Well, it’s not really their own. It mostly belongs to the mullahs. The hardline view we have taken against Iran for the past 25 years (with the exception of Reagan & Co.'s idiotic and criminal dealings in the 80’s) is what has led to the calls for democratization, the daily rebellions in the streets. The young population knows what the government does to them, then sees it calling us the Great Satan, and reasons that we are probably the good guys, wanting to be more like us (you’ll note that the US is unpopular in countries like Saudi, where we have not maintained active opposition to the government). As a matter of fact, the “axis of evil” terminology was rather well-received by opposition groups, despite the mealy-mouthed anti-moralist position taken by its critics in the West.
Of course it was wrong for us to support the Shah. But that does not mean it was the cause of the Islamic Revolution in Iran - indeed, Fundamentalist Islam was a growing movement earlier than 1953. In fact, the current regime’s atrocities have been at least as horrendous, if not more so, than the Shah’s (assuming you include their support for international terrorism, particularly Hezbollah).
And since we’re on the topic, Iranian students don’t seem too upset by the US military action in Iraq.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
What do you mean “can’t even communicate properly”? Before or after 9-11? Maybe the FBI and CIA are getting better at their anti-terrorism duties? Why would they keep making hte same mistakes over and over and never improve?
I won’t believe that America’s headed for constant, everyday, routine terrorist risk until I see it happen. I can’t buy into your prediction.
I couldnt agree more with the OP, i think that calling this a war on terrorism is very innacurate. Honestly, who thinks this is going to stop—, no, who thinks this will even SLOW the spread of terrorism? Terrorists dont run countries, they hide away and quietly spread thier own destructive ideas and cannot be defeated by a war. This war is only helping to spread the ideas of anti- americanism and we are hated more now than ever (obviously by more than just Iraqis). If this war really is against terrorism, then i believe we have already lost. Now more than ever people are going to be willing to kill themselves to attack this country. America is attacked, America retaliates (against something that may have a vague connection, but we struck back at something). Many Arabs feel as though this invasion is also an attack on muslims and Arab way of life, and no different from us they will likely retaliate… So a war on terror?.. will likely defeat its purpose. Terror may just be a convenient cover for some other interest IMO.
I think elucidator said in another thread that this war is Osama wet dream, I agree. Even I, a pacifist catholic (with severe doubts in religion) that lives thousands of miles away think of murdering someone when I saw cities which I have read about not so many years ago as a child (Arabbians Nights just great) being blown to hell.
Imagine that I don’t know any muslim, much less any Iraki, for me all this conflict is a foreign as they come, and yet I am outraged. I can only hope that in Syria or Lebanon another young man takes a more philosophical approach to life.
Re “Gloves off” - The option of mounting a war effort sufficient to defeat North Vietnam was raised and rejected repeatedly in every administration from Eisenhower’s forward. It was rejected because the decision-makers, political & military, understood that it would require slaughter & destruction in the North on a scale that would appall the world & weaken the US’s position in foreign relations everywhere. Nuclear weapons might well have been required; at a time when Hiroshima was a relatively fresh spectre, we were loath to start down a road that could take us there again.
I’m more hopeful today than I was last week that the Iraq war may not lead to a lot of destruction, and we may come off looking better in the eyes of the world than I’d thought. But it ain’t over yet.
History lessons - One that I take from Vietnam is the uncertainty of the notion that we can somehow graft a Western-style democracy onto any society in the world at any time, regardless of what that society’s own priorities may be, if we just bring in enough troops first. I am not arguing that our effort in Iraq is doomed; I sincerely hope that it will succeed. But I don’t think that anyone can see the future well enough to know what social/political/religious forces may be unleashed there after the military action, & I believe we’d do well to keep one eye on that bit of history.
Originally posted by cainxinth
Just for the record… does anyone agree that the War with Iraq will NOT prevent further terrorism? Yes, no, or maybe so are all acceptable answers.
It will be an example to governments who allow terrorists to live in their country or fund international terrorism.
This might not stop all terrorism. But it will make any government think twice about helping terrorists groups.
It may prevent a government to think twice about leaving fingerprints. But you’re missing a point, a point that may seem minor to you, but not to others…
There is no proof of a connection between Al Queda and Saddam. Yet we go to war anyway. What lesson might be taken from this? That if America wants to make war against you, it makes no measureable difference whether or not you are guilty.
You seem to be hoping, based on faith, that with Saddam gone, we will be safer. I cannot imagine why you think so. Saddam is our only enemy? Not by a long shot, if anything, we are hated more today than we were yesterday. Our other enemies don’t have Nasty Weapons? Any country with three graduate students who have studied abroad has these weapons. If Upper Volta wants WMD’s, they will have them. Perhaps you think that only Saddam has OBL’s phone number?
The thesis Oderint dum metuant “Let them hate us so long as they fear us” is attributed to Caligula. A review of his fate might give you pause as to the efficacy of that plan.
The fingers of expansion are in all of those. The Taliban were funded by fundamentalist Pakistan, and fundamentalist Iran also had their thumbs in it. Why? Expansion of political influence and greater regional influence and political domination.
Syria has effective control of Lebanon now, through terrorist networks. Why? Greater political influence towards domination of the region.
Saudi Arabia has been funding Wahhabi madrassas throughout the world. Why? Practitioners of the Wahhab school will likely be more sympathetic towards Saudi Arabia and give them increased regional influence. Many members of the Saudi royal family have given money and aid to terrorists. Why? Not because they are oppressed but because they see that the expansion of the fundamentalist Wahhab doctrine leads to greater influence for them. Incidentally, Saudi Arabia has been involved in a few border wars with Yemen and other neighbors and involved a few proxy wars with Egypt in the Middle East.
While the present Egyptian government is no real threat to the US, the fundamentalist “street” agitations may be. Not a direct military threat, of course, but a terrorist aid. And many of these fundamentalist regimes seek to export their brand of religion and expand operations in the surrounding areas.
Why? Regional influence with the goal being domination.
Many of the prominent terrorist movements are essentially engines of political power - which is why that even those terrorist groups that have the same public goal often don’t get along and see each other as competitors. Because they are. They are competing for public support and power through violence.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by cainxinth * Iran doesn’t like Iraq? Do go on! You’d think after eight years of bitter war and gassings they’d be old chums.
Bin Laden does not like Iraq either, yet he is still resolutely (indeed, one might say violently) opposed to a US invasion thereof. Note the reason the Iranian students were happy about the attack on Iraq: they believe it will put pressure on the government to sincerely democratize.
I believe I was not clear in what I meant here. Of course the Iranian Revolution was in response to the Shah, and would not have happened without the Shah’s government in power. I am saying that there were other more complicated cultural factors that not only led to the revolution, but also led to the fact that it was an Islamic fundamentalist revolution specifically.
The problem with saying that one “caused” the other is it implies that those behind the Revolution had no choice in the matter, as if they were simply animals instinctually responding to natural conditions.
Well, I’m rested after yesterday’s onslaught, nothing like two solid hours of debating half a dozen people strongly opposed to your worldview to keep the claws sharpened, and it’s good for my gout too. Once more unto the breach we go…
Don’t mistake militant activist movements to reclaim political power from Western agents (like the al Saud Royals, the Shah, and Saddam - a western agent gone rogue) with expansionism akin to Hitler, Imperial Japan, or the hegemonic actions of the US. Elite and corrupt minorities in the middle east were supported and in cases directly installed by developed nations in the West to protect their access to Gulf oil reserves. As for the Taliban they arose from the system of War Lords that was engendered in the aftermath of Soviet withdrawal, a political atmosphere that America’s contribution to can’t be forgotten. We trained and armed fundamentalist radicals and then left them to their own devices.
**
First of all, what do you mean by now? Syria has been gaining power in Lebanon for over a decade, notably with the "Treaty of Fraternity, Coordination and Cooperation” in 1991. Second, you can’t discount 22 years of Israeli occupation in Lebanon when examining that nation. Also, Hezbollah, the predominant terrorist network (and social welfare, education, and healthcare provider) is seeking first and foremost to make Syria and Lebanon into Islamic states modeled after Iran, free of negative Western intervention, and the total reform of Israel (although many within that party call for the total destruction of Israel as well). It is not seeking domination in the Western sense; it’s attempting to unrest control from outside influence and return it to the Islamic majority.
Oil, Israel, access to water, and the Cold War – if you don’t consider political and economic factors like these (along with cultural factors like tribalism, Wahhabism, and the Islamic tradition in general) in all Middle East politics your analysis is incomplete to say the least. I mean jesus Neurotik, how can you possibly try to explain Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia without even mentioning the words oil or Israel?
You are misreading my statements. The Shah’s regime, its support by the US, and its brutal treatment of a devout Islamic majority while Tehran was being transformed into Los Angeles are the major mitigating factors leading to revolution in 1979. It’s not saying that the people were responding to stimuli like bacterium in a petri dish, it’s saying that they were treated like animals and they violently threw off the shackles of foreign oppression.
Cultural factors such as I mention in the preceding post are the undercurrent to a tumultuous political conflict, not the primary actors. Those cultural factors shaped the nature of the revolution and the fundamentalist regime under Khomeini that would follow. But, the Iranians didn’t overthrow the Shah because they were shi’ites with a strong history of nationalism and piety, they did it because the Shah was a monster and after two decades enough was enough.
Fine. Can we compare it to communist countries such as the USSR or China reclaiming political power from evil capitalist agents? The net effect is the same. Populist/nationalist struggles used to manipulate the public at large into gaining more political power for those at the top running the show.
Yes? And? Are you going to address my point that terrorist networks are often used by those funding and running them as a means of gaining political influence in a region? Like Pakistan funding, supporting and supplying the Taliban? Like Syria funding, supplying and supporting Hezbollah? Etc., etc., etc. First of all, what do you mean by now? Syria has been gaining power in Lebanon for over a decade, notably with the "Treaty of Fraternity, Coordination and Cooperation” in 1991.
[/quote]
By now, I mean the usual definition of the word. Presently, currently, at this time, etc., etc., etc. Yes, they have been gaining power in Lebanon for over a decade so that now, currently, at this present time, in this particular age of history, they have effective control of Lebanon.
**
No? And I suppose they have no plans to expand once they achieve their goal in Lebanon and Syria? Of course they do, that’s how these things happen. It would be exceedingly rare for a movement to seek to overthrow and instate a new government that is in harmony with a particular ideology without attempting to export that ideology and revolution to it’s neighbors. With the originator at the head of the table, of course.
**
I can do so because neither oil nor Israel has anything to do with the fact that terrorist networks are often a means for a government or group to attempt to expand their political power in an attempt at regional domination.
[sup]So, how about this one?[/sup][/ul]