• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US will supply military weapons to the Syrian rebels.

jonny5 said:
I do think Iraq war was part of the War on Terror,
Click to expand...

Then objective hasn't been achieved yet since terrorists still exist, and are now prevalent in Iraq thanks to the invasion.

and I don't think Bush took advantage of us.
Click to expand...

I don't think Bush necessarily did. But I think there are those in the administration who willingly misled since they were already pushing for this war before 9/11.
 
jonny5 said:
Its constitutional,
Click to expand...

As a strict interpreter of the Constitution, I view every war and conflict we have been in since 1945 as unconstitutional as there was no congressional vote declaring war.



I don't agree with the entire scope of military involvement in the world, but Islamic fundamentalism is a clear threat,
Click to expand...

It has become a threat because of the States continuous meddling in ME affairs. Doing more of the same isn't going to make them go away.

and it makes more sense to kill them before they kill us. Killing enemies does not reduce my liberty, thus its consistent with libertarianism.
Click to expand...

For each one killed many more pop up. To play this game of 'whack-a-mole' requires endless war. Any libertarian knows that war is the health of the state and perpetual war inevitable destroys freedoms at home more than any terrorist could.
 
Geoist said:
As a strict interpreter of the Constitution, I view every war and conflict we have been in since 1945 as unconstitutional as there was no congressional vote declaring war.





It has become a threat because of the States continuous meddling in ME affairs. Doing more of the same isn't going to make them go away.



For each one killed many more pop up. To play this game of 'whack-a-mole' requires endless war. Any libertarian knows that war is the health of the state and perpetual war inevitable destroys freedoms at home more than any terrorist could.
Click to expand...

Islamic fundamentalists were killing people long before the US was around. We're just their latest excuse. For the rest, agree to disagree. The Iraq debate is a dead horse.
 
rhinefire said:
The leader of the Hezbollah has stated they will stay and fight the Syrian government until it's over. What he did not say is when this fiasco is over in 20 years they will take the arms provided by America and return to their homeland and use the weapons against Israel.
Click to expand...

Actually, Hezbollah's been fighting alongside Assad pretty much this whole time.
 
jonny5 said:
We don't do whats feasible. We decide what needs to be done, and do it the best way we can. Again, what I said was it would be IDEAL if our allies who we have fought and died for would 100% back us up when we asked them to, but they are not as loyal as we are. The same goes for Syria, which is a threat to the US and the world. The Russians and Chinese want to play games instead dealing with a problem.
Click to expand...

Syria is not a threat to the USA or the World. The USA is the threat. The spinmiesters are working overtime in your cerebellum and are doing your thinking for you.
 
jonny5 said:
Islamic fundamentalists were killing people long before the US was around.
Click to expand...

All terrorism, whether Islamic fundamentalist or other, have similar origins: State oppression over certain groups. Until this is addressed and resolved we cannot ever hope to truly 'win' the War on Terror.
 
Geoist said:
All terrorism, whether Islamic fundamentalist or other, have similar origins: State oppression over certain groups. Until this is addressed and resolved we cannot ever hope to truly 'win' the War on Terror.
Click to expand...

Islamic fundementalism is them wanting to oppress others.
 
Geoist said:
All terrorism, whether Islamic fundamentalist or other, have similar origins: State oppression over certain groups. Until this is addressed and resolved we cannot ever hope to truly 'win' the War on Terror.
Click to expand...


This is far to broad a statement. The TYPE of "oppression" really needs to be considered before you address the state responsibility. In the case of Radical Islam the state "oppression" can come in the form of a moderate state refusing to enforce Islam as the state religion. How would you address this?
 
jonny5 said:
Islamic fundementalism is them wanting to oppress others.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean the fundamentalism didn't gain in popularity without certain triggers.
 
jmotivator said:
This is far to broad a statement. The TYPE of "oppression" really needs to be considered before you address the state responsibility.
Click to expand...

Let's take a look at Iran as an example. The US government meddled in the affairs of that State since the 50s. It helped reinstate and prop up the Shah of Iran who oppressed his people. Our CIA helped train the SAVAK which imprisoned and tortured Iranians. The resentment that country felt towards the US is well-founded, though it does not excuse the hostage-taking which later occurred. But it does help explain why it happened.


In the case of Radical Islam the state "oppression" can come in the form of a moderate state refusing to enforce Islam as the state religion. How would you address this?
Click to expand...

Can you give a specific example?
 
Geoist said:
Let's take a look at Iran as an example. The US government meddled in the affairs of that State since the 50s. It helped reinstate and prop up the Shah of Iran who oppressed his people. Our CIA helped train the SAVAK which imprisoned and tortured Iranians. The resentment that country felt towards the US is well-founded, though it does not excuse the hostage-taking which later occurred. But it does help explain why it happened.
Click to expand...

This is a woefully simplistic view of the Iranian revolution. The Ayatollah first gained prominence in Iran for opposing the Shah's reforms in 1963 to open Iran's political and land holding structure to allow minority religions to hold public office. His resistance to the Shah's efforts to moderate the Iranian state was what fed the 1979 revolution. Khomeini then lead violent riots against the Shah which ended in him being arrested. In other words, the exact opposite of your hypothesis occurred in Iran. Islamic Radical demands for continued oppression of religious minorities in Iran was he spark that lead to revolution in 1979.


Can you give a specific example?
Click to expand...


See above.
 
jmotivator said:
This is a woefully simplistic view of the Iranian revolution. The Ayatollah first gained prominence in Iran for opposing the Shah's reforms in 1963 to open Iran's political and land holding structure to allow minority religions to hold public office. His resistance to the Shah's efforts to moderate the Iranian state was what fed the 1979 revolution. Khomeini then lead violent riots against the Shah which ended in him being arrested. In other words, the exact opposite of your hypothesis occurred in Iran. Islamic Radical demands for continued oppression of religious minorities in Iran was he spark that lead to revolution in 1979.
Click to expand...

First of all, nothing you had written disproved anything I wrote. Secondly, this does not explain the general hatred towards the US government.


1950-51 - BP (a British govt controlled company) controlled nearly all of Iran's oil assets. Iran saw nearly none of the profits. Mossadeq nationalized the oil fields in 1951 which led to Britain boycotting Iran and destabilizing its economy.

1953 - Britain looked to US to help them. The CIA staged a coup to overthrow the Prime Minister and the democratic part of the government to reinstate the Shah. The CIA trained the SAVAK, the secret police force so they could torture, imprison, and execute dissenters. Poverty and oppression grew.

1979 - The Iranian Revolution is born out of anger and hatred towards their puppet govt, the US, and UK.

This is not to say Khomeini and his followers were in any way 'good guys.' But it gives context into understanding why this particular ME country does not trust the Western Powers.
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
A prophet who claimed that anyone who didnt agree with him should be killed. Thats the trigger.
Click to expand...

And almost no one would have given such a loon power unless there were OTHER triggers.
 
Geoist said:
First of all, nothing you had written disproved anything I wrote. Secondly, this does not explain the general hatred towards the US government.


1950-51 - BP (a British govt controlled company) controlled nearly all of Iran's oil assets. Iran saw nearly none of the profits. Mossadeq nationalized the oil fields in 1951 which led to Britain boycotting Iran and destabilizing its economy.

1953 - Britain looked to US to help them. The CIA staged a coup to overthrow the Prime Minister and the democratic part of the government to reinstate the Shah. The CIA trained the SAVAK, the secret police force so they could torture, imprison, and execute dissenters. Poverty and oppression grew.

1979 - The Iranian Revolution is born out of anger and hatred towards their puppet govt, the US, and UK.

This is not to say Khomeini and his followers were in any way 'good guys.' But it gives context into understanding why this particular ME country does not trust the Western Powers.
Click to expand...


Of course it does!

The Ayatollah Khomeini -- you know, the guy that started the Iranian Revolution -- was fighting for the primacy of Iranian rule and the subjugation of minority religions. That's it. The entirety of the revolution's grievances against the Shah.

Your "evidence" doesn't amount to anything. Your repeated factoid about the SAVAK is also classic misdirection and less than even half truths. The Islamic Radicals in Iran were far more brutal to the Iranian people than the SAVAK ever were, as bad as the SAVAK was by Western standards. I mean, the threat to Iranian WOMEN was far more immediate from Islamic Radicals... so why is it that the Islamic radicals in Iran got the support in the revolution? It wasn't because of money. It was because they were sold on the idea of the Shah being the death of Islam in Iran.

This peace loving anti-oppression Islamic "movement", fresh off of the victory in January 1979, celebrated by executing 5 human rights workers to kick off a 40 year festival of oppressive violence in the name of Allah that dwarfed anything the Shah ever did.

But then that is because the revolution was about saving Islam from the Shah's modernization and not saving Iranians from oppression.
 
jmotivator said:
Of course it does!

The Ayatollah Khomeini -- you know, the guy that started the Iranian Revolution -- was fighting for the primacy of Iranian rule and the subjugation of minority religions. That's it. The entirety of the revolution's grievances against the Shah.
Click to expand...

And he most like would have never been given the power if it wasn't for US and UK involvement in Iran. That is the point I am making.

Your repeated factoid about the SAVAK is also classic misdirection and less than even half truths.
Click to expand...

Everything I said is well acknowledged by historians.

The Islamic Radicals in Iran were far more brutal to the Iranian people than the SAVAK ever were, as bad as the SAVAK was by Western standards.
Click to expand...

Did the US government fund the Islamic radicals? No. That is not the issue that pissed off Iranians.

I mean, the threat to Iranian WOMEN was far more immediate from Islamic Radicals... so why is it that the Islamic radicals in Iran got the support in the revolution?
Click to expand...
It wasn't because of money. It was because they were sold on the idea of the Shah being the death of Islam in Iran.
Click to expand...

Why is it Germany supported Hitler? They were desperate. They looked to a leader who would take them out of destitution.



This peace loving anti-oppression Islamic "movement", fresh off of the victory in January 1979, celebrated by executing
Click to expand...

Never claimed it was a peaceful movement. :roll:

But then that is because the revolution was about saving Islam from the Shah's modernization and not saving Iranians from oppression.
Click to expand...

So the taking of US hostages was what? Another attack on the Shah's policies? Please.
 
jonny5 said:
Whats your point?
Click to expand...

Point being interventionism was a major trigger for the growing hatred and radicalization against the US.
 
A little research goes a long way when understanding terrorism:

All terrorist acts are motivated by two things:

Social and political injustice: People choose terrorism when they are trying to right what they perceive to be a social or political or historical wrong—when they have been stripped of their land or rights, or denied these.
The belief that violence or its threat will be effective, and usher in change. Another way of saying this is: the belief that violent means justify the ends. Many terrorists in history said sincerely that they chose violence after long deliberation, because they felt they had no choice.

Zionists who bombed British targets in 1930s mandate Palestine felt they must do so in order to create a Jewish state.

The IRA (Irish Republican Army) bombed English targets in the 1980s to make the point that they felt their land was colonized by British imperialists.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine felt that armed attacks in Israel were a justifiable response to the usurpation of their land.

Osama bin Laden's declaration of war on American interests in the 1990s stemmed from his belief that U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia represented an abomination to the kind of Islamic state he believed should exist in the Arabian peninsula.

Uighur separatists in China today feel that Chinese religious repression (the Uighur Chinese are Muslims) justifies their terrorist tactics.

In some cases, people choose terrorist tactics based on a cause whose righteousness they believe in to the exclusion of nearly all else. Abortion clinic bombers in the 1990s and groups such as the Animal Liberation Front believe zealously in their causes.
Causes of Terrorism -- The Two Causes of Terrorism
 
Geoist said:
And he most like would have never been given the power if it wasn't for US and UK involvement in Iran. That is the point I am making.
Click to expand...


It's circular logic. The revolution launched as an effort to maintain the oppression of Religious minorities, so for the Shah to never come into power the oppression of religious minorities would have continued and, by your own argument, would have lead to revolution by the religious minorities. So it's a wash by your own argument.

But in reality the Iranian revolution was not a response to oppression, it was against modernization and greater liberty.


Everything I said is well acknowledged by historians.
Click to expand...


Did I say it wasn't? I said your view ignores a significant piece of the puzzle. But then it has to to reach the conclusions you have reached.



Did the US government fund the Islamic radicals? No. That is not the issue that pissed off Iranians.
Click to expand...


You miss my point entirely. The Iranian Revolution was not a response to brutality since the people saw brutality from both sides. Women were far more brutalized by the Iranian theocratic powers than by the Shah's government. What fueled the Iranian Revolution was the fear of the Shah's attempts to move Iran to a more moderate westernized society. Where the Iranian Revolution saw evil in the West was in this modernization effort, not from government oppression.


Why is it Germany supported Hitler? They were desperate. They looked to a leader who would take them out of destitution.
Click to expand...


Can we tackle just one of your gross generalizations at a time please?


Never claimed it was a peaceful movement. :roll:
Click to expand...


No, but if you wish to paint them as being born as a counter to repression you do need to show that the people saw them as a viable path from repression. They obviously didn't.


So the taking of US hostages was what? Another attack on the Shah's policies? Please.
Click to expand...


Yes. The Revolution saw the US as the source of the Westernization of Iran embodied in the Shah's attempts to make Iranian politics open to religious minorities.
 
Geoist said:
A little research goes a long way when understanding terrorism:

All terrorist acts are motivated by two things:

Social and political injustice: People choose terrorism when they are trying to right what they perceive to be a social or political or historical wrong—when they have been stripped of their land or rights, or denied these.
The belief that violence or its threat will be effective, and usher in change. Another way of saying this is: the belief that violent means justify the ends. Many terrorists in history said sincerely that they chose violence after long deliberation, because they felt they had no choice.

Zionists who bombed British targets in 1930s mandate Palestine felt they must do so in order to create a Jewish state.

The IRA (Irish Republican Army) bombed English targets in the 1980s to make the point that they felt their land was colonized by British imperialists.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine felt that armed attacks in Israel were a justifiable response to the usurpation of their land.

Osama bin Laden's declaration of war on American interests in the 1990s stemmed from his belief that U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia represented an abomination to the kind of Islamic state he believed should exist in the Arabian peninsula.

Uighur separatists in China today feel that Chinese religious repression (the Uighur Chinese are Muslims) justifies their terrorist tactics.

In some cases, people choose terrorist tactics based on a cause whose righteousness they believe in to the exclusion of nearly all else. Abortion clinic bombers in the 1990s and groups such as the Animal Liberation Front believe zealously in their causes.
Causes of Terrorism -- The Two Causes of Terrorism
Click to expand...



Yes, anything you get from Ask.com does indeed constitute "a little research".
 
jmotivator said:
It's circular logic. The revolution launched as an effort to maintain the oppression of Religious minorities, so for the Shah to never come into power the oppression of religious minorities would have continued and, by your own argument, would have lead to revolution by the religious minorities. So it's a wash by your own argument.
Click to expand...

It was never my argument that the revolution was not motivated by religious fanatics. My argument was that US interventionism put many of the events into motion.


But in reality the Iranian revolution was not a response to oppression, it was against modernization and greater liberty.
Click to expand...

The taking of US hostages was in response to US interventionism.




Did I say it wasn't? I said your view ignores a significant piece of the puzzle. But then it has to to reach the conclusions you have reached.
Click to expand...

You said the opposite of my 'hypothesis' happened, meaning you think what I have stated was false.




You miss my point entirely.
Click to expand...

You are clearly missing mine.

The Iranian Revolution was not a response to brutality since the people saw brutality from both sides.
Click to expand...

So someone who experiences brutality is not likely to deal out brutality themselves in response? How you figure?

Women were far more brutalized by the Iranian theocratic powers than by the Shah's government.
Click to expand...

Yes, they were. That is not the point.

What fueled the Iranian Revolution was the fear of the Shah's attempts to move Iran to a more moderate westernized society. Where the Iranian Revolution saw evil in the West was in this modernization effort, not from government oppression.
Click to expand...

It was the straw that broke the camel's back. The resentment did not happen overnight. It was building since the 1950s and even earlier.



Can we tackle just one of your gross generalizations at a time please?
Click to expand...

You don't wish to address it because it illustrates my point: people will look up to leaders, even crazy ones, when desperate enough.


No, but if you wish to paint them as being born as a counter to repression you do need to show that the people saw them as a viable path from repression. They obviously didn't.
Click to expand...

It was borne out of many circumstances and events. To ignore the US impact on Iranian history is a demonstration of ignorance or denial.



Yes. The Revolution saw the US as the source of the Westernization of Iran embodied in the Shah's attempts to make Iranian politics open to religious minorities.
Click to expand...

If overthrowing democratic governments, installing puppet governments, and promoting a secret police force is Westernization then Iranians had good reason to oppose it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom