the truth about iraq

[rocktometal]

ok im a republican and all that and i beleive we should have invaded iraq, but i will be the first to say we screwed up once in iraq. these are why:
1. bush and his cabinet had no post-invasion plan.
2. powell and rumsfeld were too busy argueing with each other
3. rumsfeld is a mega jack ass who pissed off the generals and made a fool of himself with the press
4. the government can never get shit done regardless about whose in office
5. the press (the ny times especially) wrote bullshit about iraq before the war (like the story 'bout there "chemical" weopens which we all now know were never there.
6. general franks and that Paul Bremer III were retards
so that is how we ended up in a second vietnam

[BreakerBreaker]

Good post. Well thought out and very informative.

[captainhampton]

Good post. Well thought out and very informative.
sarcasm i hope

[halfamile]

sarcasm i hope

a classic response known to kill the moment of oh so many beer driven one liners

[rocktometal]

a classic response known to kill the moment of oh so many beer driven one liners

you just resurrected my thread i thought it was dead. but just so it doesn't look like im pulling this thing out of my ass, the basis for this thread was the book 'fiasco' a somewhat onesided liberal account of iraq. however that said it is unfortunately the closest thing you'll find to 'the truth about iraq' as of right now.

[halfamile]

you just resurrected my thread i thought it was dead. but just so it doesn't look like im pulling this thing out of my ass, the basis for this thread was the book 'fiasco' a somewhat onesided liberal account of iraq. however that said it is unfortunately the closest thing you'll find to 'the truth about iraq' as of right now.

no! you're a republican (or so you say) like me, so we have to form a team of well trained soldiers who post here regularly and not give a shit about over-dramatic political discussion

...join me?

[rocktometal]

no! you're a republican (or so you say) like me, so we have to form a team of well trained soldiers who post here regularly and not give a shit about over-dramatic political discussion

...join me?

sure, i cant stand over dramatized political discussions

[preppyak]

sure, i cant stand over dramatized political discussions

or apparently factually based statements either...

You listed 6 reasons as "truth", and gave no facts to support it...it wasn't even worth your time to type it

[halfamile]

sure, i cant stand over dramatized political discussions

nice!...you can start by not replying to the last person

[rocktometal]

damn i was sourta lookin forward to takin him on, ah well a good soldier always follows orders.

[halfamile]

damn i was sourta lookin forward to takin him on, ah well a good soldier always follows orders.

oh no, this is not a heirarchy...it's a team effort

[catchmealone]

oh no, this is not a heirarchy...it's a team effort
soooo, you guys are gonna come to the Politics section of the message board and boycott talking about Politics?

That's the dumbest thing I've heard, maybe ever.

[tambam]

Yay, I agree.

[selftitled85]

ok im a republican and all that, but i will be the first to say we screwed up in iraq. these are why:
1. bush and his cabinet had no post-invasion plan.
2. powell and rumsfeld were too busy argueing with each other
3. rumsfeld is a mega jack ass who pissed off the generals and made a fool of himself with the press
4. the government can never get shit done regardless about whose in office
5. the press (the ny times especially) wrote bullshit about iraq before the war (like the story 'bout there "chemical" weopens which we all now know were never there.6. general franks and that Paul Bremer III were retards
so that is how we ended up in a second vietnam

actually they had used chemical weapons before. so it was a safe assumption to think they still had them.

[rocktometal]

soooo, you guys are gonna come to the Politics section of the message board and boycott talking about Politics?

That's the dumbest thing I've heard, maybe ever.

seriously? i wish i could say that, unfortunately though id already heard about paris hilton's new cd.

[catchmealone]

seriously? i wish i could say that, unfortunately though id already heard about paris hilton's new cd.
zing?
fuck off

[saysmydoctor]

ok im a republican and all that, but i will be the first to say we screwed up in iraq. these are why:
1. bush and his cabinet had no post-invasion plan.
2. powell and rumsfeld were too busy argueing with each other
3. rumsfeld is a mega jack ass who pissed off the generals and made a fool of himself with the press
4. the government can never get shit done regardless about whose in office
5. the press (the ny times especially) wrote bullshit about iraq before the war (like the story 'bout there "chemical" weopens which we all now know were never there.
6. general franks and that Paul Bremer III were retards
so that is how we ended up in a second vietnam

you just resurrected my thread i thought it was dead. but just so it doesn't look like im pulling this thing out of my ass, the basis for this thread was the book 'fiasco' a somewhat onesided liberal account of iraq. however that said it is unfortunately the closest thing you'll find to 'the truth about iraq' as of right now.
Wow.

1. Bush and his cabinet had a post-invasion plan, but it did not anticipate such an insurregency. There is a difference between inadequacy and blatant nothingness.
2. Powell and Rumsfeld were in full agreement: Bush didn't know what he was doing. But Rumsfeld knows how to play politics and Powell doesn't like to embarass himself at the UN. Hence why he is gone and Rice is in.
3. Rumsfeld = Republican. Generals (For The Most Part) = Democrats. Hmm, I wonder. And he only made a fool of himself BECAUSE of Bush.
4. Stfu?
5. Iraq has been under suspicion AND sanctions since 1991 and they were an ongoing crisis since. Hence why we bombed them in 1997, 1995, 1996, and numerous other times
6. General Franks is a brillant general who designed tactics that allowed Baghdad to fall so quickly. Why the fuck weren't you in the tanks?

[jakobslad]

Wow.

1. Bush and his cabinet had a post-invasion plan, but it did not anticipate such an insurregency. There is a difference between inadequacy and blatant nothingness.
2. Powell and Rumsfeld were in full agreement: Bush didn't know what he was doing. But Rumsfeld knows how to play politics and Powell doesn't like to embarass himself at the UN. Hence why he is gone and Rice is in.
3. Rumsfeld = Republican. Generals (For The Most Part) = Democrats. Hmm, I wonder. And he only made a fool of himself BECAUSE of Bush.
4. Stfu?
5. Iraq has been under suspicion AND sanctions since 1991 and they were an ongoing crisis since. Hence why we bombed them in 1997, 1995, 1996, and numerous other times
6. General Franks is a brillant general who designed tactics that allowed Baghdad to fall so quickly. Why the fuck weren't you in the tanks?
I'm still waiting for the Pentagon to respond to my emails regarding my "Stratego" challenge to Franks. Well said though.

[whitelines]

iraq is a piece of shit country. it should be moved into africa

[rocktometal]

Wow.

1. Bush and his cabinet had a post-invasion plan, but it did not anticipate such an insurregency. There is a difference between inadequacy and blatant nothingness.
2. Powell and Rumsfeld were in full agreement: Bush didn't know what he was doing. But Rumsfeld knows how to play politics and Powell doesn't like to embarass himself at the UN. Hence why he is gone and Rice is in.
3. Rumsfeld = Republican. Generals (For The Most Part) = Democrats. Hmm, I wonder. And he only made a fool of himself BECAUSE of Bush.
4. Stfu?
5. Iraq has been under suspicion AND sanctions since 1991 and they were an ongoing crisis since. Hence why we bombed them in 1997, 1995, 1996, and numerous other times
6. General Franks is a brillant general who designed tactics that allowed Baghdad to fall so quickly. Why the fuck weren't you in the tanks?

actually im in the process of becoming an officer in the marine corp so in a few years i may be in one of those tanks, which is why ive researched the iraq war as much as i have. so here is my responce to you:
1. if bush had a post invasion plan how come paul bremer wasn't brought in until months after victory had been declared? one would think bush would have a man ready to take over the job, instead he was forced to search for a guy once they were alredy in iraq.
2 .http://fuller.mit.edu/peace/powell_rumsfeld_rebuild.html read the last four paragraphs- they didn't disagree, huh?
3.no, not really. the military is mostly republican because the republicans support the military more then democrats do(example:reagon increased military funding, clinton decreased it)
4.?
5.those bombs were dropped not because of chemicals of mass destruction but because of saddam hussein's mass slaughter of innocent kurds and shi'ites. however that being said the kurds had been killed with chemicals of mass destruction, so i will back off here (selftitled85 your comment was probably the best responce on this thread)
6. how could franks have lost the war? he had superior forces (both numerically and training wise), he was facing an enemy whose leaders were on the run, and he bipassed hotbed cities like basra while racing straight to baghdad. and if he planned so well why was jessica lynch's group ambushed and killed? ill tell you why-because the army was so focused on rushing to baghdad that they were willing to let the weak fall behind, what happened to "no man left behnd?'
just to clear this up, i think we should have gone to iraq i just dont feel that the bush adinistration did as well they could have.

[make_this_hurt]

Wow.

1. Bush and his cabinet had a post-invasion plan, but it did not anticipate such an insurregency. There is a difference between inadequacy and blatant nothingness.
2. Powell and Rumsfeld were in full agreement: Bush didn't know what he was doing. But Rumsfeld knows how to play politics and Powell doesn't like to embarass himself at the UN. Hence why he is gone and Rice is in.
3. Rumsfeld = Republican. Generals (For The Most Part) = Democrats. Hmm, I wonder. And he only made a fool of himself BECAUSE of Bush.
4. Stfu?
5. Iraq has been under suspicion AND sanctions since 1991 and they were an ongoing crisis since. Hence why we bombed them in 1997, 1995, 1996, and numerous other times
6. General Franks is a brillant general who designed tactics that allowed Baghdad to fall so quickly. Why the fuck weren't you in the tanks?
Dude.. you're 16. You don't know shit.

[selftitled85]

about the generals:

look up "rise of the generals" on google...back in april and may many highly ranked generals talked about the war in iraq. the only reason franks and a couple generals get press is because they are key bush players. the other generals (ie the joint chiefs of staff) and other key generals who were against the war do not get a lot of press but they made their voice heard in april and may.

it is known that many key influential generals (including powell) had made comments stating the war was a bad idea and that more intel was needed. but a couple of bushs favs (franks) made cases for the war and they were quickly put into play.


all this aside: america was going to invade iraq some time. saddams time had come and gone. the problem is america should have waited for an uprising from the iraqi population instead of aimlessly invading. if they had waited for an uprising they could have had a lot more international support and probably a lot less of an insurgency.


you guys want to read a really good book on this check out "the assassins gate"

[rocktometal]

about the generals:

look up "rise of the generals" on google...back in april and may many highly ranked generals talked about the war in iraq. the only reason franks and a couple generals get press is because they are key bush players. the other generals (ie the joint chiefs of staff) and other key generals who were against the war do not get a lot of press but they made their voice heard in april and may.

it is known that many key influential generals (including powell) had made comments stating the war was a bad idea and that more intel was needed. but a couple of bushs favs (franks) made cases for the war and they were quickly put into play.


all this aside: america was going to invade iraq some time. saddams time had come and gone. the problem is america should have waited for an uprising from the iraqi population instead of aimlessly invading. if they had waited for an uprising they could have had a lot more international support and probably a lot less of an insurgency.


you guys want to read a really good book on this check out "the assassins gate"

id agree with alot of that, but we could be in a much better spot if we hadn't disbanded the iraqi army, and if we hadn't forced all the baath members out of office, finally if the soldiers had acted as a standing police force as soon as they got into iraq they could have stopped the looting and stabalized the country very quickly, so i think our timing could of worked if only bush had a better post war plan (ex. ww2 especially in japan, germany, and italy we disposed of the dictators and were able to replace them with stable governments), however if we had invaded the first time around (in 1991 i think) things could have gone better because there were uprisings by both Kurds and Shi'ites.

[selftitled85]

id agree with alot of that, but we could be in a much better spot if we hadn't disbanded the iraqi army, and if we hadn't forced all the baath members out of office, finally if the soldiers had acted as a standing police force as soon as they got into iraq they could have stopped the looting and stabalized the country very quickly, so i think our timing could of worked if only bush had a better post war plan (ex. ww2 especially in japan, germany, and italy we disposed of the dictators and were able to replace them with stable governments), however if we had invaded the first time around (in 1991 i think) things could have gone better because there were uprisings by both Kurds and Shi'ites.

agreed.

but i dont think bush planned on the insurgents coming. most of the original insurgents came from iran and other me countries.

and you could not allow any baath members to stay. the only ones still there were saddams cronies and almost all of them were greedy pricks that knew nothing about running a stabile/democratic government. it is true we disbanded the army but it is also true that a lot of the iraqis left the army before then. they saw the us and just ran away because they didnt wanna die. the army was in disarray and had no upper level leadership. it needed to be rebuilt.

[rocktometal]

my complaint against disbanding the army is that it caused a lot of trained iraqis to become unemployed, so what can they do? they aren't bringing in any money, their families are hungary, and you have a bunch of foreigners running the countries. its a recipe for disaster, besiedes not all the generals were baathists, some had risen through the ranks the hard way. so i thought it was a bad decision. in world war two in germany, we would delegate one non-nazi party member as a temporary town leader and he would tell the americans about any extreme nazis within their town. this way only hardcore nazis would be fired from their jobs, while the vast majority of citizens(many of them who were nazis) were able to retain their jobs. in the end their was no nazi insurgents in germany, because the plan worked and most citizens were willing to put away their political beleifs. in iraq we get rid of all the baathists, so even now some towns have no electricity or running water, because the people who ran it before were baathists and therefore fired. and the reason insurgents from other countrie were allowed in was because the military didn't immediately realize that they needed to act as a police force. ive heard stories about soldiers who just watched arabs crossing to and from iraq without having to go through any security, and they couldn't do anything, because they hadn't receives any orders to act.

[halfamile]

soooo, you guys are gonna come to the Politics section of the message board and boycott talking about Politics?

That's the dumbest thing I've heard, maybe ever.

have you ever shown up to a party drunk? yeah, that's kinda what we're doing

[selftitled85]

my complaint against disbanding the army is that it caused a lot of trained iraqis to become unemployed, so what can they do? they aren't bringing in any money, their families are hungary, and you have a bunch of foreigners running the countries. its a recipe for disaster, besiedes not all the generals were baathists, some had risen through the ranks the hard way. so i thought it was a bad decision. in world war two in germany, we would delegate one non-nazi party member as a temporary town leader and he would tell the americans about any extreme nazis within their town. this way only hardcore nazis would be fired from their jobs, while the vast majority of citizens(many of them who were nazis) were able to retain their jobs. in the end their was no nazi insurgents in germany, because the plan worked and most citizens were willing to put away their political beleifs. in iraq we get rid of all the baathists, so even now some towns have no electricity or running water, because the people who ran it before were baathists and therefore fired. and the reason insurgents from other countrie were allowed in was because the military didn't immediately realize that they needed to act as a police force. ive heard stories about soldiers who just watched arabs crossing to and from iraq without having to go through any security, and they couldn't do anything, because they hadn't receives any orders to act.

comparing post ww2 germany to post invasion iraq is impossible.

1)the world was scared shitless of the soviets and were willing to give up their own sovereinty if it meant their safety and some independence...the people of iraq have no been willing to do this
2) we disbanded the german military after ww2. the difference between then and now is that while the countries around germany were all sorts of fucked up and would cause no problems. iraq it is different. the countries around iraq are still hostile.
3) germany's population was much more together than iraqs. iraq has had a shit ton of internal strife for a long time. hitler was able to bring the whole country pretty much under one flag and get everyone to believe. after the war it pretty much stayed that way. even when germany was split in two...germans on both sides still called each other germans. in iraq they are sunni, or shiite, or kurd first...then iraqi second.
4) religion...religion...religion...re ligion
5) the people of germany were patient. they realized that it would take a couple years to be able to fix the problems and get some semblance of order back into germany. the people of iraq seemed to be under the impression that when democracy comes that all their problems will vanish soon after. it takes years...not weeks...to bring order. when the people dont see results right away they start freaking.
6) germany had an economy that was rather self-sufficient for a while and still had some of the infrastructure left after the war. there is nothing of the sort in iraq.


it is pointless to try and measure the two against each other. it is two completely different time periods...two completely different types of people...and two completely different worlds.

[saysmydoctor]

actually im in the process of becoming an officer in the marine corp so in a few years i may be in one of those tanks, which is why ive researched the iraq war as much as i have. so here is my responce to you:
1. if bush had a post invasion plan how come paul bremer wasn't brought in until months after victory had been declared? one would think bush would have a man ready to take over the job, instead he was forced to search for a guy once they were alredy in iraq.
2 .http://fuller.mit.edu/peace/powell_rumsfeld_rebuild.html (http://fuller.mit.edu/peace/powell_rumsfeld_rebuild.html) read the last four paragraphs- they didn't disagree, huh?
3.no, not really. the military is mostly republican because the republicans support the military more then democrats do(example:reagon increased military funding, clinton decreased it)
4.?
5.those bombs were dropped not because of chemicals of mass destruction but because of saddam hussein's mass slaughter of innocent kurds and shi'ites. however that being said the kurds had been killed with chemicals of mass destruction, so i will back off here (selftitled85 your comment was probably the best responce on this thread)
6. how could franks have lost the war? he had superior forces (both numerically and training wise), he was facing an enemy whose leaders were on the run, and he bipassed hotbed cities like basra while racing straight to baghdad. and if he planned so well why was jessica lynch's group ambushed and killed? ill tell you why-because the army was so focused on rushing to baghdad that they were willing to let the weak fall behind, what happened to "no man left behnd?'
just to clear this up, i think we should have gone to iraq i just dont feel that the bush adinistration did as well they could have.
Yes, believe the press. Genius theory.

My dad is already one of those Marines, he served in Afghanistan and currently trains the Marines going to Iraq.

And yes, republicans are known to increase funding, because they recognize the important of defense. Democrats still don't get it, after 9/11.

And the government gets nothing done? Check out how many upper level Al Qaeda officials have been killed, Saddam's sons, Zarqawi.

The bombs were dropped at critical points that powered the military installations speckled across the desert in order to stop those bombings. And mistakes happen. It's war. Also, we had the British control the South, with Headquarters in Basra. As a matter if Basra, was the first battleground of Iraq because the US took control and superseded to the British, for occupying and security of Southern ports for supplies from the Navy.

You cannot anticipate EVERYTHING. With that attitude, we're acting like ominiscient fucks which is why the Muslims have no respect for Western Ideaology because we are a bunch of elitist, egotistical hypocrits.
Dude.. you're 16. You don't know shit.
Dumb statement.

[saysmydoctor]

agreed.

but i dont think bush planned on the insurgents coming. most of the original insurgents came from iran and other me countries.

and you could not allow any baath members to stay. the only ones still there were saddams cronies and almost all of them were greedy pricks that knew nothing about running a stabile/democratic government. it is true we disbanded the army but it is also true that a lot of the iraqis left the army before then. they saw the us and just ran away because they didnt wanna die. the army was in disarray and had no upper level leadership. it needed to be rebuilt.
Most insurregents are coming from Syria. Iran and Iraq have poor relations because of Saddam. And comparatively, now to the past, Saddam, though cruel, managed to keep a pretty stable economy. Then again, the economy was funded illegally by the UN, ie Oil for Food Scandal.

[rocktometal]

comparing post ww2 germany to post invasion iraq is impossible.
it is pointless to try and measure the two against each other. it is two completely different time periods...two completely different types of people...and two completely different worlds.

yes there are differences between iraq and germany and we could spend a long time discussing that, but that'd be sidestepping whether or not that post war plan could work. my theory is this: people are people, no matter the religion, color or creed; in mass they are all motivated by the same thing and the same ideas. that is why i think the plan could work in both germany and iraq (by the way a similiar structure worked in japan under mcarthur(a truly great general)) and italy(whose economy was in terrible shape). i see your point, but i still feel we failed to respond wisely.

Yes, believe the press. Genius theory.

My dad is already one of those Marines, he served in Afghanistan and currently trains the Marines going to Iraq.
And yes, republicans are known to increase funding, because they recognize the important of defense. Democrats still don't get it, after 9/11.
And the government gets nothing done? Check out how many upper level Al Qaeda officials have been killed, Saddam's sons, Zarqawi.
The bombs were dropped at critical points that powered the military installations speckled across the desert in order to stop those bombings. And mistakes happen. It's war. Also, we had the British control the South, with Headquarters in Basra. As a matter if Basra, was the first battleground of Iraq because the US took control and superseded to the British, for occupying and security of Southern ports for supplies from the Navy.
You cannot anticipate EVERYTHING. With that attitude, we're acting like ominiscient fucks which is why the Muslims have no respect for Western Ideaology because we are a bunch of elitist, egotistical hypocrits.

im impressed. you know more then i had expected, but getting on topic here:
listening to all sides of the table is always wise, perhaps even as you said-genius.
1. 'governments gets nothing done' was an exageration used to make a point, namely that governments work slowly. and ill give you an example to prov my point-osama bin laden.
2. I must have messed up the city name i guess, i meant fallujah.
3.i didn't say we should anticipate everything, i said we should have anticipated something. have we learned nothing from Vietnam? you know the lesson we were supposed to learn there? i think we were supposed to learn that superior forces and on the battle victories don't translate into winning wars, in order to be truly successful we must learn to unite the countries we conquor.

[selftitled85]

Most insurregents are coming from Syria. Iran and Iraq have poor relations because of Saddam. And comparatively, now to the past, Saddam, though cruel, managed to keep a pretty stable economy. Then again, the economy was funded illegally by the UN, ie Oil for Food Scandal.

no iran is the largest base of insurgents in the region.

i had to read a book on suicidal terrorism for my senior sem class and the main point of the book is that the middle east insurgency isnt truly religion based...it is there to kick america out of the middle east.


so...no matter how righteous our mission was...if we had soldiers or businesses in the middle east they would fight us. no matter what we do a marshall plan like scheme would likely fail.

[saysmydoctor]

im impressed. you know more then i had expected, but getting on topic here:
listening to all sides of the table is always wise, perhaps even as you said-genius.
1. 'governments gets nothing done' was an exageration used to make a point, namely that governments work slowly. and ill give you an example to prov my point-osama bin laden.
2. I must have messed up the city name i guess, i meant fallujah.
3.i didn't say we should anticipate everything, i said we should have anticipated something. have we learned nothing from Vietnam? you know the lesson we were supposed to learn there? i think we were supposed to learn that superior forces and on the battle victories don't translate into winning wars, in order to be truly successful we must learn to unite the countries we conquor.
Fallujah is one of the few cities that we successfully cleared of most resistance.

Vietnam and Iraq are very different. For one, Vietnam is place we knew nothing about. Iraq isn't really new. Two, Iraq is less jungle fighting, more urban fighting. It's a very different surrounding. And correct, numbers do not mean victories. The one thing and only thing we need is support of the people...and that's where we lack.
no iran is the largest base of insurgents in the region.

i had to read a book on suicidal terrorism for my senior sem class and the main point of the book is that the middle east insurgency isnt truly religion based...it is there to kick america out of the middle east.


so...no matter how righteous our mission was...if we had soldiers or businesses in the middle east they would fight us. no matter what we do a marshall plan like scheme would likely fail.
Iran is predominately Sunni while Iraq is Shiite. Why would they help?

[rocktometal]

so...no matter how righteous our mission was...if we had soldiers or businesses in the middle east they would fight us. no matter what we do a marshall plan like scheme would likely fail.

i differ with you here, insurgency goes hand and hand with local support. without local support insurgencies fail, so if we had used more of the ppost ww2 plan we could have elimnated some of that support base thus weakening the insurgency.


Vietnam and Iraq are very different. For one, Vietnam is place we knew nothing about. Iraq isn't really new. Two, Iraq is less jungle fighting, more urban fighting. It's a very different surrounding. And correct, numbers do not mean victories. The one thing and only thing we need is support of the people...and that's where we lack.

in ww2 the marines succussfully defeated the japanese in a jungle warfare situation, so vietnam wasn't completely different as far as fighting tactics, however you are right in that it was totally new, which is why you can understand why we screwed up, but this time we should have been able to win this war, and unfortunately i dont think we have yet. actually this reminds me of a line from colbert, "this is totally different, that was wet this is dry."


Iran is predominately Sunni while Iraq is Shiite. Why would they help?
because they hate us?

[saysmydoctor]

i differ with you here, insurgency goes hand and hand with local support. without local support insurgencies fail, so if we had used more of the ppost ww2 plan we could have elimnated some of that support base thus weakening the insurgency.


in ww2 the marines succussfully defeated the japanese in a jungle warfare situation, so vietnam wasn't completely different as far as fighting tactics, however you are right in that it was totally new, which is why you can understand why we screwed up, but this time we should have been able to win this war, and unfortunately i dont think we have yet. actually this reminds me of a line from colbert, "this is totally different, that was wet this is dry."
Guerilla tactics were new in Vietnam. Now they aren't. That's where the tactical revolution ended. But we also made some genius moves. The Thunder Run was one single best tests to occur on the field. We send a convoy tanks down Highway 8 in Iraq, testing the defenses, testing how accurate our beforehand analysis of urban warfare was. It passed. The defenses and the Republican guard were anticipated. An insurregency was anticipated, slightly. Our bigheadedness destroyed us.

because they hate us?
They hate eachother more.

[rocktometal]

yeah i agree with all of that, except about them hating each other more. we are the infidels after all. they do not conduct holy wars against each other, only against us.

[saysmydoctor]

Shiites and Sunnis have been known to war with eachother. I know some came from Iran but a majority are coming from Syria.