Will America Go Into Iran?

[Greenchunks]

Wow, this is kinda odd for me to be in here. Usually I avoid this forum for the most part even though I am a Political Science Major, and I am focusing on Terrorism and Counter-terrorism, especially in the Middle East. In any case, I find a number of things interesting here. First I'm going to lay out what I see to be my own little spectrum of politics. HtownTurbobrick is somewhere around a 2.5 on the scale with The whole gang of Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson, Karl Marx, Barbara Lee, ELF and PETA being on the 0 end. starfish is somewhere around a 9, with Cheney, Limbaugh, Buchannan, and that dude (his name eludes me) who ran for president in the 60's on a platform of bring back segregation and those guys as a 10. Now RaZoR (the most knowledgeable and respectful contributor) around a 7. And not to think I'm not biased, I just have a brain in my head and I am capable of thinking critically, unlike many on the far left and the far right.

Ok, now that that's out of the way, starfish, you seem to have placed the foundation of your argument for combatting Islamic Extremists in the school of Wahhabism. While Wahhabism is one of the branches of Islam that does more readily accept the use of violence, you cannot say that Wahhabism is the cause of the Islamic terrorists. Wahhabism has existed since the 1700's, and had its strongest resurgence in the 1920's. The rise of islamic terrorism was not until the early 80's and it was not started by Wahhabists. If Wahhabism is the source, why did the terrorism not start earlier? The rise of terrorism in the islamic world is because they percieve it as a successful method in which they can fight against a much larger enemy (which it clearly is). I'm going to agree with you however on your comments regarding the world market and the US's interest and role in not beign isloationist as integration into the world market and ealing with globalization is essential to the economic security of our country. Some of waht you said and what RaZoR said blends together so I'll lump that next.

The idea of invading another country in order to stop terrorism is a poor strategy for these following reasons: Terrorism, by nature is designed around having a small number of people who are facing a much larger enemy that can easily defeat them by conventional means, and so it is forced to fight in unconvential ways, ways that are outside of what is accepted by the international community, and it is able to succeed because the nation it is attacking can not retaliate in a similar manner due to the fact that it has typically been democracies which have been targeted and they cannot act in a manner similar to the terrorists. However this puts them at a disadvantage because a conventional war cannot root out a terrorist organization. Sure you can kill Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Shaikh Muhammed, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and whoever else who is in charge of planning and organizaing Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group, but as long as the organization is in its mature stage (which it is) they will simply recruit new people in the madrassas and train them to do the same thing. To successfully defeat them, you must convince the people that there is a reason for them to live, and that there is a better way to do things, and that they can improve their lives through hard work. While we cannot stand by idly as they attack us, we must exhibit more restraint with our military, and be more conscious of the image we have in the international community. Things like avoiding the Kyoto Treaty, and not supporting the International Ban on Landmines, and refusing to sign the CTBT (Continental Nuclear Test Ban Treaty) really dont look to good to other people. By having a better world image, it will increase our soft power (influence, basically having people want what you want, without having to force them) and make future requests, military operations and whatever other demands we want form people that much easier, and cheaper. The money spent on Iraq could have been used to build real non-secular schools in the middle east, where people can get a real education that is not based upon the fact that Muhammed is the most important thing in life, and that the US and Israel are the cause of all of their problems. Maybe if your average muhammed in egypt or saudi arabia had electricity, running water, a car, and a safe place to live, he might think twice about killing himself and that maybe his life on earth here is better than the 'black eyed virgins' he has been promised through interpretations of the Qur'an. It is for these reasons that I do not think the war in Iraq was right, because if we are there to fight terrorism, that's ok with me, but we're doing it the wrong way, and we were not told that we were going in there to fight terrorism, and they had no connection to the terrorist acts committed on 9/11, and that is a fact. Yet, we cannot just up and leave right now, because that would be a terrible disaster, but we do need to start formulating some sort of exit strategy or plan, something which the President does not seem to want to do, as he feels it would be admitting defeat. However, RaZoR is right in that NK is much less a threat to us, because Kim Jong Il does have some sort of desire to live and to stay in power, as seen by the recent agreements he has been making with South Korea. Additionally, NK would not be WWIII, it would just be Oh Snap! for maybe Taiwan and Japan. But, North Korea was before 9-11 and while Clinton's lack of pressure obviously didn't work too well, it was not until the intense hostility that the Bush Administration showed towards Iraq that they started talking back and becoming a real 'rogue regime'. The threat North Korea poses to the US is not in the form of them attacking us, it is in the form of them selling weapons to someone who will attack us, somethign which will not be solved by an invasion, because that would merely speed up Kim Jong Il's processes of finding a seller and getting rid of the weapons. Oh and I'm fully in agreement with you on the Israel thing, and whoever called it similar to Tianamen square is just plain foolish. Tanks rolling into a square of protesting students and firing upon them is not the same. Did those students go blow themselves up in a crowded market, then blow up the ambulance that came to pick up the pieces of bodies and tend to the wounded.............?

Ok, I doubt anyone is still reading this, and I feel like I'm writing a paper for class, but I still need to get to HtownTurboBrick. First, don't use the term neo-nazi for describing conservatives. It's completely ridiculous, stupid, insulting, and jsut doesn't even make sense. While they may be incosiderate or racist or whatever in their beliefs, this does not make them neo-nazi's. They are simply neo-conservatives, it's a school of thought, much like liberalism, you just dont agree with it (it's ok neither do I). While I believe that you know jsut as much and prolly more than starfish, you need to understand (and so does starfish) that people can look at the same set of facts and come to two completely different conclusions, so dont think you're any smarter than him. Plus, you sound like a complete idiot for challenging someone to fight, over the internet, on a Volvo forum.

Ok, I still have another 5 pages to say, but I'm tired of writing, and I know people are tired of reading if they still are. Maybe I'll get inspired tomorrow and come back with another installment and more commentary on International Relations.

Edited February 13, 2006 by Greenchunks

[TheDiva]

I read it all

& I think it makes a lot more sense than the ranting that happened in the previous posts.

[HtownTurboBrick]

Wow, this is kinda odd for me to be in here. Usually I avoid this forum for the most part even though I am a Political Science Major, and I am focusing on Terrorism and Counter-terrorism, especially in the Middle East. In any case, I find a number of things interesting here. First I'm going to lay out what I see to be my own little spectrum of politics. HtownTurbobrick is somewhere around a 2.5 on the scale with The whole gang of Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson, Karl Marx, Barbara Lee, ELF and PETA being on the 0 end. starfish is somewhere around a 9, with Cheney, Limbaugh, Buchannan, and that dude (his name eludes me) who ran for president in the 60's on a platform of bring back segregation and those guys as a 10. Now RaZoR (the most knowledgeable and respectful contributor) around a 7. And not to think I'm not biased, I just have a brain in my head and I am capable of thinking critically, unlike many on the far left and the far right.

Ok, now that that's out of the way, starfish, you seem to have placed the foundation of your argument for combatting Islamic Extremists in the school of Wahhabism. While Wahhabism is one of the branches of Islam that does more readily accept the use of violence, you cannot say that Wahhabism is the cause of the Islamic terrorists. Wahhabism has existed since the 1700's, and had its strongest resurgence in the 1920's. The rise of islamic terrorism was not until the early 80's and it was not started by Wahhabists. If Wahhabism is the source, why did the terrorism not start earlier? The rise of terrorism in the islamic world is because they percieve it as a successful method in which they can fight against a much larger enemy (which it clearly is). I'm going to agree with you however on your comments regarding the world market and the US's interest and role in not beign isloationist as integration into the world market and ealing with globalization is essential to the economic security of our country. Some of waht you said and what RaZoR said blends together so I'll lump that next.

The idea of invading another country in order to stop terrorism is a poor strategy for these following reasons: Terrorism, by nature is designed around having a small number of people who are facing a much larger enemy that can easily defeat them by conventional means, and so it is forced to fight in unconvential ways, ways that are outside of what is accepted by the international community, and it is able to succeed because the nation it is attacking can not retaliate in a similar manner due to the fact that it has typically been democracies which have been targeted and they cannot act in a manner similar to the terrorists. However this puts them at a disadvantage because a conventional war cannot root out a terrorist organization. Sure you can kill Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Shaikh Muhammed, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and whoever else who is in charge of planning and organizaing Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group, but as long as the organization is in its mature stage (which it is) they will simply recruit new people in the madrassas and train them to do the same thing. To successfully defeat them, you must convince the people that there is a reason for them to live, and that there is a better way to do things, and that they can improve their lives through hard work. While we cannot stand by idly as they attack us, we must exhibit more restraint with our military, and be more conscious of the image we have in the international community. Things like avoiding the Kyoto Treaty, and not supporting the International Ban on Landmines, and refusing to sign the CTBT (Continental Nuclear Test Ban Treaty) really dont look to good to other people. By having a better world image, it will increase our soft power (influence, basically having people want what you want, without having to force them) and make future requests, military operations and whatever other demands we want form people that much easier, and cheaper. The money spent on Iraq could have been used to build real non-secular schools in the middle east, where people can get a real education that is not based upon the fact that Muhammed is the most important thing in life, and that the US and Israel are the cause of all of their problems. Maybe if your average muhammed in egypt or saudi arabia had electricity, running water, a car, and a safe place to live, he might think twice about killing himself and that maybe his life on earth here is better than the 'black eyed virgins' he has been promised through interpretations of the Qur'an. It is for these reasons that I do not think the war in Iraq was right, because if we are there to fight terrorism, that's ok with me, but we're doing it the wrong way, and we were not told that we were going in there to fight terrorism, and they had no connection to the terrorist acts committed on 9/11, and that is a fact. Yet, we cannot just up and leave right now, because that would be a terrible disaster, but we do need to start formulating some sort of exit strategy or plan, something which the President does not seem to want to do, as he feels it would be admitting defeat. However, RaZoR is right in that NK is much less a threat to us, because Kim Jong Il does have some sort of desire to live and to stay in power, as seen by the recent agreements he has been making with South Korea. Additionally, NK would not be WWIII, it would just be Oh Snap! for maybe Taiwan and Japan. But, North Korea was before 9-11 and while Clinton's lack of pressure obviously didn't work too well, it was not until the intense hostility that the Bush Administration showed towards Iraq that they started talking back and becoming a real 'rogue regime'. The threat North Korea poses to the US is not in the form of them attacking us, it is in the form of them selling weapons to someone who will attack us, somethign which will not be solved by an invasion, because that would merely speed up Kim Jong Il's processes of finding a seller and getting rid of the weapons. Oh and I'm fully in agreement with you on the Israel thing, and whoever called it similar to Tianamen square is just plain foolish. Tanks rolling into a square of protesting students and firing upon them is not the same. Did those students go blow themselves up in a crowded market, then blow up the ambulance that came to pick up the pieces of bodies and tend to the wounded.............?

Ok, I doubt anyone is still reading this, and I feel like I'm writing a paper for class, but I still need to get to HtownTurboBrick. First, don't use the term neo-nazi for describing conservatives. It's completely ridiculous, stupid, insulting, and jsut doesn't even make sense. While they may be incosiderate or racist or whatever in their beliefs, this does not make them neo-nazi's. They are simply neo-conservatives, it's a school of thought, much like liberalism, you just dont agree with it (it's ok neither do I). While I believe that you know jsut as much and prolly more than starfish, you need to understand (and so does starfish) that people can look at the same set of facts and come to two completely different conclusions, so dont think you're any smarter than him. Plus, you sound like a complete idiot for challenging someone to fight, over the internet, on a Volvo forum.

Ok, I still have another 5 pages to say, but I'm tired of writing, and I know people are tired of reading if they still are. Maybe I'll get inspired tomorrow and come back with another installment and more commentary on International Relations.

+100, but just to set the facts straight, i have no problem w/ anyone voicing an opinion, its when ppl start forcing their ideas on others i get ticked off. n the challenge thing was to prove a point. its sickening when people advocate war and have no intentions nor the courage to go into war themselves. in all honesty i think starfish is gutless n wouldn't have the guts to climb into a ring nor go to war himself even tho he advocates it so passionately. the neo-nazi facist thing was just to piss him off since he already proclaimed that he was nothing of the sort, just a staunch conservitive. i just decided to piss him off as much as he was irritating me. but again great job greenchucks, where were u for the start of this thread would of saved a lot of ppl some time ?

[7 VII 7]

2 years we will be in Iran.

[Zappo]

2 years we will be in Iran.

No, we won't. We most likely will still be in Iraq and Afganistan, and 2008 is an election year. Bush starts a war in a third country, the Democrats will win easily.

[Greenchunks]

Agreeing with Zappo completely, and to answer the original question. We will not be going into Iran because we flat out cannot. As long as we are in Iraq, and Afghanistan we dont have the manpower to launch an invasion, especially since we are understaffed already in both of those countries, and underfunded. If Bush was to start an exit strategy to remove troops from both countries over the next 2-3, then he could do it, but by that time he will no longer be president. Theonly way he could do it now, was to call for a draft, and we all know how well that went last time......

[starfish]

Wow, this is kinda odd for me to be in here. Usually I avoid this forum for the most part even though I am a Political Science Major, and I am focusing on Terrorism and Counter-terrorism, especially in the Middle East. In any case, I find a number of things interesting here. First I'm going to lay out what I see to be my own little spectrum of politics. ...And not to think I'm not biased, I just have a brain in my head and I am capable of thinking critically, unlike many on the far left and the far right.

Ok, now that that's out of the way, starfish, you seem to have placed the foundation of your argument for combatting Islamic Extremists in the school of Wahhabism. While Wahhabism is one of the branches of Islam that does more readily accept the use of violence, you cannot say that Wahhabism is the cause of the Islamic terrorists. Wahhabism has existed since the 1700's, and had its strongest resurgence in the 1920's. The rise of islamic terrorism was not until the early 80's and it was not started by Wahhabists. If Wahhabism is the source, why did the terrorism not start earlier?

Do yourself a favor and don't show your post to your professor if you expect to pass his/her course!

[Zappo]

Do yourself a favor and don't show your post to your professor if you expect to pass his/her course!

Who says that isn't straight from the prof?

[starfish]

Good point Zappo! He probably attends a liberal institution that is indoctrinating him with this baloney?

[Zappo]

Good point Zappo! He probably attends a liberal institution that is indoctrinating him with this baloney?

And where do you get yours from?

[Greenchunks]

Do yourself a favor and don't show your post to your professor if you expect to pass his/her course!

You're absolutley right. I attend one of the top 20 Universities in the United States, and have been recieving top grades in all of my political science classes, in which I have had guest lecturers who are well let's say fairly informed (one of the head guys in charge of Reconstruction in Iraq, Robert Reich, Authors of Nuclear Weapons Proliferation Position Papers which were used by the US) and who offer a number of opinions on both sides of the issue. I have been reading releases from the DHS, Joint Terrorism Task Force (branch of the FBI), CIA, DoD, the US military, congressional findings (try reading the 9-11 Comission report, theres some good stuff in there) as well as a number of top political scientists op-ed pieces and investigative reports along with a number of experts in terrorism and counter terrorism. Now I've been doing this stuff for three years now, and I still dont know that much, but I certainly know a bit more than your average layman. Honestly, you need to think about yourself for a little bit and question things. Isn't it odd that there are soo many people who disagree with you vehemently, including a number of conservatives who initially supported the war, like oh John McCain. Are you really that olivious to the rest of the world that you think that millions of people can be so wrong, many of which who have seem the same facts as yourself, many of which have dedicated their entire lives to this type of stuff. Are you so conceited that you think that you're some kind of genius who knows soo much more than these people who have researched this stuff for decades (this is not me I'm talking about here, I'm still learning). Honestly man, you're not that smart, neither am I. Sometimes you gotta realize that you are wrong, and that someone else is right, it's not the end of the world. Also, I would appreciate if you would elaborate as to what you find so blatantly wrong in my post? Or is it just that you don't agree with it, and its not what you want to hear, so you will block it out. I accept and understand people's opinions who differ from mine. I also look and try to find out what leads them to believe that and where they are mistaken, you seem to do none of the above. So please, enlighten us with your background and your reasoning for why I am so wrong, and why you are so right? But please, if you have no information to prove your points, just be quiert and realize that sometime there are people out there that do know more than you, it's ok. That's why I'm on these forums to learn more about my car, because I know there are people that know more than I do, they have worked with them longer and have researched them more.

[starfish]

I have been reading releases from the DHS, Joint Terrorism Task Force (branch of the FBI), CIA, DoD, the US military, congressional findings (try reading the 9-11 Comission report, theres some good stuff in there) as well as a number of top political scientists op-ed pieces and investigative reports along with a number of experts in terrorism and counter terrorism. Now I've been doing this stuff for three years now, and I still dont know that much, but I certainly know a bit more than your average layman. Honestly, you need to think about yourself for a little bit and question things. Isn't it odd that there are soo many people who disagree with you vehemently, including a number of conservatives who initially supported the war, like oh John McCain.

Wow! What news you bring! Robert Reich the former Labor Secretary under President Clinton is leading the rebuilding of Iraq? What could he possibly doing there, forming labor unions? Is the reason for the problems in Iraq President Bush's for relying upon former Clinton appointees to first continue to lead a failed CIA and now in the rebuilding of Iraq? With the wealth of information available, how come you have been spinning your wheels for 3 years and not learning very much on this subject which is your course of study? Where is the passion you have to be successful in your Political Science Degree? Where are you hoping this degree will lead you? Is Brandeis that easy of a University to graduate from?

One of the things that stick out most severely to me from your postings is your continual mis-characterizations of people and their classifications as what leaning they have. All Democrats are not Liberals and all Republicans are not Conservatives, John McCain is a RINO.

If you follow my posts in this forum you will find that most all of the facts I present have their sources cited with a link to my source of information.

[Sinbad]

Starfish should go hunting with Dicky Chaney! :ph34r:

[HtownTurboBrick]

Starfish should go hunting with Dicky Chaney!

+100 :lol:

[Greenchunks]

Wow! What news you bring! Robert Reich the former Labor Secretary under President Clinton is leading the rebuilding of Iraq? What could he possibly doing there, forming labor unions? Is the reason for the problems in Iraq President Bush's for relying upon former Clinton appointees to first continue to lead a failed CIA and now in the rebuilding of Iraq? With the wealth of information available, how come you have been spinning your wheels for 3 years and not learning very much on this subject which is your course of study? Where is the passion you have to be successful in your Political Science Degree? Where are you hoping this degree will lead you? Is Brandeis that easy of a University to graduate from?

One of the things that stick out most severely to me from your postings is your continual mis-characterizations of people and their classifications as what leaning they have. All Democrats are not Liberals and all Republicans are not Conservatives, John McCain is a RINO.

If you follow my posts in this forum you will find that most all of the facts I present have their sources cited with a link to my source of information.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha, you think Robert Reich is leading the reconstruction effort in Iraq? He's too short to be able to see over the Dash of a Hummer, but he would be good at checking for bombs under cars, he wouldnt have to bend down. He was a name in a list, the guy who was a counterterrorism expert for the Air Force and was in Iraq is named William Thomas, but its not the name that you'd know offhand. Oh and the school is ranked about 15 spots higher than brandeis, by the way. And yes I know there are some conservative Democrats (Lieberman) and some liberal republicans, however the majority of the characters I have been talking about, that is not the case. You're going to tell me that bush and cheney are liberal republicans? Bush is just about the only American political fgure I've talked about. And this current government is not exactly a liberal republican one, so I dont see how your comment makes sense. And you still fail to answer my question to you about what makes you so much smarter than people who have been studying this kind of stuff and working in foreign policy. And where is my passion? Well posting in here with such long winded posts is my passion, the fact that I've been reading for three years about this stuff is my passion, traveling to a number of countries is my passion. And I hope it will lead me to a position in the government in which I can apply my knowledge and learning to do the right thing, while people like you do whatever it is that you do, and stay out of the government.

Edited February 14, 2006 by Greenchunks