We Must Not Fight in Afghanistan/Iraq With Hands Tied Behind Back

[Riverwind]

Just about every western country has been invaded within the last thirty years by Muslim fifth columnists who have already been causing trouble proportionately to their numbers.

Translation: "Russians are coming, the Russians are coming...". We lived through a period of insane paranoia and fear in the 50s and 60s. The soviet empire collapsed under its own weight without us lifting a finger. The same will happen to Mulsim theocracies in a generation or so.

[B. Max]

Just about every western country has been invaded within the last thirty years by Muslim fifth columnists who have already been causing trouble proportionately to their numbers.

Translation: "Russians are coming, the Russians are coming...". We lived through a period of insane paranoia and fear in the 50s and 60s. The soviet empire collapsed under its own weight without us lifting a finger. The same will happen to Mulsim theocracies in a generation or so.

Actually the Russians were coming. Thanks to the US and at the last, the determination of Reagan the soviet union did collapse, but it took the lifting off many fingers. Although I believe under Poutin that is beginning to to reverse.

[Riverwind]

Actually the Russians were coming. Thanks to the US and at the last, the determination of Reagan the soviet union did collapse, but it took the lifting off many fingers. Although I believe under Poutin that is beginning to to reverse.

An inefficient economic system and the collapse of oil prices in the 80s is what led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The idea that Reagan caused or contributed to the collapse is a complete myth. All Reagen did is saddle future generations of Americans with a huge debt.

[sharkman]

Actually the Russians were coming. Thanks to the US and at the last, the determination of Reagan the soviet union did collapse, but it took the lifting off many fingers. Although I believe under Poutin that is beginning to to reverse.

An inefficient economic system and the collapse of oil prices in the 80s is what led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The idea that Reagan caused or contributed to the collapse is a complete myth. All Reagen did is saddle future generations of Americans with a huge debt.

It was a known policy of the Reagan administration to spend the Russians into the ground. Missiles, tanks and planes, and the Russians went into receivership trying to keep up. The debt came in part because of a 20% interest rate in the early eighties as well as the recession of the same time.

To assume that Muslim empire building will suffer the same fate without lifting a finger is simplifying the situation. They have most of the oil.

[Riverwind]

It was a known policy of the Reagan administration to spend the Russians into the ground. Missiles, tanks and planes, and the Russians went into receivership trying to keep up.

The arms race placed a financial strain on the Soviet Union that probably hastened its demise. However, it is a mistake to say that the arms race _caused_ the demise of the USSR. That would have happened no matter what the US did because of the fundemental problems with its economic system and the low price of oil and gold.

To assume that Muslim empire building will suffer the same fate without lifting a finger is simplifying the situation. They have most of the oil.

But they have nothing else. Iran and other Islamic regimes have no choice but to sell as much oil as they can to ensure they have enough money to look after their own people. They have no industry or other source of economic wealth. Furthermore, Islamic societies are hopelessly divided among themselves - the violence going on in Iraq and Afghanistan is mostly Muslims killing other Muslims. There is zero chance of these societies unifying any time soon provided we don't give them a reason to unite in order to face a common enemy.

Incidently, Bin Laden understands this. He attacked the US because he wanted to get Muslims to unite against a common enemy. It is fortunate for us that Bin Laden under estimated the divisions between Muslims. That is one of the reasons why I think military action against Iran is a really dumb idea.

[sharkman]

There are fanatics in the Muslim world that have been puzzling over that very question. They have been trying to unite their factions, got tired of talk, and started blowing up western interests, predicting the U.S. and the west would respond as only we can. It looks like fanaticism is winning the day in the Muslim world.

[Riverwind]

There are fanatics in the Muslim world that have been puzzling over that very question. They have been trying to unite their factions, got tired of talk, and started blowing up western interests, predicting the U.S. and the west would respond as only we can.

We do have choices here. We had to go into Afghanistan. Going into Iraq was completely unnecessary and ultimately undermined our interests. Attacking Iran would simply make a bad situation 100 times worse.

[Argus]

Not all, but the majority of Muslims have been pretty much brainwashed to believe that Western Culture is pure evil, and the U.S. is the Great Satan (and Canada is a little satan, sort of, oh, a mini me relationship).

Can't you even see the hypocracy in your statement? You talk of brainwashing and irrational prejudice but you are blind to your own brainwashing and irrational prejudice towards Muslims.

What if the prejudice against Muslims isn't irrational? For that matter, prejudice comes from "pre judge", but what if you're not pre-judging them, but judging them (apologies to Dennis Miller).

[Argus]

"All/most Muslims hate us and want to take over our society so we have no choice to but go and bomb/invade their countries to stop them from attacking us."

Stating the fact that some Muslims have expressed irrational hatred towards western society is not a problem in itself. It only becomes a problem when that statement is extended to include all Muslims and then used as an excuse to justify violence against Muslim societies.

How about we just assasinate Muslim clerics who incite hatred and violence towards us. Is that okay?

[Riverwind]

How about we just assasinate Muslim clerics who incite hatred and violence towards us. Is that okay?

Depends. Would you be ok with Muslims assassinating whoever they decide incites hatred against them?

[jbg]

How about we just assasinate Muslim clerics who incite hatred and violence towards us. Is that okay?

Depends. Would you be ok with Muslims assassinating whoever they decide incites hatred against them?

It's not OK with me that they're assassinating 3000 people indiscriminately at a clip.

[sharkman]

How about we just assasinate Muslim clerics who incite hatred and violence towards us. Is that okay?

Depends. Would you be ok with Muslims assassinating whoever they decide incites hatred against them?

Here's the difference between the West and Muslim centers who hate the West around the world. In Muslim centers, inciting hate and violence toward the west is seen as morally correct and is the norm. In the West, inciting hate and violence toward Muslims is considered wrong.

It's a simple difference, but it has profoundly dangerous outcomes.

[Riverwind]

In the West, inciting hate and violence toward Muslims is considered wrong.

Not at all. It has become perfectly acceptable in the West to incite violence against Muslims. The only difference is people in the West don't talk about attacking individuals Muslims. People in the West vilify entire societies with terms like 'axis of evil' and then demand that they be bombed back to the stone age of their leaders do not comply with our demands.

[sharkman]

In the West, inciting hate and violence toward Muslims is considered wrong.

Not at all. It has become perfectly acceptable in the West to incite violence against Muslims. The only difference is people in the West don't talk about attacking individuals Muslims. People in the West vilify entire societies with terms like 'axis of evil' and then demand that they be bombed back to the stone age of their leaders do not comply with our demands.

You're simply wrong, once again you can't see the difference between the norms in the West and in Muslim centers. I think I see where you are coming from, however. You hate the West or at least the U.S. and everything you see is coloured with that perspective. The president of Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and is trying with all his might to get nuclear weapons. Iran is helping terrorists in Iraq and in Syria. Yet you believe the phrase axis of evil is vilifiying Iran. When Iran gets Nuclear weapons and starts sabre rattling and perhaps starts a war, you will blame Israel for provoking them, or the U.S. for 'pushing them' to the brink.

I think the only thing that will wake people like you up is a Chamberlain moment. Only I hope we never see one, because a world war is too high a price to pay just to have Chamberlain realize that Hitler was tricking him.

[M.Dancer]

I would like to hear someone threaten to bomb someone to the baroque age....it would be super terrific beautiful....

[M.Dancer]

Personaly though, I would be content if they bombed the mid east back to the Age of Reason

[sharkman]

Personaly though, I would be content if they bombed the mid east back to the Age of Reason

It'll never happen Dancer. Muslim extremists will bomb us back to the Age of Reality first.

[Riverwind]

The president of Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and is trying with all his might to get nuclear weapons.

The president of Iran is one person that does not really have that much power. The only reason he is power is because of the invasion of Iraq - if that had not happened we would likely still be dealing with the reformist that was booted out in 2005. In any case, Iran has a real reason to believe that it could be invaded by the US which means it has a right to acquire nuclear weapons for self-defence. If the US does not like it when countries do that then it should learn to respect international law and stop invading countries without the approval of the United Nations.

Iran is helping terrorists in Iraq and in Syria. Yet you believe the phrase axis of evil is vilifying Iran.

The US helped terrorists all over the world during the cold war. Does that make the US a member of the 'axis of evil'?

When Iran gets Nuclear weapons and starts sabre rattling and perhaps starts a war, you will blame Israel for provoking them, or the U.S. for 'pushing them' to the brink.

Actually, no. Israel would be under direct threat - I would have no issue with them responding in kind provided they issued a ultimatum via the security council first and gave diplomacy a final chance before the bombs start to fall. We are not talking about what to do if there is a real threat - we are talking about what to do when there is nothing but a lot of inflammatory rhetoric on both sides.

I think the only thing that will wake people like you up is a Chamberlain moment. Only I hope we never see one, because a world war is too high a price to pay just to have Chamberlain realize that Hitler was tricking him.

And what would have changed if the Chamberlain said no? Absolutely nothing - Germany would have still invaded its neighbors and France and Belgium would have likely fallen just as fast. There would have been still a D-Day and a holocaust. Deferring in Munich bought time to prepare and there was always the small chance that Hitler would have been satisfied with that (albeit very small). All things considered the deal the Chamberlain made was the right deal at the right time.

[sharkman]

The president of Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and is trying with all his might to get nuclear weapons.

The president of Iran is one person that does not really have that much power. The only reason he is power is because of the invasion of Iraq - if that had not happened we would likely still be dealing with the reformist that was booted out in 2005. In any case, Iran has a real reason to believe that it could be invaded by the US which means it has a right to acquire nuclear weapons for self-defence. If the US does not like it when countries do that then it should learn to respect international law and stop invading countries without the approval of the United Nations.

Iran is helping terrorists in Iraq and in Syria. Yet you believe the phrase axis of evil is vilifying Iran.

The US helped terrorists all over the world during the cold war. Does that make the US a member of the 'axis of evil'?

When Iran gets Nuclear weapons and starts sabre rattling and perhaps starts a war, you will blame Israel for provoking them, or the U.S. for 'pushing them' to the brink.

Actually, no. Israel would be under direct threat - I would have no issue with them responding in kind provided they issued a ultimatum via the security council first and gave diplomacy a final chance before the bombs start to fall. We are not talking about what to do if there is a real threat - we are talking about what to do when there is nothing but a lot of inflammatory rhetoric on both sides.

I think the only thing that will wake people like you up is a Chamberlain moment. Only I hope we never see one, because a world war is too high a price to pay just to have Chamberlain realize that Hitler was tricking him.

And what would have changed if the Chamberlain said no? Absolutely nothing - Germany would have still invaded its neighbors and France and Belgium would have likely fallen just as fast. There would have been still a D-Day and a holocaust. Deferring in Munich bought time to prepare and there was always the small chance that Hitler would have been satisfied with that (albeit very small). All things considered the deal the Chamberlain made was the right deal at the right time.

good for you Riverwind.

[jbg]

In the West, inciting hate and violence toward Muslims is considered wrong.

Not at all. It has become perfectly acceptable in the West to incite violence against Muslims. The only difference is people in the West don't talk about attacking individuals Muslims. People in the West vilify entire societies with terms like 'axis of evil' and then demand that they be bombed back to the stone age of their leaders do not comply with our demands.

I've never understood how any poster could be knee-jerk against the West on Middle East issues, when that same poster so eloquently explains, and correctly in my opinion. why the West (i.e. European descendants) largely are on the right side of the native American land claims issue. There's a certain dissonance here I cannot fathom.

[Riverwind]

I've never understood how any poster could be knee-jerk against the West on Middle East issues, when that same poster so eloquently explains, and correctly in my opinion. why the West (i.e. European descendants) largely are on the right side of the native American land claims issue. There's a certain dissonance here I cannot fathom.

I respond to arguments that I disagree with. That does not mean that I automatically agree with the arguments typically presented by the other side. For example, I have forcefully spoken in favour of Israel's right to defend itself and have little patience for Palestinian apologists. I also feel Iran's meddling in the Israel is wrong. That said I see Iran as one of the more civilized Islamic cultures (along with Turkey and Malaysia) and that it is simply going through a 'mullah phase' similar to what happened in England when Oliver Cromwell ruled. I believe that Iran would likely emerge as a responsible member of world community in a generation or so. Unfortunately, I am quite concerned that hamfisted bullying by the US and the invasion of Iraq has set that process back at least 20 years.

[jbg]

That said I see Iran as one of the more civilized Islamic cultures (along with Turkey and Malaysia) and that it is simply going through a 'mullah phase' similar to what happened in England when Oliver Cromwell ruled. I believe that Iran would likely emerge as a responsible member of world community in a generation or so. Unfortunately, I am quite concerned that hamfisted bullying by the US and the invasion of Iraq has set that process back at least 20 years.

As a person of good will, I pray to G-d you're right. The difference is Cromwell didn't have nukes and itinerant terrorists to spread his purported madness (I don't know much about him, which is why I say "purported) worldwide. Iran does.

[Riverwind]

As a person of good will, I pray to G-d you're right. The difference is Cromwell didn't have nukes and itinerant terrorists to spread his purported madness (I don't know much about him, which is why I say "purported) worldwide. Iran does.

Anything we do right now comes with huge risks. Bombing Iran could backfire badly and simply ensure that the nukes which Pakistan already has make their way to Iran or Israel. Maybe that would happen anyways - we can't know for sure. We have to make a bet, roll the dice and pray. My feeling is that with Iran we can afford to make the bet on the positive engagement option because:

1) Until 2005 Iran showed numerous signs of liberalization and modernisation. The President was a moderate that believes Iran should engage positively with the world. The people supporting that view are still present within Iran but they have been undermined politically by what they perceived to be a hostile world.

2) Iran/Persia is a culture that dates back thousands of years and was an ancient empire equal to Greece in terms of military power and scientific achievement. All other societies with similar history are either already responsible world citizens or on their way.