rainjack - that’s not 100% true - there are many political and religious moderates, and even American sympathy, especially among young Iranians. The radical Shahs are barely holding on to power. Ironically, pro-American sentiment was peaking just before Bush chose to include Iran in the axis of evil.
Was it really wise to call out three countries, especially when the main purpose of that speech as I remember it was to vilify Iraq by association? That’s just plain insensitive, in my opinion.
Just for your information, just so that I can go that little bit further to enlighten you (sorry if I sound patronizing), on the night of the 9/11 attacks thousands of Iranians took to the streets and demonstrated against these disgusting acts of terrorism, they held candles throughout the night to mark the death of each and every victim there and sent a prayer for them.
What did you do??? I bet you sat down and began writing a list of all the countries you wanted to wipe off the map, you see BB you are just as bad as them you keep using the same excuses as they do to create hatred because you enjoy it, they say “kill the infidels” you say “kill the ones that say kill the infidels”.
rainjack…
[quote]
rainjack wrote:
We should have kicked the shit out of Iran in 1979, when they took our guys hostage.
[\quote]
The British government put these people in power there!!! I dont beleive I have to even explain this, Britain and America created all these monsters, same goes for Saddam.
Someone is going to come out with, we put them there because it suited us at the time and now they are bad so we are going to get rid of them
America or Britain never put these people in power thats just all BS conspiracy theory stuff.
Bluey, The Iranian secret police have provided funding for Hezbollah since the beginning as well as offering a safe haven. Al-Queda, until the invasion of Iraq also found a safe haven in Iran.
The United States has influenced Iranian policies since WWII. We actually imposed the Shah on them in the during the Eisenhower admin. Teddy Roosevelt’s grandson was actually the CIA man in charge of this. It is quite a story.
However, ratchet forward to present day. We haven’t had involvement in internal Iranian affairs since 1979. The country is a mess. It’s hostile and supports international terrorism on a broad scale. Financially and Idealogically. They can’t get nukes. It destabilizes the region and threatens us directly. I live in NYC, where do you think the terr’s are going to set that thing off if they get one. Des Moines??, Toronto? I don’t think so.
Let’s face it. The Middle East will never love us. They can be made to fear us. If they fear us and leave no doubt on their mind that an attack upon our people will lead to the destruction of their regime and a significant portion of the population then we will have peace.
That’s the way it has been since the middle ages. You don’t have to like, you just have to be aware of it. I think the current administration get’s it. I don’t know if the challenger does. He might but I am not certain. I look at Kerry’s record and I don’t see that he get’s it…but who knows.
[quote]DrS wrote:
rainjack - that’s not 100% true - there are many political and religious moderates, and even American sympathy, especially among young Iranians. The radical Shahs are barely holding on to power. Ironically, pro-American sentiment was peaking just before Bush chose to include Iran in the axis of evil.
Was it really wise to call out three countries, especially when the main purpose of that speech as I remember it was to vilify Iraq by association? That’s just plain insensitive, in my opinion.[/quote]
Yeah, we wouldn’t want to be insensitive to people who want us and our way of life dead. Please read up on your history.
Hedo,
up until 1979 Iran was the police of the middle east, now you have complete anarchy in that region. Pakistan and India both have nuclear arms and have been at each others throat ever since, Iran and Iraq had a bloody 8 year war, Afghanistan with the help of the US became a breeding ground for Taliban and Al-Qaedeh.
The only thing you think you have done well is controlling the oil in that region and by that I mean UAE, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of those little countries like Kuwait, Bahrain etc etc and by doing so we have a set of countries that have come to riches from having nothing and in return work as puppets for the US and Britain, pretty much brainless if you ask me on their behalf. Basically to put ir crudely, they are ‘whoring’ their resources to the west.
Now back to the argument… The mullahs in Iran are not as dumb as Saddam was and will retain power for as long as they can…or should I say for as long as WE want them there.
[quote]lincono wrote:
Yeah, we wouldn’t want to be insensitive to people who want us and our way of life dead. Please read up on your history.
[/quote]
Dude you are waay overhyping things here, man you gotta get out of this mindset… I swear to you those people that spread hatred and terrorism say these exact kinds of things to those poor bastards that dont know any better!!!
[quote]DrS wrote:
rainjack - that’s not 100% true - there are many political and religious moderates, and even American sympathy, especially among young Iranians. The radical Shahs are barely holding on to power. Ironically, pro-American sentiment was peaking just before Bush chose to include Iran in the axis of evil.
Was it really wise to call out three countries, especially when the main purpose of that speech as I remember it was to vilify Iraq by association? That’s just plain insensitive, in my opinion.[/quote]
The Shah’s were thrown out in the 1979 rebellion that led to the islamic terrorists storming our embassy and taking hostages - there are no shahs left in Iran.
I will agree that Iran may indeed crumble on it’s own without a shot being fired, but that is 25 years after the fact. We should have done something to stop terrorism in it’s early stages.
What’s wrong with calling a spade a spade? I’m glad Bush called the axis of evil out - It wasn’t to vilify Iraq ‘by association’- they were all rogue states. In our war on terror, being sensitive to the murderous thugs who want to see us dead leads to things like the Tehran incident in 1979, and continues for 25 years until we have a pile of 3000 innocent victims in NYC.
You want to see someone who treated terrorists with ‘sensitivity’? - Jimmy Carter.
The only thing that freed the hostages was the terrorists fear of Reagan. They knew he would take no shit, and go in and get our guys out.
Jimmy Carter should live with the eternal shame of being a chicken shit coward.
[quote]DrS wrote:
Based on this, wouldn’t it have been more prudent to invade Iran or North Korea? Now we don’t have the manpower to do either without reinstating a draft. [/quote]
Charles Krauthammer’s answer to the above:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7530-2004Jul22.html
Axis of Evil, Part Two
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 23, 2004; Page A29
Did we invade the wrong country? One of the lessons being drawn from the Sept. 11 report is that Iran was the real threat. It had links to al Qaeda, allowed some of the Sept. 11 hijackers to transit and is today harboring al Qaeda leaders. The Iraq war critics have a new line of attack: We should have done Iran instead of Iraq
Well, of course Iran is a threat and a danger. But how exactly would the critics have “done” Iran? Iran is a serious country with a serious army. Compared with the Iraq war, an invasion of Iran would have been infinitely more costly. Can you imagine these critics, who were shouting “quagmire” and “defeat” when the low-level guerrilla war in Iraq intensified in April, actually supporting war with Iran?
If not war, then what? We know the central foreign policy principle of Bush critics: multilateralism. John Kerry and the Democrats have said it a hundred times: The source of our troubles is President Bush’s insistence on “going it alone.” They promise to “rejoin the community of nations” and “work with our allies.”
Well, that happens to be exactly what we have been doing regarding Iran. And the policy is an abject failure. The Bush administration, having decided that invading one axis-of-evil country was about as much as either the military or the country can bear, has gone multilateral on Iran, precisely what the Democrats advocate. Washington delegated the issue to a committee of three – the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany – that has been meeting with the Iranians to get them to shut down their nuclear program.
The result? They have been led by the nose. Iran is caught red-handed with illegally enriched uranium, and the Tehran Three prevail upon the Bush administration to do nothing while they persuade the mullahs to act nice. Therefore, we do not go to the U.N. Security Council to declare Iran in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We do not impose sanctions. We do not begin squeezing Iran to give up its nuclear program.
Instead, we give Iran more time to swoon before the persuasive powers of “Jack of Tehran” – British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw – until finally, humiliatingly, Iran announces that it will resume enriching uranium and that nothing will prevent it from becoming a member of the “nuclear club.”
The result has not been harmless. Time is of the essence, and the runaround that the Tehran Three have gotten from the mullahs has meant that we have lost at least nine months in doing anything to stop the Iranian nuclear program.
The fact is that the war critics have nothing to offer on the single most urgent issue of our time – rogue states in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Iran instead of Iraq? The Iraq critics would have done nothing about either country. There would today be two major Islamic countries sitting on an ocean of oil, supporting terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction – instead of one.
Two years ago there were five countries supporting terrorism and pursuing these weapons – two junior-leaguers, Libya and Syria, and the axis-of-evil varsity: Iraq, Iran and North Korea. The Bush administration has eliminated two: Iraq, by direct military means, and Libya, by example and intimidation.
Syria is weak and deterred by Israel. North Korea, having gone nuclear, is untouchable. That leaves Iran. What to do? There are only two things that will stop the Iranian nuclear program: revolution from below or an attack on its nuclear facilities.
The country should be ripe for revolution. The regime is detested. But the mullahs are very good at police-state tactics. The long-awaited revolution is not happening.
Which makes the question of preemptive attack all the more urgent. Iran will go nuclear during the next presidential term. Some Americans wishfully think that the Israelis will do the dirty work for us, as in 1981, when they destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor. But for Israel, attacking Iran is a far more difficult proposition. It is farther away. Moreover, detection and antiaircraft technology are far more advanced than they were 20 years ago.
There may be no deus ex machina. If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of the “Great Satan” will have both nuclear weapons and the terrorists and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either revolution or preemptive strike.
Both of which, by the way, are far more likely to succeed with 146,000 American troops and highly sophisticated aircraft standing by just a few miles away – in Iraq.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
? 2004 The Washington Post Company
My take: I’m not an expert on geopolitical strategy, but Iran is definitely a worry.
Note shorty_blitz and bluey, it is extremely worrisome when a country that advocates violent revolution and is a known state sponsor of terrorism is pursuing nuclear weapons.
The moral equivocation arguments don’t fly – they didn’t fly in the Cold War, and they don’t fly now. If someone is saying “Kill the infidels,” and you and your country are “the infidels,” it behooves you to treat them as enemies. You see, when someone wants to kill you, sometimes its not wise to allow them to get thermonuclear weapons.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
In our war on terror, being sensitive to the murderous thugs who want to see us dead leads to things like the Tehran incident in 1979, and continues for 25 years until we have a pile of 3000 innocent victims in NYC.
[quote]
An interesting approach (i.e. the fear of punishment will stop terror). I am not sure sure it is such a good approach since:
1 terror is commited by small groups not countries, after all you at least have to punish the right people, the memebrs of the actual groups or at very least the countries that they come from.
2 what use is the fear of punishment if the terrorists welcome death? after all its kind of hard to punish someone who has blown themselves up.
Surley a better policy would be containment, isolation, seperation etc, litterally let them colapse in upon them selves.
Your hero Regan, did he directly attcak the “evil empire” of the USSR (Regans’s great foe)? No he choose political, economic, social and cultural against them. Did they work better than nuking Moskow?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
My take: I’m not an expert on geopolitical strategy, but Iran is definitely a worry.
Note shorty_blitz and bluey, it is extremely worrisome when a country that advocates violent revolution and is a known state sponsor of terrorism is pursuing nuclear weapons.
The moral equivocation arguments don’t fly – they didn’t fly in the Cold War, and they don’t fly now. If someone is saying “Kill the infidels,” and you and your country are “the infidels,” it behooves you to treat them as enemies. You see, when someone wants to kill you, sometimes its not wise to allow them to get thermonuclear weapons.[/quote]
I absolutely agree. Completley. But really don’t think bombing from 10,000 feet will be all that effective. In fact I really do think it will make it much worse. Lets just say your “fix” Iran, who next? It will just go on and on causing more and more problems that need more and more solutions.
Still it is just not thermonuclear weapons that are the sole problem. Even without them they will still “Kill the infidels” as you put. So really you are back to square one, always chasing your tail.
I think as much physical seperation as possiable would be the better option. Dis-engage as opposed to engage the " enemies". They can swear to kill me as much as they like. But without the means (i.e. proximity) to do it it really does not matter. Now a knife, gun or bomb needs a close engaement. If you seperate your enemy from your these weapons become useless, even if they still want to “Kill the infidels”.
Missiles and nukes are a completley different matter (and yes a big problem). But so far this is a war against groups not nations that have access to the above (IMHO it would be better to keep it this way).
Charles Krauthammer? I did a internet search and found some of his other writings just to see where he is coming from. It puts the article you posted into better perpespective.
[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
lincono wrote:
Yeah, we wouldn’t want to be insensitive to people who want us and our way of life dead. Please read up on your history.
Dude you are waay overhyping things here, man you gotta get out of this mindset… I swear to you those people that spread hatred and terrorism say these exact kinds of things to those poor bastards that dont know any better!!![/quote]
Apparently you didn’t read up on your history; yeah, you wouldn’t want to know the future by understanding the past.
[quote]bluey wrote:
I absolutely agree. Completley. But really don’t think bombing from 10,000 feet will be all that effective. In fact I really do think it will make it much worse. Lets just say your “fix” Iran, who next? It will just go on and on causing more and more problems that need more and more solutions. [/quote]
I agree with you – I don’t think a bombing campaign a la Kosovo would accomplish much here. Unless the only bombing run takes out their nuclear facilities, but that would be a discrete operation, not a “fix” as you say.
True, but those who wish to kill the infidels with conventional weapons can do far less damage than if they possess WMD, and I think the amount of damage that could be wreaked, combined with the certainty the Iranians are enriching uranium, requires action.
True - especially if we take out their nuclear facilities. But, on the other hand, sanctions and separation will require the cooperation of the Russians, and they are the ones who have been supplying the Iranians with their nuclear technology to begin with, so I’m not sure that would be workable. A unilateral set of sanctions or controls wouldn’t work.
In general I agree with your conclusion, but I’m not sure about your premise (from a post above), in that I think the problem with the terrorists is that they are receiving succor from specific countries. And those countries – at least the regimes of those countries – are part and parcel to the problem and dealing with them to any solution.
Oh yeah, Krauthammer is definitely a card-carrying neocon. So take his comments from that perspective. I don’t agree with everything he says, but he is smart and generally raises good points even if one disagrees with his analysis.
[quote]bluey wrote:
An interesting approach (i.e. the fear of punishment will stop terror). I am not sure sure it is such a good approach …Surley a better policy would be containment, isolation, seperation etc, litterally let them colapse in upon them selves.
Your hero Regan, did he directly attcak the “evil empire” of the USSR (Regans’s great foe)? No he choose political, economic, social and cultural against them. Did they work better than nuking Moskow?[/quote]
The isolation approach is fine - and I think that is precisely why Iran is on the brink of collapse right now,
However - when you get a roach infestation in your house - you don’t let it escalate to the point that the roaches have taken over your house. Treatment at that point should consist of more than just hoping they leave on their own.
You squash it - exterminate it before the problem gets too bad to deal with.
That’s what has happened in the middle east. We’ve allowed terrorists to infest and multiply like roaches.
Do you think that there would be a Palestinian problem right now if Israel was allowed to address the problem ‘their way’? I don’t.
As for Reagan and the cold war - SDI scared the bejeezus out of Russia. It wasn’t patience and sensitivity that won the cold war. It was strength - which is precisely what we needed in 1979, but was 25 years late in arriving.
Here is a long excerpt from this post by the Belmont Club that gets to the heart of the question: Why is this a problem? The short answer is because Iran supports terrorism. This is a longer exposition, more on the problem of terrorism, but that encompasses nukes:
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/08/last-taboo-news-that-iraqi-police-have.html
The principal damage inflicted by the War on Terror has not been to material objects or to human lives, although there have been enough of those. Compared to the tens of millions killed during World War 2 or the millions killed during the Cold War (more than 100,000 Americans in Korea and Vietnam; over a million NVA alone), the current losses have barely nudged the Satanic scale. But the damage inflicted against the fabric of civilization has been immense.
Civilization does not principally consist of bricks and mortar, but in a set of commonly accepted values and restraints. If the inhabitants of the sub-Saharan Africa and the United States could be exchanged instanteously; the one materializing in suburban homes and the other in wattle huts, the material imbalance would be reversed again within ten years, because the technology and civilization of Americans is carried in their heads and not in their possessions. There would be nothing Americans could not rebuild in Africa; and there would be nothing Africans could repair or replace in America.
So the most terrifying effect of the War so far has been in the slow destruction of taboos and imperatives which collectively allowed civilization to function. One writer observed that although Britain has possessed nuclear weapons for nearly 60 years no one worried about a UK attack on New York city. He might have added that no one in London lost any sleep over the prospect of an American nuclear strike on Picadilly Circus. The electronics, physics and rocketry check out fine; it was civilization that held them back. The concept of assymetric warfare was supposed to exploit the “fact” that transnational terrorist organizations operating in areas of chaos could strike at a civilization hamstrung by constraints. They could attack orphanages and then seek shelter in the Church of the Nativity; they could fly wide bodied aircraft into Manhattan, then seek shelter in “sovereign” Afghanistan; they could call for the death of millions from the pulpits of Qom; they could fire mortars from the Imam Ali Shrine and never expect the favor to be returned. But the logical flaw in this conception was that civilization could put aside these constraints in a moment. Hiroshima and Dresden are reminders that it could.
There was a time before terrorism when passengers could walk right up to airplanes on the apron; children would be given the tour of cockpits; passengers could eat their food with real knives and body-cavity searches were something that happened to drug smugglers. That was before civilization addressed the assymetry and became, like Islam facing the Mongols, adept in the face of the enemy; able if you forgive the mixed metaphor, to out-Herod Herod. Two taboos are about to fall in the coming days. The first is the protective mantle conferred by one of the holiest Shrines in Islam upon those within. The second is the guaranteed access of the Western press to the battlefield.
A wag once suggested that the War on Terror could end in either of two ways. The Islamic fundamentalist could become like the infidel and within a generation acquire the material wealth and technology whose lack has been their weakness. Or the infidel could become like the Islamic fundamentalist for a day and the end the fight as the fundamentalist would. I thought it was funny once. Let’s win this war soon or be prepared to pay the price.