Iran is going to do us in

[_JS]

I almost hate to touch this one.

First of all, yes Islam is vastly different today than what it was in the 16th and even 17th centuries. That is exactly why you have traditionalist groups that wish to return their religion to what they believe it was in an earlier time period. Islam, just like Judaism and Christianity has been shaped by the intellectual and historical movements of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. I thas also been shaped by regional influences as well. If you want to discuss specifics, we likely can, but it is ludicrous to think that Islam has lived in some vacuum outside of history.

Secondly, the Reformation changed Christianity for sure, but to qualify it as being something that made Christianity better and more progressive and that something for which Islam is in need of is highly debatable. In the long-term it could be argued that the Reformation has weakened Christianity and only led to it being dominated by the state. More than that, it has led to a system of economics which has led to new idols, alienation, and a culture than no longer cares for Christian values such as Luke's affinity for the poor. All in all, I'd say the Reformation has at best achieved a mixed result.

Lastly, Islam is not Christianity and you cannot review it through the same lense. Shi'a and Sunni are not merely denominations like Baptists and Methodists. An Ayatollah is not an Archbishop and Mosques are not churches.  It is a fundamentally different faith, just as Judaism is.

[The_Professor]

Good post, JS.

So, are the Shi'a or the Sunni a potentially more devasting force against the Great Satan? The posts here seem to imply the Shi'a in that their more disadvantaged status, socio-economically, tends to foment the type of radical that might conduct small or large scale terrrorist operations against the U.S. However, there are many references in the Quran presenting directives about killing infidels. This might imply that it applies regardless of sect. What do YOU think?

[_JS]

I think that reality has shown that the most dangerous terrorists in American history have all been Sunni. The most dangerous terrorist organization in the world is comprised of Sunni. The vast majority of deaths of both civilians and American soldiers in Iraq has been at the hands of Sunni insurgents.

I think you go with the facts unless you just have a damn good reason not to.

I mean, we could argue hypotheticals and theories all day. There's some merit in that for sure, especially if you're in the FBI, CIA, State Department, etc. Yet, why ignore the reality at the same time? That's what is perplexing to me.

Clearly the Sunni insurgents are getting arms and supplies from somewhere. Shouldn't disarming them be a part of stabilising Iraq?

[The_Professor]

I think that reality has shown that the most dangerous terrorists in American history have all been Sunni. The most dangerous terrorist organization in the world is comprised of Sunni. The vast majority of deaths of both civilians and American soldiers in Iraq has been at the hands of Sunni insurgents.

I think you go with the facts unless you just have a damn good reason not to.

I mean, we could argue hypotheticals and theories all day. There's some merit in that for sure, especially if you're in the FBI, CIA, State Department, etc. Yet, why ignore the reality at the same time? That's what is perplexing to me.

Clearly the Sunni insurgents are getting arms and supplies from somewhere. Shouldn't disarming them be a part of stabilising Iraq?

BTW, just for the record, I apologize for getting frustrated with you a few times lately. Sometimes I feel we are close, philiosophically, and thne other times as far as Flash was from Mongo. I should just blow it off more and will attempt to do so.

[_JS]

I get frustrated on here quite a bit as well. I figure most people on here are genuinely decent people. We probably agree on quite a bit as well. I think it is just that we all seem to drive really hard at those differences.

[The_Professor]

Well, I suppose ife we were not so fervent, then we won't be here, right?

In a related note, just for curiosity, I wonder how many users lurk versus those who regularly participate?

[Cynthia]

Clearly the Sunni insurgents are getting arms and supplies from somewhere. Shouldn't disarming them be a part of stabilising Iraq?


EARLY 2003: I was listening to a particularly interesting program on NPR one afternoon on the way home from work.... Who knew?   They presented a segment, albeit brief and poignant, which was brilliantly spelled in a way that showed THEY KNEW what they were talking about. My ear was perked.
Paraphrasing:  ?If we enter into this Iraqi war, there is bound to be more to the story and ------a certain segment of the story that has eluded the current administration. There will be underlying fundamental religious factions coming out of the woodwork in groves.?
The hair on the back of my neck stood up. But of course it is not enough to WANT Democracy and freedom and to declare the end in the pre game show prematurely.

BTW AND of course, I realize that you all understand this, but I am talking about ?knowing? this back in 03?..and couldn?t do a damn thing about it while watching Bush stand on that ship deck. Damn the torpedoes.


 But at the time, Bush had just declared "Mission accomplished". All the while a little liberal station (where sometimes the meeting of the minds really DO have a "voice") cried out loudly and bravely. I remember listening with my intuition and gut. I also remember realizing in the pit of my stomach that they were right.

There was a member on board here back then, a gentleman named buckshot or Buddha?
I remember sharing with him that there?s more to this story and that us Americans or any one else who enters this war, are in for a long fight if we attack Iraq.
 I also remember telling him, (D. was a Vietnam vet who has experienced the ins and outs of getting in and out of a war)..... That the USA had better step up to the plate to supply this war with more in terms of forces and have a clear plan of action.  He agreed on both points. That was back in 2003!!!!...here on this board....It seems just like yesterday to me, somehow. Sad.
Now we read the above post? a current member?s logical statement. ?with all the thought provoking soup measured up for this debate.

OF COURSE the factions are arming, struggling, and fighting?.NPR segment discussion was right. 
It?s a shame. It?s a shame indeed. Politicians are so arrogant and yet, I love this country, but where is our intelligence?
I know the Middle East in my own particular way....and of course this was not going to end the terrorism and yet it might still?.this is true?.but I am frustrated that we entered it with such arrogance that we had won when we just brushed the dust off of our shirt collars.
Debate? Coulda woulda shoulda?..done what?

Listened to NPR?

Who?s in charge?,and who will step up to the plate to make things better in 08?
Frankly, no one will .unless we get some intelligence in our leadership.
Maybe we like to run for debate?.run for office?..discuss amongst ourselves forever on one issue. War. Well, look forward to a world war with the Middle East now?..talk about culture shock. I am afraid. Very afraid?but perhaps it will be a matter of Iran?s own demise in the end. We will have to win that war. We will have to fight the Persian Empire and win. How many breaths of innocence will be taken, though? Why? Why do we want such power? Is it oil? Is it commerce? Is it fundamentalism?
Yes.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Now is the time for the violent, decisive, sustained, and comprehensive application of COMBAT POWER against Iran.
We must ensure by any means necessary that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.
A military FIRST-STRIKE nuclear weapons policy against Iran would be entirely appropriate.
Iran represents a clear and present danger.
We are at war with Iranian proxies.

[Michael Tee]

<<We must ensure by any means necessary that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. >>

Uhhh . . . why?

[yellow_crane]

Now is the time for the violent, decisive, sustained, and comprehensive application of COMBAT POWER against Iran.
We must ensure by any means necessary that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.
A military FIRST-STRIKE nuclear weapons policy against Iran would be entirely appropriate.
Iran represents a clear and present danger.
We are at war with Iranian proxies.

Great speech, but you forgot to tell us to paint our faces blue.

[Michael Tee]

Going back to the First Gulf War, George H.W. Bush did not come to the aid of the southern Shi'a uprising against Saddam, and stood by while Saddam wiped out the insurgents.  The reason was that a Shi'a victory would play into the hands of Iran.  Saddam was smart enough to see that wall posters of Iraqi clerics went up on the walls in the Shi'a strongholds, virtually guaranteeing American complicity in his slaughter of the insurgent forces.

After the bullshit excuse of "WMD" had played out, George W. Bush came up with the "democracy" charade as the new justification for an American occupation, but given the demographics, it had to result in a Shi'ite victory at the "polls."  This had been foreseen, what Bush hadn't foreseen was the collapse of his puppet Shi'ite Prime Minister in waiting, Ahmad Chalabi.  Now it looks like this oversight will be rectified by switching support back to the Sunni, as I had predicted would inevitably happen, as the formula that worked reasonably well the first time round with Saddam in the puppet's seat, until Saddam decided he needed to pull his own strings.

The way I see it, the Americans have a choice of two policies now - - keep both groups fighting each other for as long as they're willing, so the American "stabilizing" presence can be justified, or just fuck the Shi'ites one more time by allowing a Sunni strongman to emerge and fill the puppet role that Saddam had once filled so obligingly.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"We must ensure by any means necessary that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. >>Uhhh . . . why?"

For starters because of what the former Democratic Party Vice Presidential nominee said in July 2007.

"The Iranian government, by its actions, has all but declared war on us and our allies in the Middle East."

"Iran's actions in Iraq fit a larger pattern of expansionist, extremist behavior across the Middle East today. In addition to sponsoring insurgents in Iraq, Tehran is training, funding and equipping radical Islamist groups in Lebanon, Palestine and Afghanistan -- where the Taliban now appear to be receiving Iranian help in their war against the government of President Hamid Karzai and its NATO defenders."

"The fanatical regime in Tehran has concluded that it can use proxies to strike at us and our friends in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine without fear of retaliation. It is time to restore that fear, and to inject greater doubt into the decision-making of Iranian leaders about the risks they are now running."

"The threat posed by Iran to our soldiers' lives, our security as a nation and our allies in the Middle East is a truth that cannot be wished or waved away. It must be confronted head-on."

http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=278350

[Michael Tee]

<<For starters because of what the former Democratic Party Vice Presidential nominee said in July 2007.>>

Who?  Oh, the long-time Zionist activist.  Right.  He said:

<<"The Iranian government, by its actions, has all but declared war on us and our allies in the Middle East.">>

Really?  Did they try to overthrow your duly elected government and bring in a dictator to rule over you?

<<"Iran's actions in Iraq fit a larger pattern of expansionist, extremist behavior across the Middle East today. >>

Words are cheap, Joe.  What did they DO?

<<In addition to sponsoring insurgents in Iraq . . . >>

Get this.  While America has the right to send 160,000 troops thousands of miles and across oceans to invade Iraq, destroy its government and dictate its new form of government, Iran does not have the right to support groups of Iraqi citizens who have their own ideas about how Iraq should be run.

<< Tehran is training, funding and equipping radical Islamist groups in Lebanon, Palestine and Afghanistan -- where the Taliban now appear to be receiving Iranian help in their war against the government of President Hamid Karzai and its NATO defenders.">>

That's just as silly as the first objection.  How does America, in violation of every applicable tenet of international law by invading another country without any lawful excuse, manage to condemn Iran for supplying indigenous groups in various countries in the region?  Does the U.S. itself not support various groups in the Middle East and around the world?  What on earth could possibly make Lieberman think that America, and only America, has the right to intervene in the affairs of other countries?

<<"The fanatical regime in Tehran has concluded that it can use proxies to strike at us and our friends in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine without fear of retaliation.>>

Hilarious.  While it's OK for America to invade and interfere in every country in the Middle East, Iran can't even help the victims of U.S. aggression strike back, even by proxy.

<<It is time to restore that fear, and to inject greater doubt into the decision-making of Iranian leaders about the risks they are now running.">>

By resisting American invasion, subversion and other forms of aggression and interference, the Iranian leaders are running great risks.  I guess it's like the store-keeper who resists the Mob's attempts to extort money from him is running the same kind of risk.

<<"The threat posed by Iran to our soldiers' lives, our security as a nation and our allies in the Middle East is a truth that cannot be wished or waved away. It must be confronted head-on." >>

Let's face it, Joe.  Your soldiers' lives are threatened because they invaded somebody's home, and that person, his family and his neighbours are not happy about it.  Broadening the conflict by attacking now the neighbours is not going to solve your problems, it will MAGNIFY them.

For what it's worth, I hope America DOES attack Iran.  Unlike Iraq, Iran is an ancient, powerful, populous and proud nation.  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.  In addition, if you think that the people currently ruled (precariously) by the U.S.-supported dictatorships of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are going to continue to meekly submit to their rulers as you invade one Muslim country after another, until it's their turn, I am afraid you might be in for a big surprise.  The use of nukes would be the icing on the cake, signifying that the U.S. had reached some level of uncontrolled aggression such that it was now a menace to the entire world.  The effect would be something like the unifying effect that Hitler's aggression had - - it would isolate the U.S. in the world and lead to world action to destroy the menace.  Frankly, that last part - - U.S. use of nukes against Iran - - would never happen.  Even Bush isn't that crazy.

[The_Professor]

"For what it's worth, I hope America DOES attack Iran.  Unlike Iraq, Iran is an ancient, powerful, populous and proud nation.  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.  In addition, if you think that the people currently ruled (precariously) by the U.S.-supported dictatorships of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are going to continue to meekly submit to their rulers as you invade one Muslim country after another, until it's their turn, I am afraid you might be in for a big surprise.  The use of nukes would be the icing on the cake, signifying that the U.S. had reached some level of uncontrolled aggression such that it was now a menace to the entire world.  The effect would be something like the unifying effect that Hitler's aggression had - - it would isolate the U.S. in the world and lead to world action to destroy the menace.  Frankly, that last part - - U.S. use of nukes against Iran - - would never happen.  Even Bush isn't that crazy."

Actually, just as in Iraq, the initial attack would be devastating. We would rout them. The problem lies in what to do later. We would probably muck that part up. We seem to be good at that...

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually, just as in Iraq, the initial attack would be devastating>>

Yeah, but "devastating" isn't good enough any more, Professor.  Would it have "Shock and Awe" values?

<< We would rout them. >>

We'll moydah da bums.  (This is starting to sound awfully familiar.)

<<The problem lies in what to do later. We would probably muck that part up. We seem to be good at that...>>

Nazi Germany was better at it, but you're learning.  Just don't forget what happened to Nazi Germany.