The US war in Iraq

Current Events Terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism
21

1: Send a photocopy of the map of the Turkish-Iraqi border, and inform Turkey that it is inviolable. 2: Inform the Kurdish government that we will defend their right to exist as long as they remain civilized. 3: Inform the Baghdad government that military incursions across the Kurdistan border will not be tolerated. 4: Inform the Baghdad government that we will not tolerate Iraq becoming a staging ground for terrorist attacks against the civilized world. 5: Remove all US troops from Iraq. 6: Mean it.

May as well end the thread; there’s the answer right there.

22

I’m amazed that no one has mentioned oil. Unless and until someone invents the equivalent of the fabled electrostatic motor, we need oil for survival. Surely that must be considered in choosing whether to use force against the threat of closure, seizure by hostile forces, destruction, or even mismanagement of the oil supply in that region. Assuming that the establishment of order by means of setting up a stable government is necessary to the oil supply, it can’t be considered altruism, can it?

23

The answer to what to do about Iraq may just be take out Iran.

Glenn Beck, of CNN, had a couple of great shows on this week, which exposed the Islamic culture in the Middle East. They showed how muslims in those countries are teaching hate and spreading anti-Western, anti-Semitic propaganda, including through the vehicle of children’s cartoons. They showed the president of Iran, uncensored, spouting anti-Western, anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda. It was really great to see honest journalism for a change. And you read right, it was on CNN.

On a show two days later Beck had as a guest Benjamin Netanyahu to continue the topic of the prior show. Netanyahu said Iran is the key. They’re the ones who are spreading the fanaticism and financing it, and if they get a nuke, this will only make the Islamacists all that more emboldened all around the world. If Iran is dealt with, by which I believe he meant taken out, the rest would fall like a house of cards. Iraq was a diversion, in his opinion.

Beck apparently had to work hard to get these two shows on CNN and his neck was on the line. Well, apparently his ratings went through the roof, which shows you how people are starved for real journalism.

Netanyahu has always been the clearest and most incisive of the world leaders on this issue, and it was great to see him single out Iran.

24

Unless and until someone invents the equivalent of the fabled electrostatic motor, we need oil for survival.

…And remember that we have more than enough oil sitting underneath our own country, except the environmentalists have outlawed actually using it.

25

Are the environmentalists’ laws not the moral equivalent of bandits having stolen our domestic oil supplies? The survival of capitalists, i.e. those actually living, is the moral imperative. We need oil from somewhere. If we can’t get our oil domestically because it was stolen by bandits in our midst, then our only possible action is to get it from foreign lands - and that justifies military intervention to secure the supplies, does it not?

26

We simply don’t have enough soldiers at the moment. Not only do we have massive commitments all over the world (and in Afghanistan) already, but we are already having to use non-regular troops. If we want to really up our military strength in Iraq we will have to do some major reshuffling of troop strengths both in the US and all over the world. I don’t think the political capital exists for that unfortunately.

You may be right but I believe not all of Iraq is in upheaval. We would only need to massively occupy a few provinces. Imagine how the Germans felt in WW2, exhausted and starving, to see big well feed Americans in brand new uniforms coming off the boat by the thousands handing out cigarettes and gum. It would be psychologically devastating to the Iraqi insurgents if the same thing happened to them. All their fighting and all their effort and what do we do? Double our force. Their morale would go through the floor.

27

Interestingly one of the German nicknames for the Americans was “chewing gum soldiers” which refers to how the Germans saw the Americans as fat, sloppy soldiers always with gum in their mouths.

28

Interestingly one of the German nicknames for the Americans was “chewing gum soldiers” which refers to how the Germans saw the Americans as fat, sloppy soldiers always with gum in their mouths.

That’s interesting. They were being disparaging no doubt, but the message we were sending with the gum was “We have so much money, there’s let over to buy gum, you can never beat us.”

I don’t think gum would work these days, but some modern equivalent. It would have to be something that would be a conspicious luxury. An iPod maybe? I don’t know. That’s a crap idea because you don’t want their hearing blocked, but something…

29

Are the environmentalists’ laws not the moral equivalent of bandits having stolen our domestic oil supplies? The survival of capitalists, i.e. those actually living, is the moral imperative. We need oil from somewhere. If we can’t get our oil domestically because it was stolen by bandits in our midst, then our only possible action is to get it from foreign lands - and that justifies military intervention to secure the supplies, does it not?

Which is easier, taking it by force and shipping halfway around the world, or just scooping it up from where it is so rich that it sometimes literally bubbles from the surface?

Listen, I don’t have a problem with taking back our oil from them. I do have a problem with the idea that importing oil is even necessary. Face it, both of the ideas are equally unacceptable to today’s mainstream.

30

Listen, I don’t have a problem with taking back our oil from them. I do have a problem with the idea that importing oil is even necessary. Face it, both of the ideas are equally unacceptable to today’s mainstream.

You’re right, environmentalists have put us in a bit of a bind when it comes to acquiring energy, but another thing to note is that environmentalists are postmodernists. Postmodernism also includes multiculturalism. Multiculturalism refers of course to the idea of “diversity”, and that you can’t criticize another culture, especially if it’s non-European.

It is my contention that postmodernists are responsible for this war with Islamacists, because they make us the villain and them the victims. Postmodernists are the ones who loudly criticize the war, and tell us we’re creating terrorists. Postmodernists are the ones making it possible for muslims in Europe to rise up. By weakening our ability to fight the real bad guys, and this goes back to the 1980s, we have let the bad guys get stronger and stronger, and now we have a real war on our hands which we’re still not fighting for fear of offending.

We have the postermodernist meme combined with the muslim meme, which are deadly in combination.

So, in effect, postmodernists have really screwed us up big time and this is their goal.

31

The answer to what to do about Iraq may just be take out Iran.

9-11 was the act of rogue fanatics, and not – as Leonard Peikoff and others claim – an act of war by some country like Iraq or Iran. Certainly not Iraq, whose government had nothing to do with al Quada, and as for Iran, unlike the U.S. apparently the Iranian government helped bin Laden only after the attack.

Are there any reputable references showing that Iran helped bin Laden execute 9-11?

32

Are there any reputable references showing that Iran helped bin Laden execute 9-11?

Are you referring to the previously undenied fact that Iran has been a major supporter of terrorism, and that it has created a terrorist millieu which enables specific terrorist attacks and terrorist-supporting countries? The state-level supporters of terrorism are the worst of the enablers: so however much I may castigate Pakistan for failing to deal effectively with the terrorists using its territory, that is nothing compared to the condemnation that is owed to former Talibanistan, Iran, Syria, and now Lebanon. I’d like to know what facts you are disputing.

33

9-11 was the act of rogue fanatics, and not – as Leonard Peikoff and others claim – an act of war by some country like Iraq or Iran. Certainly not Iraq, whose government had nothing to do with al Quada, and as for Iran, unlike the U.S. apparently the Iranian government helped bin Laden only after the attack.

Just to add to what David said above…

You are dead wrong regarding “rouge fanatics”. Rouge fanatics would be nothing more than weak gangs if not for state support. They’d be a mere police problem.

Al Qaeda, for instance, was fully supported by Afghanistan (the Taliban). They were given safe haven and sanction. Al Qaeda was financed by donors in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, in fact, pushed, and still pushes, this fanaticism. Most of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia. Yaron Brook targets both Iran and Saudi Arabia as the major state sponsors of terrorism.

So, state support was/is there big time for Al Qaeda.

A further point, this is not just a war against Al Qaeda. There are numerous islamic terrorist groups out there who have attacked Westerners, including Americans. For instance, the Hezbollah, which murdered a few hundred American marines in the 1980s (to our discredit, we did nothing about it).

These terrorist groups exist with the strength they have, because the have the massive power of terrorist states behind them supporting them 100%. In fact, the terrorist states nurture and train them. For instance, the Hezbollah is basically a wing of the Iranian army. They finance them to the tune of 200 million dollars a year. They took American hostages in 1979. As you admit, Iran has been helping Al Qaeda, and has been proactively causing havoc in Iraq by sending in insurgents, and now they are building a nuclear bomb. They are also designated by the State Department as the biggest state sponsors of terrorism.

At the end of the day, the solution to the terrorist problem is to absolutely and completely obliterate the terrorist states , most especially Iran. Once this is done, the terrorists will have their financing and support ripped from them, and a great deal of their motivation. They will be supremely weak. After hunting a few down, this could then be reduced to police problem localized to different countries.

Just to emphasize my point, it’s the jidhad meme combined with the postmodernist meme that has brought this war on us.

34

Rouge fanatics would be nothing more than weak gangs if not for state support.

Would you elaborate on that?

35

Would you elaborate on that?

Rogue fanatics are parasites. Parasitism requires the use of force to survive. Rogue fanatics without force (the general case) cannot survive. Rogue fanatics with state support - the state using force on behalf of the crazies - can survive.

36

Would you elaborate on that?

I like y_feldblum’s response.

Let me see if I can add a bit. Imagine that the U.S. government let you be a terrorist. It supported you fully. You could live at your home free of any knock on the door from the cops. Neighbors wouldn’t be a problem. You could go to Radio Shack, Lowe’s, etc. to buy anything you want to build bombs and other nasty devices in order to engage in terrorism. Then, if you were funded by the government, you could afford large facilities and churn out more complex terrorist devices, and collaborate with other terrorists who’d also be free to do these things. You could have schools of terrorism set up to recruit more people and get them on board for the cause and all with the support of the state.

None of those things would be at all easy if you were engaged in criminal activities and the state were pursuing you.

That sanctuary means a great deal to terrorism.

37

I’m amazed that no one has mentioned oil. Unless and until someone invents the equivalent of the fabled electrostatic motor, we need oil for survival. Surely that must be considered in choosing whether to use force against the threat of closure, seizure by hostile forces, destruction, or even mismanagement of the oil supply in that region. Assuming that the establishment of order by means of setting up a stable government is necessary to the oil supply, it can’t be considered altruism, can it?

Oil supply from Iraq is hardly worth worrying about. Out of the 85 million barrels produced today Iraq only supplies 1.6 million. Well below pre-invasion numbers. Iraq’s oil supply is currently inconsequential.

38

David wrote:

“… Iran … has created a terrorist milieu which enables specific terrorist attacks and terrorist-supporting countries …”

Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, … all have been involved in terrorist attacks against other countries in that region of the world. But not against the U.S. on U.S. soil, except for Pakistan on 9-11. I’m not sure what you mean by creating a terrorist milieu if it doesn’t include Pakistan as the major participant.

9-11 was the worst terrorist attack in recent (post WWII) history against any country. Clearly Pakistan is very important. I don’t follow how Yaron Brook and Leonard Peikoff harp on Iran and never mention Pakistan.

Thales wrote:

“Rogue fanatics would be nothing more than weak gangs if not for state support.”

Focus on the particular rogue bin Laden. The prosperity of the Middle Eastern region, such as it is, enabled him to become rich. And that prosperity was due in large part to the United States. We pump money into Middle Eastern dictatorships by buying their oil. Government restrictions on American industry (nuclear power, oil drilling locations, etc.) prevent us from becoming substantially, even totally, independent of that oil – as Inspector pointed out.

And before it’s over the Iraq War will have cost us over a trillion dollars, a thousand billion dollars, money sucked out of private sources, including industrialists and including innovators in energy production.

The U.S. CIA makes Pakistan much more dangerous by supporting its intelligence agency. This is where bin Laden himself came from. With U.S government help Al Qaeda was set up to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Later that same Al Qaeda expanded and turned against the U.S.

Our own state helped bin Laden in the two ways above. This is worth repeating because it’s easily within our power to end such help to future bin Ladens. End this help first, then worry about the danger of Iran or whatever.

“Al Qaeda was financed by donors in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, in fact, pushed, and still pushes, this fanaticism.”

Not Saudi Arabia as a state, just the opposite. The Saudi monarchy loves the material aspect of the U.S. – it makes billions off the U.S. and that enables it to rule. That the U.S. props up the Saudi monarchy is one reason Saudis who oppose the monarchy, fanatics though some may be, hate the U.S.

It’s true that U.S. installations in the Middle East have been victims of terrorist attacks. But what were we doing there in the first place? What on earth were American Marines spending our money and risking their lives in Lebanon in 1983 for? Not for any benevolently selfish reason. It was pure and senseless sacrifice.

“… Hezbollah is basically a wing of the Iranian army. They finance them to the tune of 200 million dollars a year. They took American hostages in 1979.”

Regarding the last – the American hostages taken in Tehran in 1979 – then some background is in order. American history vis-a-vis Iran didn’t begin in 1979. In 1953 the U.S. CIA instigated a coup d’etat in Iran that overthrew the socialist parliamentary government, ultimately installing a dictator, a man calling himself “the Shah of Iran.” This thug was supposed to be friendlier to U.S. interests, and the U.S. government supported him with foreign aid. But to the people of Iran the Shah was far worse than the government the U.S. helped overthrow: the Savak secret police, torture and murder of dissenters, etc. – tens of thousands of Iranians, perhaps millions, were killed during his regime. Eventually there was a popular uprising groping to end the oppression. This uprising got subverted by a Shah faction led by Ruhollah Khomeini, who ended up replacing the Shah as dictator in 1979. Unlike the Shah, Khomeini was a radical Islam type and called himself the Ayatollah.

The Americans you mention – U.S. diplomats to the Shah and their support personnel – were kidnapped a few months after the revolution by Iranian students angered at the U.S. And can you blame them for their anger? The Iranian government then took the hostages from the students, released most of them and kept 52 until, when Reagan was elected, it released them as well. Look up “October Surprise” and “Reagan” for more information.

Ayatollah Khomeini was the direct result of the CIA’s meddling. We “assist” Iran and get Khomeini. We arm Saddam against Iran (1980s) and get an armed Saddam. We help Pakistan train bin Laden and get al Qaeda.

And certain elements within our government love it. Rudolph Bourne, even if a socialist, said it best: “War is the health of the state.”

39

Thales referred to: “… the jihad meme combined with the postmodernist meme that has brought this war on us.” Not sure what a meme is, but anyway, there are three aspects to 9-11: the desire to harm America, the means to do it, and the success of the attempt.

First the desire:

Some Arabs and Persians may appreciate that they are better off because of the U.S. But some of them focus on the harm the U.S. has done: Propping up dictators like the Shah of Iran, Saddam in Iraq, the Emir of Kuwait, the Saudi monarchy; and participating in Middle East wars like Iraq vs. Iran, Iraq vs. Kuwait, Israel vs. its neighbors. In this way the U.S. helps fanatics acquire and maintain a following.

If you participate in a war don’t be surprised when someone on the other side wants to retaliate. He’s ripe for recruiting by a bin Laden type.

Any Pakistani-Arabic-Persian fanatic will be more, not less, inclined to attack the U.S. because the U.S. nukes Iraq, or Bush forgets the “democracy crap” (quoting a U.S. official) and sets up a military dictatorship there.

As for the means of a would-be enemy like bin Laden to inflict harm: The previous post mentions the fact that the U.S. helped make bin Laden a menace by supporting Pakistani intelligence, and how we pump money into Middle Eastern dictatorships by buying their oil.

In so far as states are dangerous, not just rogue fanatics, note that for years the West has been training Middle Eastern scientists and engineers, and for years selling their governments military arms and equipment – frequently bought with foreign aid we gave them.

Removing the desire is within our power, and so is substantially lessening the means.

Again, 9-11 was the act of rogue fanatics – to be precise, the attempt of 9-11. The success of that attempt, to get to my third point, was due to unbelievable corruption within our government. See the books by Rodney Stich: http://www.DefraudingAmerica.com . They are amazing.

Like the desire, removing that corruption is also within our power. Islamic states or their fanatics are a danger to us primarily because we have made them a danger. We have met the enemy and primarily he is – not us – but our own corrupt government.

Correct these problems first and then worry about Iran, if it’s necessary.

40

Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, … all have been involved in terrorist attacks against other countries in that region of the world. But not against the U.S. on U.S. soil, except for Pakistan on 9-11. I’m not sure what you mean by creating a terrorist milieu if it doesn’t include Pakistan as the major participant.

9-11 was the worst terrorist attack in recent (post WWII) history against any country. Clearly Pakistan is very important. I don’t follow how Yaron Brook and Leonard Peikoff harp on Iran and never mention Pakistan.

I did mention Pakistan. I am not an expert on the public statements of Brook or Peikoff, so I am in no position to dispute your claim that they have never criticised Pakistan for its terror policies. It is undeniable that the actual policies of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are the worst, thus deserving of the greatest condemnation, by a couple of orders of magnitude. Perhaps somebody with a good knowledge of the foreign policy statements of Brook and Peikoff could address your implication that they are Pakistan-apologists. Pakistan is a significant terrorism-enabler, as I said. But you denied the responsibility of Iran, which is worse than not confusing an ineffective government with an actually evil government. The Pakistani government is ineffective and not evil with respect to terrorism (it is evil on other accounts such as having a basic grip on man’s rights).