Rev,
In my anger with these radical islamo fascists, perhaps I could have been more specific. Since our military has been changed to fit a different profile of warfare, then why are we not seeking out these Wahabbists wherever they may be, including the US of A, because they are here too, you know. Let's us meet terror with terror, irrigardless of border. Let us announce what we are going to do and then do it. It will not take long for even terrorist states such as Iran and Syria to get the message. Rather than stand around while Wahabbist's preach their hatred openly, we should not allow them the lattitude of free speech. Why? Because what they advocate is the destruction of that free speech. Why should we extend to these creatures the benefit of what they would destroy? Free speech is about the ability to have the soapbox to change hearts and minds within a system of lawful freedom. Those that advocate hatred, murder, and the destruction of freedom do not deserve the benefit of it. So why should we be concerned with extending it to those creatures? They will not suddenly come to their senses and say, "Sorry, we were wrong. Why can't we just all get along." (Where is Rodney when we need him.)
Syria is not as much of a terrorism sponsor as the Bush administration has tried to make them seem. They're hardly innocents, but rather, we have bigger fish to fry. Iran, yea. They're pretty much the the generic terrorist training country. They've held numerous 'conferences' for terrorist leaders to pool resources, sanctioned training camps, etc. In my humble opinion, however, invasion or bombing is currently the LAST thing we wanna do. (Note, I said currently, things change.) We want to foster an internal revolution amoung the Iranians themselves.
The foot soldiers of the Wahabbis tend to be poor and have no education. Obviously, they are easily swayed. Why not sway their potentials (people not yet radicalized) in directions more favorable to our interests? Instead of bombing innocent civilians, try to turn them against the Iranian government, and encourage them to start a revolution. Cheap (relatively speaking), efficient, and clean.
Banning free speech would accomplish little more than simply making their speech more widely read or heard. Look up alcohol usage before Prohibition and then during. Or heck, our War on Drugs. Banning something usually just has the unintended consequences of making it more popular. I might be wrong, but from what I've seen from previous banning attempts...
As for borders, most States that are Muslim are as much in fear of these Wahabbists and only keep their silence because of that fear. I believe there would not be much uproar (except from the Left in America) if we began to exterminate these horrible people methodically wherever we find them. I believe we are doing that to some extent, right now. I just think we need to be more aggressive than we have been.
Regarding innocents: I am not being cavalier when I say that innocents will be harmed. Reality is just that, reality. Survival in war involves everyone. There are innocents dying now, and not just by our hand.
Look up how many Muslims the Wahabbis have killed. Heck, look up how many Muslim leaders the Muslim Brotherhood has killed in Egypt alone. I'd say a good amount of that fear is justified. Yea, we need to deal with the Wahabbis. Why isn't the Right screaming their heads off that Bush is wasting resources in Iraq when he should have been concentrating on the Wahabbis? I want the heads of the people that caused 9/11, but I want the right heads. I see Iraq has a wasteful distraction of that goal. The Wahabbis attacked us, killed many civilians, and they need to pay the price. So why aren't we making them pay the price?
There is a difference between collaterial damage and intentially killing innocent by-standers. A big difference, grampster.
United States policy with respect to the Middle East is fraught with blunders and miscalculations. Iran has been particularly troublesome. I question the original wisdom of returning the Shah to power in the first place, back in 1953. But, once done, it was not a good idea to abandon him, as we did. Additionally, as a result of the disempowerment of the CIA, we didnt have the intelligence to be able to take Khomeini as a credible threat. Interesting that French and Israeli Intelligence had a better read on the situation than we did.
Backing Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war was also a disastrous blunder. At the time, Hussein appeared to be the more stabilizing force in the Middle East. We saw how well that worked out, and it was not the Carter Administration, but the Reagan Administration that mishandled that one.
Yep. The US has screwed up in respect to the Middle East many many times. As for the disempowerment of the CIA... that might have been caused by the fact that the CIA seems to be more interested in overthrowing countries and installing vicious dictators, rather than, oh say... gathering intelligence.
Installing the Shah of Iran was a very bad idea. Once we put him in power, we also didn't fully support him. There's a fitting irony there. Backing Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war wasn't as much a disastrous blunder as you'd think. The goal of supporting Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war was to make both countries kill large numbers of people, destroy their infrastructure and put both countries in heavy debt. It obviously worked.
If our diplomats had been more clear, Gulf War wouldn't have happened. Previous to the Gulf War, Saddam thought he was on relatively decent terms with the US. He specifically asked the US about Kuwait. The State department flack said "We have no opinion in your border dispute." (paraphrased) Kuwait had been a providence of Iraq until the Brits broke them off and made them a seperate country. Also, Kuwait was slant drilling, producing oil above OPEC levels, etc. Iraq was up to their eyeball in debt, and Kuwait wasn't helping matters by stealing Iraqi oil and driving down prices. Did this warrent their invasion? Of course not. But Kuwait didn't help the situation any by their behavior.
The Middle East is a hotbed of discontent. One of the reasons (and a big one) is all the meddling the powers and superpowers have done over there. Oil? Yep. Israel and the Palestinians? Yep. (I do believe that the United States should support the ONLY legitimate democracy in the Middle East). Islamic radical fundamentalism? Yep. And on and on and on&
The war on terrorism&sigh&Despite the civilian casualties and the heavy-handedness of the Iraq war, I believe that it is better to take the fight outside the United States than have to fight terrorists here. It was an escalation that said, in no uncertain terms, that the United States means business.
Or, do you disagree?
Israel is not completely a democracy. Nor are they entirely friendly towards the US. I recommend looking beneath their thin cover of "legitimate democracy" and take a closer look at their behavior.
Yes, I disagree. Iraq had nothing to do with the Wahabbi lunatics. We would have been better served by invading a country that had ANYTHING to do with the religious wackos that attacked us. (Does Afghanistan ring a bell? Look up how many troops we have stationed there.) What you advocate (and what happened) is stirring up a hornet's nest in a country that did not support Wahabbism while smugly saying our sole intention is 'liberating' said country. You cannot have it both ways. Either we are liberating Iraq or we are occupying Iraq. The US needs to make up its bloody mind.
We'd have been better off liberating/occupying a country that had something to do with attacking us, instead of using the excuse of the 'war on terrorism' to settle old scores and now pretty much ignoring the Wahabbis.