The Crusades like Iraq ? - I don't think so?

Question

The whole argument makes no sense in my eyes , having studied history I have to say - to compare the crusades to today's world is not only ignorant but downright dumb . The Crusades were about power , wealth and land which was eventually turned into a Holy war to get more to join the ranks and was started by the Pope because the Christian army was no match for the Persians and they needed more men . Today Muslim fighters don't have land , a Kingdom or a military of equal or greater force against there enemies . They resort to methods the Muslims at the times of the Crusades would have never even thought about and most likely would have been killed if suggested the methods people are using today in Iraq . The truth about Iraq is simple - for the US to win they must increase there military force - anything less is a waste of time and if that is not going to happen , we should leave within the next hour . I say increase military force because this is what religious fighters respect , its not just to kill people because the simple truth is - Iraqis have always feared and respected powerful armies , they do not respect armies that cow tow to the enemy the way the US is doing now . The point is the US can win but sadly doesn't have the will to win .

Anyone agree ?

Correct Mike , thank you for correcting me

Answer 1

The old Crusades was to leabarate the holy land from Muslems and Jews 70000 Muslems and 10000 jews were beheaded in Jerusalem. The Iraq Crusade is to trap the new Crusaders in un winnable wars for years to come. The only losers in this war are the Iraqis and the Americans who get killed by the hour and the taxpayers who pay for the war.

Answer 2

Bush was the first one who mistakenly used the "Crusades" word. No, he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed and he did a dis-service to our troops when he DID say it.

Iraq has nothing to do with protecting the USA, but it DOES have everything to do with controlling the oil on the market. Saddam was selling oil very cheaply to the point that the gas was cheap. The USA couldn't let Iraq start using Euros and not the Dollar also, with these two facts it made it so the USA had to find SOME reason to attack the country so they made up lies. The reason why the USA can't win, is because if we leave, then we no longer will control the oil in that region. Why do you think we are talking about going into Iran? Bush is using the "N" word again, and for what? Iran is going to the Euro instead of the Dollar also...think it is co-incident? I don't.

EDIT: Arch, you don't have a CLUE as to who you are talking to. How do you KNOW he hasn't been over there or served his country? You DON'T! Give people a little respect because like it or not this person is flexing his right to speak! I don't see YOU over there!

Answer 3

I strongly disagree with some of your points respectfully. The Crusades were called as a response against agressive Islam which had taken nearly a third of all Christian lands. All of Africa was once Christian as well as most of the middle east and the Balkans. What was once Turkey was the center of the Christian world---Byzantium.

I completely agree with you with the rest. The US warfighter has the capability of winning but the people back at home do not have the political will to support them. The US press has glorified those that behead and murder as "freedom fighters" and labeled our troops as occupiers and flamed us for warcrimes. The Democrat controlled congress treats the war as some sort of political football. President Bush has done a poor job of supporting this war and there is a lot of profiteering going on. I mostly blame the press. After 911 there were some that were ashamed to wear an American flag pin.

Answer 4

Who ever says that I can see where there coming from, they arn't exactly the same but there are similarities, the fact of the matter is that america needs a war every 10years or so to drive the economy just look what happend during the depression, no major war which america were involved in so they mightent be doing it for wealth but they are doing it for the good of their economy. True it probably could be ended if you insert enough troops but at some stage the troops would need to be withdrawn and then america would place their choice of leader in power (how do you think saddam got in to power in the first place?) so again technically its over power aswell. Thirdly there are sects of muslim who vow to destroy all people of other religions through any means (quiet a minority but due to the war recruitment for these orginisations has grown massivley) these sects are commonly highlighted in the media so many US recruits see this as a 'holy' war, if they don't some the muslims now soon they themselves will be under attack.
Personally I'm pretty much indifferent on the war but nothing is worth taking even one life for.

Answer 5

The crusades were an attempt to recover stolen territory. It worked quite well until the whole effort was sabotaged.

In Iraq the whole "Crusade" tale is only propaganda for muslim purposes- a means to mobilise help and compare the current struggle to a previous (victorious) conflict.

As to the current conflict I don't think we need to increase forces. While it might help (end the fighting quicker) it would also greatly help the propaganda efforts of the enemies and traitors (regardless of whatever name they choose to call themselves) leading in the end to a defeat along the Vietnam lines (a greatly desirable end from their POV).

IMO the way to go would be to slowly scale down US/allied involvement in proportion to the number of Iraqui (and Afghan) troops trained. Retain the assistance teams and precision weapons (giving the locals a massive edge if shooting begins). Of course it would mean accepting a long term involvement - albeit on a smaller scale. However IMO if the US guarded freedom and maintained combat troops in Europe for half a century, there is no reason to deny the Iraquis the same priviledge- hopefully with the same results.

Answer 6

Actually, your interpretation is slightly incorrect, the crusades were a war to re-claim the holy land of jerewsalem (sorry if misspelt) not a 'power' war as such.

and the crusades actually began with the popes endorsement not the popes direction.

so, no, I couldn't compare Iraq to the crusades either.

Answer 7

the Crusades originally were designed to protect the christian Pilgrims that were been attacked as they made their ways into the holy land by criminals who would rob them and even kill them.
later they evolved into conquest of the holy lands and to get them back from the hands of the Muslims who had invaded them to begin with years before....
and before that, the holy land was ancient Judea, which was renamed "Palestinia" by the Romans after their sack of Jerusalem in the year 75 AD, in their fight to destroy the kingdom of the Jews who were the original tribes in that part of the world.

so it has always been invasion after invasion by everyone in there!

Answer 8

the common aching about the "Crusaders" in iraq is just a nostalgic tuned melody for muslims from non arabic countries. It is purely designed to set up their minds, to state that the "evil crusaders" are fighting the Islam itself, it is aimed to gain the public meaning onto the side of "beaten" muslims. No one states that most of the killing in Iraq is done by muslims to muslims, no one states that Allied troops are not in Iraq because of wipin out local population.
Whole idea of "iraqi crusade" is single purpose propaganda, unfortunately fed by those in US, who state that "God is with us". such sentences just add fuel to fire of the religious hatred.

grey smily> let the world feed itself. let the african populations to work in the fields rather than smoking skunk and running around with AK and measuring family wealth in terms of children born. whenever you feed someone simply, he shifts his potential from food gathering to the population growth and/or killing others.

Answer 9

We have been increasing the size of our military for months. And still we are losing. Its a lost cause. Much like Vietnam. The harder we push the more they pull. And, until Internet-war mongers like you get off your tale and volunteer, the US cannot win...

I think the war in Iraq proves that boots and helmets win wars. Not mice and keyboards.

Answer 10

To win - we would need more troops. But we should not win - we should leave. We are there for an illegal war by evil men with evil ambitions. This is a holy war - because we are led by a christian idiot buffoon and he hates muslims because his bible tells him to. we should do whatever it takes to undo the damage we have caused. The killing and suffering we caused is inexcusable - and if George W douchebag would be tried and executed as a war criminal I would honestly celebrate for a week like I have never celebrated before.