If Iran disappeared, would anyone really care?

[Adam Gamradt]

What's his name, that Bin Laden guy?

Yea, that guy. That guy was the ball.

We fumbled him in Tora Bora, by relying on the Pakastani military to chase him down, rather than sending our own troops in to get him.

[Sonny]

Not sure where you got your information, but he seems to be going at him pretty hard. People called and emailed to complain about Wallace being too confrontational.

Wallace finds him interesting, rational, and smart...
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060811/ENTERTAINMENT05/608110328/1005/ENTERTAINMENT

Of Ahmadinejad, Wallace said, "He's an impressive fellow, this guy. He really is. He's obviously smart as hell."

Wallace said he was surprised to find that the Iranian president was still a college professor who taught a graduate-level course.

"You'll find him an interesting man," he said. "I expected more of a firebrand. I don't think he has the slightest doubt about how he feels . . . about the American administration and the Zionist state. He comes across as more rational than I had expected."

The very same person that has publically advocated to push Israel into the sea. Sound rational to me. Your mileage may vary.

[sohotrightnow]

Well, to each his own. How many presidents have engineering degrees and teach graduate level courses Sonny? Smart and rational have different definitions if my memory serves correct. I mean, what is the purpose of the interview unless the interviewer attempts to understand the interviewee? 60 Minutes is not The Factor or Hannity and Liberal to be Announced...the purpose of interviews is to listen to what the person has to say, not publicly scold, berate, and/or get into a testosterone-filled shouting match.

[Sonny]

The country he is leading is supplying and funding Hizbollah, a terrorist organization for the last 20 years. What else do you need to know? Actions speak louder then words.

[sohotrightnow]

Hmm, I seem to recall some country providing Iran with arms through Israel a few years ago. Can't remember which one!

[Sonny]

Adam,

I debated posting on this.... but I think your earlier post really represents the classical fundamental difference between many people in the US:

Iran is part of the bigger picture in the Middle East. The Middle East is now a tinder box, one mistake or accident, and we're in the middle of the next world war.

The US, along with the rest of the free world, is currently at war with radical Islam. NYC, Madrid, London, Bali... I'm not saying that the US is perfect, but how many more attacks must the West endure before you will admit we are already at war?

I don't want to read too much into your post - but, in my opinion, it suggests that NYC would have to be glowing again for some of you to take any action. That so many people have trouble viewing basic good vs. evil, regardless of party affliations & the current resident at the White House, is very, very troubling.

[FLAK]

That so many people have trouble viewing basic good vs. evil, regardless of party affliations & the current resident at the White House, is very, very troubling.

Amen to that

[laxfan25]

The US, along with the rest of the free world, is currently at war with radical Islam. NYC, Madrid, London, Bali... I'm not saying that the US is perfect, but how many more attacks must the West endure before you will admit we are already at war?
I don't want to read too much into your post - but, in my opinion, it suggests that NYC would have to be glowing again for some of you to take any action. That so many people have trouble viewing basic good vs. evil, regardless of party affliations & the current resident at the White House, is very, very troubling.

So who are we at war with - Islam? Is that a war we can actually fight militarily, and expect to win? One problem is that we have squandered all of the worldwide sympathy and goodwill we were blessed with after 9/11. I don't know of many people who objected to raining hell down on those who were responsible, and the war in Afghanistan was a just effort. Unfortunately, we left the largest part of that mission undone, in the Administration's haste to bump off Saddam. One of this administration's faults is that it only wants to hear news that fits its view - dissenters are disloyal, and not much liked in Washington - and they went into Iraq believing that we would topple Hussein, the people would be joyously grateful, and things would be back to normal with a democratically elected government - all in about a year. Oops.

With the president's poor choice of words - describing our Crusade in Iraq - we put faithful followers of Islam on the defensive, feeling like maybe we're targeting their faith, rather than a few bad actors. Back that up with Abu Ghraib and the rape and murdur of civilians, and you maybe can understand why many Muslims feel that we are the devil.
This battle has to be fought as a war of ideas, and we're not doing the best job presenting our side as the forces of good. People on the receiving end may just see it differently. The result in Iraq - fear and hatred of the US occupiers - an actual civil war, whether we want to admit it or not - and a fertile breeding ground for more revenge-minded folk.
To me the biggest problem in Iraq is that the US military has no fans in the population - if they don't hate us, they fear us, so soldiers never get to see smiling faces. As in Vietnam, where we couldn't tell friend from foe, everyone on the other side was a "gook" - now you can simply substitute "haji" and the attitude is the same. No matter what our intentions are now, nothing good is going to come from a sustained US presence in that country. We bought it, we broke it, now maybe we can slip the pieces back on the shelf while we slip out the side door. Besides, we gotta get these boys ready for the invasion next door.

Now we have issues with the extremist in charge in Iran. First and foremost in the planning - massive aerial bombardments to destroy the Iranian nuclear program. Many experts feel this would be a futile effort, since many of their facilities have been placed well underground, but Mr. Cheney remains unconvinced. The administration's other intended outcome of this action - the citizens of Iran would be so pissed at their gov't that they would rise up in revolt and overthrow Admenijad (sp). This is the same thinking that took hold in Israel - if we punish the Lebanese people, they will rise up and throw Hezbollah out of the country.
That didn't work as planned.
As Sy Hersh points out in this week's New Yorker, we also found a test environment for the Iran strategy in the recent dustup between Israel and Hezbollah. As we have found out elsewhere, massive bombing can cause great destruction, but you need boots on the ground to finish the job. It did allow the US to test bunker-busters on Hezbollah rocket supplies, but as we have seen, it wasn't entirely effective.
The big result - another clear indication that the USrael is at war with Islamics of all persuasions, and they are agents of the devil.
Will we learn our lesson before we start lobbing bombs over the fence into Iran? One can only hope. Backing them into a corner and then starting a war is not going to win over the hearts and minds of the younger set in Iran, and as with the massive overreaction in Lebanon, forces the moderates to either back off or radicalizes them.
If we continue to follow this losing strategy, we will continue to have suicide bombers coming at us all over the world.

So your basic premise, that people can't appreciate the good vs evil nature of this struggle, overlooks the fact that the group we oppose believes that the US government is evil, and that they are doing the work of God when they commit a suicide bombing. That is a tough thing to combat by military means, and until we start down a different path, things will not change.

[Danny Hogan]

a very well thought out analytical post, but like it offers no alternative. we understand that and why they hate us, what is our other alternative?

can you win a hearts and minds campaign against people who blow themselves up?

[StrykerFSU]

Islamic fascists have hated us long before the Iraq War. It is far more than just hating the US for the policies of Bush, they hated us during Clinton, they hated us during Bush I, they hated us under Reagen even as we helped the mujhadeen against the USSR, they obviously hated us under Carter, and on and on.

What is being lost here is that they don't hate us because we are Americans. The root of their hate is that we live in a democracy in which every citizen is given equal rights regardless of gender, race, or religion. Radicals of Islam believe that their path is the only true path to God and as such, all others are infidels who's death is ordered by God. Now you can think whatever you want about our current foreign policy but none of the motivations were for cleansing this planet of infidels. These fascists want to keep the world as it was 1000 years ago. No rights for women, clerics run the government, no global economy, no internet...the stone age.

So what are we supposed to do? Accept the bombing, the murder of civilians, destruction of our cities? Should we hold a conference and discuss the reasons why the terrorists feel they need to blow up trains? Maybe if we really understand their motivations they will no longer feel compelled by their religion to fly airplanes into skyscrapers. Maybe Iran can possess a nuclear weapon and not decide to ship it to DC because the Americans are starting to understand the feelings of the terrorists. Maybe if we change what it is to be an American they will let us live in peace.

Sorry fellas, I for one refuse to feel guilty for being an American. I have no problems with Muslims, the Lebanese, Persians, Iraqis, or any other nationality or religion. I have a problem with people who strap bombs on themselves and murder. I have a problem with clerics who spout hatred and call for the destruction of all Jews. I have a problem with apologists who expect us to look at our own culture to explain the insane actions of others.

I was talking with a friend last night and he is convinced that it will take a nuclear attack on one of our cities for everyone to wake up to the war. I really hope that is not true...but then again, some folks will still probably be blame America for inventing the bomb in the first place.

[Rob Graff]

An interesting opinion piece on the attempted re-badging the "war on terror" to a war on the "Islamic Fascist"

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/627109.html

A quote:

Actually, the term "Islamo-fascism," if taken literally, doesn't make sense. The "fascist" part might fit Saddam Hussein's Iraq, with its militaristic nationalism, its secret police and its silly peaked officers' hats. But there was nothing "Islamo" about the regime; Iraq's Baathists tried to make the state the real object of the people's devotion.

That's why it's odd to describe repressive theocracies like the Taliban as fascist -- just as it would be for Savonarola's Florence, John Calvin's Geneva or the Spain of the Inquisition, all of which reduced the state to an instrument for enforcing God's will.

And another quote:

But like "terror," and "evil" before it, "Islamic fascism" has the effect of reducing a complex story to a simple fable. It effaces the differences among ex-Baathists, Al-Qaida and Shiite mullahs; Chechens and Kashmiris; Hezbollah, Hamas and British-born Asians allegedly making bombs in a London suburb.

Yes, there are millions of people in the Muslim world who wish the United States ill, and some of them are pretty creepy about it. But that doesn't mean they're all of a single mind and purpose, or that a blow against any one of them is a blow against the others

[StrykerFSU]

Fair enough, can agree to call them all radical Muslims? I really think we are just nitpicking semantics so I'll even just call them the bad guys for simplicity. I will not, however, call them "freedom fighters" ala Ms. Sheehan.

[Rob Graff]

IMHO - No.

Yes, there are millions of people in the Muslim world who wish the United States ill, and some of them are pretty creepy about it. But that doesn't mean they're all of a single mind and purpose, or that a blow against any one of them is a blow against the others

This is not a semantic issue - how we frame the debate and how it is described impacts how individuals respond to the war. That's why accuracy in language is everything.

And I'll make you a deal - If you ignore Ms. Sheehan, I'll ignore Ms. Coulter and perhaps we can both continue to debate this as reasoned, intelligent Americans - which is the strength of our country.

p.s. StrykerFSU - How many times can we each edit our posts as more thoughts come into our minds

[StrykerFSU]

Accepting your contention that these varied groups all hate the US but they are not of single mind or purpose (kind of counter intuitive if you ask me) are we not forced to count them all as enemies? What are the multiple minds and purposes of these groups?

During the Cold War the USSR was our enemy but so was China, Viet Nam, Cuba, and North Korea. Why? Because they were all Communist and their ideology calls for the destruction of capitalist societies. We are in much the same situation today. Sure Al-Qaeda and Hezbelloh may not see exactly eye to eye but if you ask me they have a common purpose.

My point was that many violent Muslims hate us and we need to view them as the enemy rather than as a case study for some psychologist looking to find the root of their violent goals.

[Riss]

A key error in the arguments of Stryker and other proponents of the "stay the course" policy is that the critics don't see Islamic fundamentalism as a threat and don't believe the war on terror is real. Untrue. I believe the threat is very real and it is getting worse.

However, the neo conservative foriegn policy with has a produced a preemptive disastrous war has given the extremetists the holy war they always wanted. More importantly these extremists are becoming very popular within their own countries. They are winning the hearts and minds of their people, the US is not. In countries struggling to form democracies like Egypt, Turkey and Lebanon, fundamentalists are winning huge portions of the vote. Why? Because they feel attacked by the US and the West.

Part of fighting terror is taking it head on with security measures. Fine. But more importantly is addressing the root causes and encouraging moderate ideologies. In this respect we have failed miserably and it will take new leadership to have any chance for success. We cannot fight a billion Muslims, so lets stop acting like it.