WHY ARE WE IN NAJAF?

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ucrr/20040813/cm_ucrr/whyareweinnajaf&cid=123&ncid=1501

SAG HARBOR, N.Y. -- Sen. John Kerry has not been successful so far in articulating answers to questions about whether and how the United States should go to war. But he will be guided by this draft of military application policy:

"The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest. If the decision is made to commit its forces to combat abroad, it must be done with clear intent and support to win. There must be clearly defined and realistic objectives. There must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for will have the support of the American people and Congress. Our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available."

The author of those words, slightly paraphrased here, is not working in the Kerry campaign. Those are the words of President Ronald Reagan, condensing the thoughts of his secretary of defense, Caspar Weinberger, whose original version, part of a speech he made in late 1984, included the phrase "or of our allies" after "vital to our national interest."

So what are we doing in Najaf? Is killing the followers of a nasty Shiite preacher, killing them at the gates of the most holy shrine of Shiite Muslims all over the world, vital to the national interests of the United States and its allies?

And why is it that we are killing Shiites, the wretched of the earth in the secular Sunni Muslim country of Saddam Hussein? That is the same Saddam who murdered the father of the preacher five years ago. Was that our clear intent and realistic objective in invading Iraq?

more

[Karenina]

1. Amis are bullies

and Al-Sadr is a "punk sandnigger TM" who needs to be put in the place the Amis think he needs to be put in. :shrug:

[Randi_Listener]

2. Sandnigger?

Who called him that?!?!

[Karenina]

5. Isn't that the latest lingo?

:shrug: Or is it Haji? Hell, it used to be gooks and slants... I dunno. I could be wrong, all that ganja in my misspent youth... short term memory and all... :silly:

[G_j]

15. I believe that term

was even used by one of the military's "interrogation" trainers.
sorry I don't have a link, but I remember reading that somewhere.
And yes it is a term used often by hateful freeper types. :puke:

[Must_B_Free]

3. "to defend our Freedom"

and what a fucking lie that is...

[democrank]

4. We`re in Najaf because

George Bush is keeping us free. He`s a freedom lover. He fights for freedom. Free people love freedom. President Bush is a hero freedom fighter fighting for freedom.

[Mobius]

11. dont forget the terrorists that are terrorizing us

its really terrifying. it would be terrifying if Bush didnt get reselected to protect us from all of that terror.

[0007]

6. Cuz they hate us for our freedom and our way of life and we

have to get our oil before they try to steal it from us.

[shindig]

7. and because we love the Iraqi soccer team so much and

didn't want them to get tortured anymore just because they lost a match.

[trof]

17. Well, that too. But mainly Clinton's (you-know).

[Robbien]

8. We are in Najaf because Allawi screwed up

Allawi has no idea what is going on in Iraq and like Chalabi before him, he is leading Bush and our military into bad situations.

[Hidebo]

9. Because we need to kill every single bastard who opposes Bushies'

puppet government.

[Nambe]

10. It started with shutting down a Shi'ite cleric's newspaper.

He was fairly influencial but his status bloomed with the shutdown. Then, of course, our troops were later sent to his house "not to arrest him" and a firefight broke out.

That's the nutshell as I recall. Again, poor administration decisions.

[Aidoneus]

13. That is incorrect

One of Sadr(HA)'s aids was illegally seized by the invaders in connection on a false and trumped up charge. Many demonstrations against this act quickly came about, when the Spanish occupation forces (at the "al-Andalus" named base, no less) unleashed a massacre upon one of these. A similar massacre took place in Madinat as-Sadr, with US tanks crushing unarmed protestors Tiananmen-style. That brought an end to peaceful demonstrations and the beginning of the armed resistance for the Mahdi's Army. The newspaper was just an affront of the same time period, but the real provocation was the murders that took place.

[slojim240]

12. To kill all the people, silly.

Why else?

[BlackJack8324]

14. we're in Najaf

So Bush and Allawi can demonstrate their "strength" other than that I see no strategic reason to take Najaf. Sadr may be a thug but he certainly wasn't taken action against US forces before this. He could've been ignored for now. As the election gets closer Bush will continue taking risky chances.

[DrWeird]

16. Bush is behind in the polls.

He's even starting to loose his base.

He figures if he kills a bunch of muslims people will be happy to vote for him. At least his base. And he's right. Good thing his base is only the super rich and Klan members.

[ilovenicepeople]

18. Here's my guess

Najaf is important religiously(the mosque) to the people of Iran,destroying said object would"kick it up a notch!" in a war kind of way. WAR GOOD:scared:

[genius]

19. We didn't like Saddam. So the people united behind Al Sadr. We don't

like him either. So we want to have another war for Iraq so that our puppet government can have the power.

[Jack Rabbit]

20. Answer

US troops are need to put down a rebellion against the sovereign and democratic government of Iraq by Iraqi people.

Any other questions?

[Karenina]

21. Erraaa...

I guess that pretty much explains it. ;-)

[Medium Baby Jesus]

22. Looking for WMD's. No?? n/t

[rocktivity]

23. Bush wants to go to the GOP convention with Al-Sadr's head on a platter

He's not Osama, but he's better than nothing.

:headbang:
rocknation

[number6]

24. ?

:shrug: