If Iran disappeared, would anyone really care?

[StrykerFSU]

Okay but what are the root causes to address? Again, they hated us before the Iraq War so what are we to do? You guys remember the US Cole, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the first WTC attack right? How do we encourage moderates in the Middle East? Several times the question has been posed asking what the alternatives are and there has yet to be a straight answer but I'm not all that surprised since that is what comes from Capitol Hill as well.

I don't necessarily disagree with your point that our current action in Iraq is causing increased radicalization elsewhere. I don't think anyone should be surprised that young men living in poverty are easily pushed to violence and are susceptible to influence by radicals. Show a Muslim in Indonesia some video of a funeral in Iraq, tell him it was the US' fault and give him Semtex...detonate, martyr, and repeat. Of course you can also neglect to tell him that the funeral was for a woman killed by a car bomb set by another Muslim but I digress.

[Adam Gamradt]

Calling a member of Al Qaeda a Muslim, is like calling a member of the KKK a Christian.

It's an oversimplification of the problem, used only for rhetorical purposes.

And Sonny, I have a sister in Brooklyn, and were New York glowing, I would indeed be depressed.

What I don't care for, is people who imply I'm a coward or a traitor, because I'm willing to discuss our mistakes, in the hopes that we may learn from them.

It's the, "your either with us or against us" idiocy we've been swept up in that really bothers me.

A typical fourth grader recognizes that the world is not black and white, and adjusts his behavior accordingly. The rigid incuriousity of the current president is something I will continue to rail against until Lovely East Bloomington is glowing because of my lack of support for our own home grown brand of fundamentalism.

[Adam Gamradt]

Also,

Your Spell Checker does not recognize the word Qaeda.

Tell me Sonny, why do you hate America?

That's a joke everyone, just so we're clear.

[Riss]

Well certainly that is the 64,000 dollar question. Obviously i dont have all the answers, nor does anyone. However, we need to recognize the battle that is raging within the Islamic world. The secular moderates vs. Islamic extremists, Hamas v. Fatah, Hezbollah v. Lebanese unified state, etc. I don't believe the people that hate us and want to kill us will ever go away fully, but I do believe they can lose their popular support. Hamas and Hezbollah while terrorist organization without a doubt, also provide crucial social services that their governments do not. We need to show that legitimate government is the way to go and that our model, while not perfect, is one of the best out there. I dont know if we can ever repair our reputation after what we've started in Iraq, I do know that new leadership and accountability for mistakes made is a start

[StrykerFSU]

Rob, I promise no more Sheehan low blows. I might even refrain from Clinton heckling.

The new rule is that everyone gets a chance to respond to the idiocy of a post before the author can edit...kind of like the waiver wire.

[Rob Graff]

SFSU- Deal.

[Rob Graff]

I echo the following insightful statement by Riss:

[Those groups] also provide crucial social services that their governments do not. We need to show that legitimate government is the way to go and that our model, while not perfect, is one of the best out there

And I do believe that this is possible - even with Iraq.

[Adam Gamradt]

Sonny,

Wallace also said "In a strange way", prior to those comments. This leads me to indicate he was surprised by his following comments. As in, I'm surprised he's a reasonable sounding man in person, as on TV, he seems like a raving looney.

I believe you may want to check out the full transcript, as the first 100 or so hits on Google are right wing attack sites. Every one taking it out of context to spin it clockwise.

I don't think Wallace will be sending this guy a Christmas card, ok?

So if you're riled up about a simple interview, then why aren't you upset about our failure describe here?

"I want justice," President Bush said, referring to bin Laden after September 11, 2001. "And there's an old poster out West. ... I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'"

The United States unleashed an onslaught on Afghanistan that toppled the Taliban, but bin Laden slipped away. By most accounts, it's because the United States did not have enough boots on the ground, not enough U.S. soldiers to pin him down and block off escape routes in December 2001.

"In the first two or three days of December, I would write a message back to Washington recommending the insertion of U.S. forces on the ground," Gary Berntsen, the leader of a secret CIA unit pursuing bin Laden at the time, told CNN. "I was looking for 600 to 800 Rangers, roughly a battalion. They never came."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... index.html

Bin Laden and Saddam get along politically, about as well as you and I would around election time.

What I am opposed to was the expansion of the war in to Iraq, without a full and open discussion of the rationale.

If you recall, the first thing we heard about this war, came from our president. If I may sum up, I believe he said something along the lines of, we're going to war in Iraq, and you're either with us or against us.

Tell me then, as a German, or another ally, why you would send any troops to help? If America is going it alone regardless, then why sacrifice any resources? I think this war (Iraq, not Afganistan) was mishandled from the get go. If a Democrat had made the same errors as this band of jokers, I have a feeling your Flexible Rovian Ethics would have you calling for impeachment proceedings.

Another point, tied in to the Wallace interview. I find it surprising that you oppose any engagement with our enemies. And yes, Iran is definately an enemy. Even to a liberal wuss like myself.

So on one hand, I see you making the argument that we can't find any part of the answer to this problem by looking inward, and reflecting upon our own role in this mess.

One the other hand, you argue we should not engage our enemies in discuussion. So basically, we cowboy up, and blindly posture our way through this, without asking any questions? Seems like a great plan.

[sohotrightnow]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/ ... index.html

Guess we will soon see what this leads to...

[Beta]

Calling a member of Al Qaeda a Muslim, is like calling a member of the KKK a Christian.

Al Qaeda is a Sunni Islamic group.

[Jana]

Yeah well, Eric Rudolf is a protestant, so was Timothy McVeigh. Part of their philosophies included anti - catholic ramblings, about the world being controlled by the Pope. I'm not sure what the unibomber professed, but he was raised protestant.

Just because someone professes a religion does not prevent someone from murdering innocent people, blowing up other people's property, and paying other people to do the same.

[Adam Gamradt]

Beta,

My point was the anyone who blows up something to make a point, is probably not reliable. The association with religion is superficial, though no doubt a powerful motivational technique.

If you think about what Al Qaeda wants to achieve, we are playing in to their hands with the East vs. West, Chrisitian vs. Muslim, political rhetoric. If you make it a discussion of who's god is bigger, then you're only perpetuating the struggle.

Wahhabism is supposedly a return to the past, where Muhammeds' word is the sole source of enlightenment. And maybe it is. In reality, Islam is only a tool for Al Qaeda. Calling Bin Laden a Muslim is like calling Timothy McVeigh a Christian. Whatever either claims, is irrelevant due to their behavior. Genuine Christians don't blow people up to make a point any more than genuine Muslims do.

I have a feeling, that if there is a god, he's going to want to have a little chat with both of those asshats.

[cjwilhelmi]

Interesting read from London (I think):

Iran now the key power in Iraq, says UK think-tank

[Zeuslax]

I agree with the statements in the article in many ways. However, this (Iran's influence on the region) doesn't have to be the case in the future. This path of dealing with weapons of mass destruction and inspections is eerily familiar. I don't think the administration will tumble down the same path as we did early on with Saddam. There's no winner. We need new tactics and strategy's, and we absolutely have to use the full might of our power. That means economically, diplomatically and we have to harness the full support of the world. Then we have to start winning some of the perception wars.

To change Iran's influence over the middle east outside of the nuclear bomb development issue is a whole different ball game. If the US play's it's cards right this could be the first hand that starts to diminish that influence. It just chaps my bum that our war planners would be so blind not to see that the Iranians would get involved in the conflict in Iraq. Especially to the degree that they have and to underestimate how early they got involved. We are behind the curve with the Iranians and have to figure out how to get a head.

[laxfan25]

I guess one of my questions is why is there a total focus on Iran, which at best is 4 years from having the capability of producing a bomb - and no such planning and outright belligerence towards North Korea? Could be that the N Koreans already have nukes, and it is a much touchier situation? Also, the North Koreans have enough conventional firepower at their disposal that they could rain down 250,000 artillery shells an hour on Seoul (read that somewhere) - that may also be giving pause.
During our decades of standoff with the Soviet Union - the peace was kept by the threat of MAD - mutually assured destruction. Why then is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons, without a threat from the US to take out their facilities, while we object to their enemies having similar capabilities, in a desire to achieve MADness?
If we truly are at war with states that sponsor or harbor terrorists, why does Pakistan have most favored nation trading status? Paki is the supplier of Iran's centrifuges - and tha charade that the Paki gov't or the US wasn't aware of what Khan was doing is preposterous. We have satellite images that show Pakistani military transports on the ground in North Korea from several ago - no suspicions raised?
I guess there is also the fact that the people we most desperately want to kill or capture - Al Queda leadership - are being harbored in Pakistan that troubles me. Pakistani madrassas are also supplying a lot of the ideological faithful that wish to carry out jihad. Much of the mounting violence in Afghanistan is being caused by insurgents crossing the border from Paki to Afghan. Where is the US military in taking care of these primary issues? Oh, that's right - we pulled most of the troops out to send then to Iraq, that bastion of Al Queda terrorism under Saddam.
The Afghan gov't is shaky at best, and not really in control of the country. Outside of Kabul control is in the hands of war lords, drug lords and the Taliban - none of which are great harbingers for the future.
Musharraf is maintaining his position under great duress, and if one of the assassination attempts is successful, you will now have the new center of the universe for radical Islam.
So why did we take our focus off of this immediate threat and go looking for adventure elsewhere? To me, that is the ultimate failing of Bush's war on terror.