursuing similar targets. Until today there has been no evidence of any cooperation between "insurgent" factions, I just saw a note that said 4 insurgent leaders announced an agreement to coordinate among 7 of them.

[GHook93]

Quote by: rmnunez No acting together at all, just pursuing similar targets. Until today there has been no evidence of any cooperation between "insurgent" factions, I just saw a note that said 4 insurgent leaders announced an agreement to coordinate among 7 of them.

They actively are fighting each other in proxy wars between Shiites (backed by Iran and Hezbollah) and Sunnis (back by Al Qaeda). Which is presisely the reason Al Qaeda has declared war on Iran.

[rmnunez]

If it really were a civil war I'd expect to see a clear divison of the Iraqis in 2 camps supporting or opposing he government. If it were actually an insurgency repudiating the foreign occupier, I'd expect a lot more solidarity among factions, less Iraqi casualties and more patriotic than religious rhetoric from them.

[GHook93]

Quote by: rmnunez If it really were a civil war I'd expect to see a clear divison of the Iraqis in 2 camps supporting or opposing he government. If it were actually an insurgency repudiating the foreign occupier, I'd expect a lot more solidarity among factions, less Iraqi casualties and more patriotic than religious rhetoric from them.

It will be a 3 front civil war with the Kurds in the North make the 3rd army.

[billybobama]

Quote by: GHook93 of the 20th and 21st century I see 4 wars that America was just for entering: (1) WW II (2) Desert Storm (3) The Bombing of Kosvo (4) Afghanistan War Man none of these were nation building wars. Besides that WW I was not necessary for us to enter. Korea and Vietnam were stupid battles for us. They were nation building exhibitions and not worth it. I wish the Big Bush would have not slept in his history classes and studied the lessons of Vietnam and Korea.

The entire Bush Crime Family are Fascist idealogs. This explains everything about Iraq.

[billybobama]

Quote by: GHook93 It will be a 3 front civil war with the Kurds in the North make the 3rd army.

The Kurds alredy have their own currency, army, government and a controlled border. Come on, we are way past all this - "Is there a Civil War BS."

[rmnunez]

If the Kurds were engaged in the Iraqi conflict this would be a War of Seccession for them. This is not the same thing as a Civil War in the conventional and accepted use. Civil Wars are national conflicts of a magnitude to substantially engage the regular recognized armed forces, within the national bloundaries against a domestic force which is not regionally circumscribed. Civil Wars are about ideological struggles of national scope. The united statians mistakenly refer to their War of Seccession as a Civil War, elsewhere the distinction is made when separatists are involved. Legally this is very important because separatists, the Kurds for example, can be recognized. Once recognized, a government can lend support, provide assistance, money, equipment, send delegations, establish diplomatic relations and grant the recognized those rights reciprocally.

[Trotsky]

If the Kurds went for secession from Iraq and the formation of a Kurdish state, watch the Turks, Syrians and Iranians intervene to destroy this. Their Kurdish populations are too big and too militant to allow a Kurdistan to exist.

[rmnunez]

I don't advocate an independent Kurdish state, I think there should be limits to the application of this principle of self-determination.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: GHook93 This should debuke the Bush administration's propaganda that the Shiite Iranian regime has ties to the Sunni Al Qaeda organization. Not saying that Iran isn't a threat who supports terrorist (Hezbollah and Shiite militias), but the ties to Al Qaeda are unfound..

Leadership is not from Iraq either, so this is no civil war.

Leader of Al Qaeda group in Iraq was fictional, U.S. military says
Leader of Al Qaeda group in Iraq was fictional, U.S. military says - International Herald Tribune


Al Qaeda, Iranian terrorists are two of AMerica's main enemies in Iraq


Iranian support for militias in Iraq rising, US says
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...429370,00.html

Iranian missiles aimed at US base found in Iraq
Teheran says it will continue its nuclear activities | Jerusalem Post

Bush links Iraq with Al Qaeda
"Al Qaeda in Iraq is a group founded by foreign terrorists, led largely by foreign terrorists and loyal to a foreign terrorist leader: Osama bin Laden," ...
Gulf Daily News