Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

So, what do you think about our military being engaged in a holy war?

I have said all the risk of looking like a lunatic conspiracy theorist...that this war isn't about terrorism or making us safer but at it's base is a religious holy war championed by the right to bring about the 'second coming'. And more and more evidence seems to be surfacing that proves that...evidence like this...

So, what do you think? Did we go to war to remove a dictator...or to install a new religion?

Answer Question

Asked by mizkaye at 12:46 PM on Dec. 16, 2008 in Politics & Current Events

Level 3 (15 Credits)
Answers (19)
  • I believe we are in Iraq because that's where the oil is. George W. is just trying to finish what his daddy started in Gulf War.

    I cannot honestly say it's about religion because 80% of the people I know enlisted and deployed aren't even Christian really.

    Answer by Anonymous at 12:49 PM on Dec. 16, 2008

  • Yeah, I don't think it would be a true holy war unless the guys doing the fighting were fighting in the name of God Almighty, or whatever name you want to give to him.

    We're in Iraq because of oil. Bush's family is involved with Exxon, so of course oil is important for their survival.

    Answer by caitxrawks at 12:53 PM on Dec. 16, 2008

  • I don't think it's a holy war or anything like that. I do know that there are some nutjobs on the extreme end who would like it to be, and who try to play it off as how it's all tying into their grand plan and all that.

    But, just because they want it to be true doesn't make it so. There are nuts on each extreme end of the spectrum, it's just in this case they're at the conservative end.

    Answer by sailorwifenmom at 1:29 PM on Dec. 16, 2008

  • I don't believe this has anything to do with a holy war. We are not enforcing the Iraqis or even Afganistan people to become Christians. We allow them to believe in whoever they see as God. You know my husband was in a fire fight and they stopped right in the middle to pray to their God. My husband and his unit had to wait for them to finish before they picked up the fire fight...crazy huh. To think that we are after Oil is ridiculous, don't you think that we would already have it by now? It doesn't take 5yrs to gain access to oil. We went in there to rid that country of terrorists and Al Queda.

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:43 PM on Dec. 16, 2008

  • LOL - if it was about oil and only oil, we would have invaded Venezuela. At the time of the invasion, they were producing more oil than Iraq, they are the only non-Muslim member of OPEC, we have horrible relations with them / Chavez so we could have used the whole "we're going to support the rebels to overthrow this evil government (and get sweet oil deals in return), or, if we didn't have such bad relations with him, the whole "we're supporting this legit government that's being attacked by rebels and their own homegrown terrorists" (and get sweet oil deals in return) angle.


    Answer by sailorwifenmom at 2:25 PM on Dec. 16, 2008

  • They aren't half a world away, which is important for many reasons - 1 - we have the Monroe Doctrine, which says basically that if it happens in this hemisphere it's our business, which, over the years has pretty much set the precedent for our involvement in all sorts of South and Central American politics. 2 - It means a shorter supply line for our troops on the ground, and a shorter supply line getting the oil back to here, which makes more sense from a financial and tactical point of view.


    Answer by sailorwifenmom at 2:25 PM on Dec. 16, 2008

  • We went in there to rid that country of terrorists and Al Queda.

    Al Qaeda wasn't there until AFTER we took out Saddam. and what terrorists?


    Answer by autodidact at 2:26 PM on Dec. 16, 2008

  • They aren't Muslim, so we wouldn't have had the whole "it's a holy war, infidels attacking the faith, let's declare jihad" situation that we've had.

    Also, if it was only about oil, then we would not be bankrupting ourselves the way we have - do you realize that we - the US - is financing the war and the reconstruction there, but that the Iraqi government is keeping all the profits from the oil? If we were doing it only for the oil, it would not have been unreasonable for our government to say "until you're more stable and back on your feet, and to pay for your liberation from Saddam, we're seizing these assets". It wouldn't have made us look any more or less bad in the world stage than we already did.

    Answer by sailorwifenmom at 2:28 PM on Dec. 16, 2008

  • Finally, I do NOT think we should invade Venezuela or anything like that - I'm just showing why the oil argument, while politically a great soundbite, is actually factually wrong.

    I believe, rightly or wrongly, we went in because the people in charge - NOT just Bush but CONGRESS as well - thought at the time he was a threat. I ABSOLUTELY believe that for Rumsfeld though it was a personal thing - finishing what he started a decade earlier.

    Answer by sailorwifenmom at 2:30 PM on Dec. 16, 2008

  • btw - does anyone know why Japan got involved in WII? It was because they were becoming more and more industrialized and as an island nation didn't have the natural resources - namely oil - to support it. They were empire building and wanting oil and other resources. We had an embargo on them because they had invaded China to take resources from them. One thing led to another - and we had Pearl Harbor and the US in WWII.

    Answer by sailorwifenmom at 2:35 PM on Dec. 16, 2008

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.