DebateGate

Talking about radical Islam as a threat against the entire world is exaggerating reality.

Do you not read newspapers?
Do you not hear the President of the Islamic Theocracy speaking of "wiping Israel off the face of the earth"?
What would happen to world peace if the President of Iran attempted to do that? Nuclear exchange?
Did you not see the Islamic Thoecracy's proxie Islamic group Hezbollah conduct a war with Israel last summer?
Do you not see security lines at airports all over the world?
Are those security lines due to Christian/Hindu/Buddist recent bombings/killings?
Do you not see governments from every continent spending record amounts for anti-terror measures?
Why are those governmenst spending that kind of money? Threats from Christian, Hindu, or Buddist terror groups?
Do you not see bombings/killings/terror happening every single day carried out by radical Islam killing people in the name of their religion?
It's everywhere, India, Spain, England, The United States, Morocco, Pakistan, Algeria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, The Phillippines, Lebanon, Chechnya, Somalia, Thailand, Indonesia, Yemen, Nigeria, Egypt, France, Turkey, ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect
How can you even distantly attempt to equate other religions in todays world with this scope and level of violence we see coming from within Islam?

"As for Islam, it is a religion with a lot of very good people who are adherents. There are some really awful people who are adherents as well. Christianity is no different in that regard. Neither is Judaism"

But Islam is the one with the current major problem concerning adherents to Islam killing hundreds and thousands of innocent people "in the name of their religion". Radical Islam is killing alot of people and their primary motivation is their translation of their religion. Today radical Islam threatens world peace in a real way. There is no current threat to world peace from radical Christianity killing people "in the name of their religion".("Allahu Akbar!" as they kill innocent people) By dismissing the real threat to world peace today that radical Islam poses by attempting to equate it with other much smaller, much less funded radical sects in other religions, that in reality in the current time don't even come close in scope of current threat, current damage, current killings in the name of their religion, don't you feel like you are ignoring the true situation?

yeah sure, with iran laying in ashes everyone will suddenly get brave
now thats funny

The ass-kicking you are now receiving in Iraq will be as nothing compared to
the ass-kicking you will receive from the combined efforts of the Iraqi and the
Iranian peoples.

What a laugh.
We wouldn't invade Iran.
The United States could destroy Iran by air.
Not a single ground troop would be needed. (oh maybe some Seal/Green Beret/Ranger recons with laser pointers would be helpful)
Now will we do it?
I doubt it.
But we would if I was in charge.
Actually it would be rather easy.

First destroy from the air Iranian military airfields.
Stops any transports of troops and arms within Iran and shipments to other terrorist via air.
Done very easily.

Then ask "enough"?

Next destroy from the air Iranian military ports.
Then ask "enough"?
Stop or greatly hamper shipments of arms/troops via seaports.

Then destroy by air Iranian rail roads
Stop transport of military hardware/troops/supplies via railroad.
Then ask "enough"?

Next destroy by air major industrial facilities.
Then ask "enough"?

By asking "enough?" the Iranians would to some degree control their destiny.
Answer yes, destruction stops, answer no, destruction continues.

You do not defeat enemies bent on "Death To America", enemies that want to destroy you and Israel by being nice.
The only way to destroy this type of enemy is to destroy them.
And we have the power to do it.
And I believe we should do it before they gain more power and will be harder to destroy.

When the answer to "enough?" is "yes", then agreements are made.
If the answer is "no".

Then begin bombing additional industrial facilities including all harbors/oil facilities/manufactoring plants.
Ask again "enough"?

If the answer is "yes", then agreements are made.
Agreements that have no wiggle room.
Agreements that take Iran in a completely different direction.
Agreements like not a single dollar or arms to Hassan Nasrallah's Hizbullah ever again.
Agreements like no more military offensive capability.
Agreements like no more arm shipments anywhere.
Agreements like no more money to support terror groups or foriegn militaries.
Agreements like immediate halt to all nuclear ambitions.

Japan lives by most of the above and they have a nice quality of life.
So will Iran one day.
It is just a matter of time when we have to deal with them.

Iranian Unit to Be Labeled 'Terrorist'
U.S. Moving Against Revolutionary Guard

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 15, 2007; A01

The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.

The Bush administration has chosen to move against the Revolutionary Guard Corps because of what U.S. officials have described as its growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East, the sources said. The decision follows congressional pressure on the administration to toughen its stance against Tehran, as well as U.S. frustration with the ineffectiveness of U.N. resolutions against Iran's nuclear program, officials said.

The designation of the Revolutionary Guard will be made under Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding. It authorizes the United States to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities. The Revolutionary Guard would be the first national military branch included on the list, U.S. officials said -- a highly unusual move because it is part of a government, rather than a typical non-state terrorist organization.

The order allows the United States to block the assets of terrorists and to disrupt operations by foreign businesses that "provide support, services or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists."

The move reflects escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran over issues including Iraq and Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran has been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1984, but in May the two countries began their first formal one-on-one dialogue in 28 years with a meeting of diplomats in Baghdad.

The main goal of the new designation is to clamp down on the Revolutionary Guard's vast business network, as well as on foreign companies conducting business linked to the military unit and its personnel. The administration plans to list many of the Revolutionary Guard's financial operations.

"Anyone doing business with these people will have to reevaluate their actions immediately," said a U.S. official familiar with the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the decision has not been announced. "It increases the risks of people who have until now ignored the growing list of sanctions against the Iranians. It makes clear to everyone who the IRGC and their related businesses really are. It removes the excuses for doing business with these people."

For weeks, the Bush administration has been debating whether to target the Revolutionary Guard Corps in full, or only its Quds Force wing, which U.S. officials have linked to the growing flow of explosives, roadside bombs, rockets and other arms to Shiite militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Quds Force also lends support to Shiite allies such as Lebanon's Hezbollah and to Sunni movements such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Although administration discussions continue, the initial decision is to target the entire Guard Corps, U.S. officials said. The administration has not yet decided when to announce the new measure, but officials said they would prefer to do so before the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly next month, when the United States intends to increase international pressure against Iran.

Formed in 1979 and originally tasked with protecting the world's only modern theocracy, the Revolutionary Guard took the lead in battling Iraq during the bloody Iran-Iraq war waged from 1980 to 1988. The Guard, also known as the Pasdaran, has since become a powerful political and economic force in Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rose through the ranks of the Revolutionary Guard and came to power with support from its network of veterans. Its leaders are linked to many mainstream businesses in Iran.

"They are heavily involved in everything from pharmaceuticals to telecommunications and pipelines -- even the new Imam Khomeini Airport and a great deal of smuggling," said Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations. "Many of the front companies engaged in procuring nuclear technology are owned and run by the Revolutionary Guards. They're developing along the lines of the Chinese military, which is involved in many business enterprises. It's a huge business conglomeration."

The Revolutionary Guard Corps -- with its own navy, air force, ground forces and special forces units -- is a rival to Iran's conventional troops. Its naval forces abducted 15 British sailors and marines this spring, sparking an international crisis, and its special forces armed Lebanon's Hezbollah with missiles used against Israel in the 2006 war. The corps also plays a key role in Iran's military industries, including the attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons and surface-to-surface missiles, according to Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The United States took punitive action against Iran after the November 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, including the breaking of diplomatic ties and the freezing of Iranian assets in the United States. More recently, dozens of international banks and financial institutions reduced or eliminated their business with Iran after a quiet campaign by the Treasury Department and State Department aimed at limiting Tehran's access to the international financial system. Over the past year, two U.N. resolutions have targeted the assets and movements of 28 people -- including some Revolutionary Guard members -- linked to Iran's nuclear program.

The key obstacle to stronger international pressure against Tehran has been China, Iran's largest trading partner. After the Iranian government refused to comply with two U.N. Security Council resolutions dealing with its nuclear program, Beijing balked at a U.S. proposal for a resolution that would have sanctioned the Revolutionary Guard, U.S. officials said.

China's actions reverse a cycle during which Russia was the most reluctant among the veto-wielding members of the Security Council. "China used to hide behind Russia, but Russia is now hiding behind China," said a U.S. official familiar with negotiations.

The administration's move comes amid growing support in Congress for the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which was introduced in the Senate by Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and in the House by Tom Lantos (D-Calif.). The bill already has the support of 323 House members.

The administration's move could hurt diplomatic efforts, some analysts said. "It would greatly complicate our efforts to solve the nuclear issue," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for American Progress. "It would tie an end to Iran's nuclear program to an end to its support of allies in Hezbollah and Hamas. The only way you could get a nuclear deal is as part of a grand bargain, which at this point is completely out of reach."

Such sanctions can work only alongside diplomatic efforts, Cirincione added.

"Sanctions can serve as a prod, but they have very rarely forced a country to capitulate or collapse," he said. "All of us want to back Iran into a corner, but we want to give them a way out, too. [The designation] will convince many in Iran's elite that there's no point in talking with us and that the only thing that will satisfy us is regime change."

Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.