An Invasion of Iran is Eminent

[Brant Gaede]

Will no one with the authority to do so edit the title of this thread? Or does no one here with such authority grasp the difference between "imminent" and "eminent"?

Oh omnipotent editor, while you're in miracle working mode, would you change this thread title to "Sightings":

http://www.objectivi...indpost&p=86334

The misuse of the word is actually part of the thread. The author is entitled to ask for a change. I say leave it be.

--Brant

[PDS]

In pursuit of justice and irony, I say keep the title as it is.

[Mike Renzulli]

Jerry,

I apologize for the delay in responding to this but HOLY MACKERAL you hit it right on the head!

I would love to read what Krathammer and George Will had to say about Iran too since I agree with you and them that the Iranian coup was justified. Please link to them sometime.

You are correct there were certain points of U.S. policy that she criticized but, by and large, she was correct and the U.S. had to act aggressively in order to stop the U.S.S.R. and communism from dominating the world.

Thanks so much for this as you said what I have wanted to say for a long time. I lacked the clarity in order to articulate what you have put down all along.

As an old-school NBI-er, I take strong exception to some of the foreign policy statements that have been made here. Ayn Rand may have been in error about some things (as we often point-out), but on the whole, she was right (as we often also point-out). Particularly in regard to her positions on foreign policy regarding opposition to communist expansion. Some who admire Objectivism would do well to review what Rand wrote about foreign policy, and not just the specifics of various political developments that she commented upon, but the reasoning behind her opposition to communism and all other forms of collectivism. It should also be noted that her opposition went beyond the philosophical, she also supported active opposition to communism around the world (and that included military).

Yeah, sorry, the communists really did mean business. They really did occupy and overthrow the governments of eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc., etc.) and they did hold onto most of these territories with brutal suppression for over 40 years. They did engage in active subversion in practically all areas of the globe (excepting, perhaps, Antartica) that was not already under their control.

If the Soviet Union had not collapsed in the early nineties, we would still be seeing this around the world. It collapsed, not only because of "internal contradictions" within the communist system (which they had somehow maintained for over fifty years!), but because the U.S. under the Reagan administration, essentially drove them into bankruptcy over military build-up. That's right, it was those "evil militarists," the military-industrial complex, at it again. Bringing down the poor defenseless Soviet Union and its efforts to liberate the downtrodden masses all over the globe! Think how safe we would be if we had only understood their noble intentions! In fact, they were understood; and vigorous efforts were made to stop them. That is why they are no longer here!

According to some here, the U.S. is the aggressor and supporter of terrorism and responsible for causing misery and overthrowing "democratic" governments all over the world. It is claimed that this was done to aid the interests of big business, international corporations, "big oil," etc.(Some comments along these lines have been indistinguishable from similar statements from overt Marxists. Yes, you have the right to state any position that you choose, buy you also might want to look around and see who you are standing with!).

And now, the evil U.S. is trying to destroy Islam (so it is claimed). We're doing it for the oil companies, of course. That's why we invaded Iraq, to get the oil (for which they have gained nothing). Poor Saddam, he didn't (so it is claimed) have any weapons of mass destruction. And, of course, we wrongly accused him of aiding international terrorism and Al Qaida (those that claim this attempt to brush under the rug, pictures of the jetliner fuselage found at the Salmon Pak terrorist -excuse me, "freedom fighter," camp outside Baghdad. After all, Saddam just had it there, not for training of hijackers, but to re-train them for peaceful alternative careers as "airline stewards/stewardesses/inflight attendants). What a guy.

As for Iran, the CIA was involved in overthrowing Mossadegh, who was just an innocent guy trying to help his people with "social justice," aided by the Iranian communist party (probably a coincidence), and he was loved and supported by the Iranian people. And then the sinister CIA managed to deceive the opposition to Mossadegh to support his overthrow (probably with trumped-up charges that he was preparing for greater Soviet influence in Iran! Now why would the Russians want such a thing?).

What's wrong with this picture? Let's see, the CIA was so effective and powerful that they could get Mosadegh's opposition to support a coup, but they couldn't get their act together to save the Shah (OUR "puppet," no?) from religious fanatics - AND thereby losing all Western influence and interests in the country; AND cannot effectively aid Iranian opposition to Iran's current theocratic government? Gee, and I thought they were experts in overthrowing governments.

Not only was the overthrow of the Mossadegh regime not "inexcusable," it was justified. Those who still have an open mind about this issue may wish to consult George Will and Charles Krauthammer who have written eloquently about this issue, rather than simply accepting the leftist "explanation" of what happened there. Despite what some Marxist professors may maintain, the Soviet Union did not have peaceful intentions toward Iran. It clearly wanted to gain influence and probably control of Iran (the goal being to cut-off, diminish, or control the flow of oil to the West), as it tried unsuccessfully to do thirty years later in Afghanistan.

Some comments have alleged that Israel is the source of evil in the mideast. You know, the sliver of land that has been attacked four times by overwhemingly larger Arab forces - and yet defeated them four times. It is just a short step along the road of explaining how tiny Israel could be such a "threat" to elaborating that it is "Zionism", an international conspiracy of Jewish bankers (atransparently disguised method to attack the concept of capitalism, by the way!), that is attempting to control the world (no doubt aided by the Illuminati and the Bilderbergers, etc).

[Libertarian Muslim]

Michael

There are number of international treaties which established the sovereignty of the Embassy's territory and qualified the attack on this territory as an aggression, that is- act of war. Declaration of war is needed when the country initiates the war. In this particular case Iran is an aggressor. The act of self-defense doesn't require formal declaration of war. American President as Commander-in-Chief has constitutional right to decree such an act. What American law requires is the approval of presidential decree by Congress.

You have a very short memory.. It's very typical of people like yourself.. You see the first thing to affect yourselves as being the beginning of a conflict or problem yet don't care about how your own government behaves in the first place to instigate the act..

It's just like the stupidity of Rudy Juliani and the Bush administration to state that it was Al Qaeda's hate for US freedoms that caused them to attack the US, rather than the CIA's findings and Al Qaeda's own admission that the fact that the US was financing tyrannical dictators and monarchs whilst also maintaining a US military base on holy land as being the reasons for it. You live in a delusional world..

You would be foolish to state this belonged with the Iranian Hostage Crisis.. The fact is that the real aggressor here was the US and the British when in the 1950's they sent their secret intelligent services to go in and commit acts of terrorism bombing mosques and markets and then overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran and installed a monarchy to rule the people and had interfered in Iran's affairs ever since, including trying to overthrow the Iranian government after the revolution..

That is definitely an act of of war and such acts of war are still committed today whilst the US Government funds terrorist groups like Jundullah who've been responsible for countless attacks in Iran on mosques and government buildings..

The Iranians are not stupid.. The US, a country only a few hundred years old acts like an adolescent street thug in it's behavior towards the much older Persia that has been in existence for thousands of years..

The Iranians are patient and wise in their foreign policy actions, they know how to play the game and they're an incredibly intelligent people.. That is precisely why the Iranians were smart enough during the Algerian Accords to force the US Government to agree to the following statement to get the release of the hostages..

The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs.

By breaking the conditions of the Algiers Accords as the US has done, and did so very quickly the US has now put itself in a very sticky situation..

Nevertheless, the proof is in the pudding, your arguments of self defense are incorrect and unfounded..

In addition to that the president is only allowed to authorize military action when there is a fleeting threat to the US, meaning that the threat is so imminent that if he didn't give the order right now, the country would be attacked and even then, there would still be oversight after it occurred..

In any other situation, including after an attack has been committed against the USA the President is supposed to adhere to what Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution states and that is that Congress alone has the authority to 'To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;'.

This is exactly what happened in World War Two, the Congress and NOT the President made the declaration of war. Since then, no declaration of war has been made by the US, meaning every war it has been in since has been illegal under the US Constitution..

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adonis,

I have no doubt this matter is a mix of all things.

On the Western side, there is no real answer to why suicide bombers were not used by the local opposition against Saddam Hussein, but are used against Americans and allies.

Our thinkers (and some very good ones) just don't get the attachment that Middle East people have to being the ones to determine their respective cultures and their revulsion at being conquered by a foreign culture. Local Middle East cultures even fight against each other in very bitter wars over this. (The attitude toward Israel is more complex, but I don't want to get sidetracked, so I will exclude it right now except for a tactical comment at the end.)

When our thinkers say that Middle East people love the West and show examples, so that is proof that they want to change, one element gets shoved aside: choice. Middle East people want to love or dislike the West at their own pleasure and migrate to Western ideas on their own. They do not want the West to come into their land, set up shop an shove that culture down their throats.

This is a reality I see constantly ignored by many of our thinkers.(Or our opposition thinkers go the other way entirely and attribute occupation as the sole issue involved, which ignores a huge chunk of reality.)

On the Middle East side, when prominent Islamist people characterize the USA as the Great Satan, more is at stake than the sense of being invaded. This is a religious thing, including hatred of the USA lifestyle. I don't see how this can be denied. The only alternative is to claim that Islamists do not take Islam seriously, so they play with words like Satan to mean political things. I don't find that conceivable.

Also, Jerry makes a good point that the USA was trying to contain the spread of Communism when it backed the Shah of Iran. That was on the plate and it was serious.

But I don't believe this justifies the USA hiring leftover Nazis in the Arab world, and training them and arming them to the teeth, just because the Nazi-Arabs hated Communism (nor does it justify ignoring this fact--since the progeny of these Nazi leftovers are essentially the most violent and spiteful of today's Islamists).

I also don't believe this obliterates the oceans of greed involved (on all sides) when looking at lands rich with oil. It's silly to imagine that greed would only be part of human nature in the elite of the Arab world, but not be present in the USA elite. Humans are humans.

There is a matter that a lot of people don't get over the fact that the USA government no longer declares war before waging war. I don't believe that this subject even comes up on your side of the divide. At least, I have never seen it.

It involves globalization. A formal declaration of war by the USA would prompt other countries to make their own formal declarations of war and this could set off a third world war. Nobody wants that because of the enormous amounts of nuclear weapons spread out all over.

So a plan was set in motion during the USA nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. Actually it started before. In 1944, there was a already concern with making the world safe against a new World War. The world leaders on the Allies side had a meeting in Bretton Woods (a small resort town in New Hampshire) and set up the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and some other ways to interconnect countries through international finance. At this time, the English pound and the French franc stopped being the standard for payments between different countries and was replaced by the USA dollar.

Back to the nuclear arms race. An idea got hatched that if we interconnect the finances of all countries in such a way that if one country falls, it takes all the others down with it, no country would want to use nuclear weapons against another as that would result in its own financial suicide.

All this is documented. (The field is muddled with some really kooky conspiracy theorists, too, but that is another matter. I only mention it because people who do not want others to see this always point to the kooks and say, "See? There is nothing of the sort." Much in the manner some people point to Islamist lunatics and say, "See? There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.")

If you want to see evidence of what I am talking about, all you have to do is see how globalization has spread, including the proliferation of world organizations like the World Trade Organization, Bank of International Settlements, World Health Organization, "world" or "international" environmental organizations all over the place, world this, world that, there's even a World Toilet Organization. Take a look at this list--and that list is nowhere near complete.

The way this plays out war-wise is that wars can be fought throughout the world by any country that wants to wage them, but they can never be fully won anymore. Notice that this has been the general pattern since the Vietnam war. That's another reason why the USA does not formally declare war when it goes to war. It would then have to formally declare the end of a war. (This is also what happens when the executive branch of our government is allowed by the legislative to co-opt its powers, but that's another discussion.)

Now what do all developed and developing countries--financially interconnected countries--have in common? They all need oil to keep going.

That's what makes the Iran issue so complex. And that is why the world--not just the USA--is involved on the nuclear arms thing.

A person like Ahmadinejad, through his virulent antisemitism and some other stuff like financing terrorism in other countries, does not inspire confidence. Other countries, ones who are interconnected at the hip through world banks and who would all tumble down if one country starts blowing up another with nuclear weapons, fear that if Ahmadinejad (or other leaders like him should he fall) gets his hands on nuclear weapons, he will use them in aggression. In addition to his own culture, he is essentially the progeny of the Nazi leftovers, so that is a reasonable speculation.

And Iran is sitting right in the middle of the world's oil needs--including a lot of countries that are not too friendly to each other.

Even Obama, as leftist as he is, cannot ignore this. I believe he will ultimately have the USA attack Iran.

But first, everyone is pushing Israel to do this job for them. Even the USA. They are not promoting this in words, but look at what they are doing. The sad truth is that if Israel can be isolated just enough, but not too much to feel entirely alone, and convinced to attack Iran on its own, the Iranian nuclear threat gets resolved without affecting these other interconnected countries. And the bonus is that if things go really sour, they can simply sacrifice Israel. I believe this is the mentality at the top of most of the main international players.

I also believe that the situation will not play out that way and a humongous mess is in our near future.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

If Iran is attacked it will probably be by Israel with the cooperation of the Saudis with the U.S. seemingly in the background. It will probably happen in October with the premise of helping the Democrats in the November elections. This won't work but the noise will be terrific. U.S. naval forces appear to be positioning to keep open the Straits of Hormuz from Iranian counter punching. They will probably launch 600 planes. Israel will go for the facilities and the U.S. for the Straits. They will not both go for the same targets unless the U.S. Air Force launches bombers from Diego Garcia. There are very effective conventional weapons that could do the job. The problem is the actual effectiveness against Iranian facilities cannot be gauged regarding the country's eventual ability to obtain nuclear weapons. Even taking out the theocratic government is doable, but not the military qua politics. The military is going to end up ruling Iran regardless of everything and anything. That is only a matter of time. Consequent to all this will be a justifiably more fearful world. The price of gold and oil will spike over-night and the Iranians will use it all as their "Bay of Pigs" for decades to come.

--Brant

since the U.S. doesn't have the ability to put massive forces into Iran on the ground for several reasons, I fear the entire thing will turn into a horrible mess, especially if Obama gets cold feet and pulls his punches and completely half-asses the situation, for if the Straits are closed the entire world that depends on oil will be thrown into a great depression before the end of the year

[BaalChatzaf]

since the U.S. doesn't have the ability to put massive forces into Iran on the ground for several reasons, I fear the entire thing will turn into a horrible mess, especially if Obama gets cold feet and pulls his punches and completely half-asses the situation, for if the Straits are closed the entire world that depends on oil will be thrown into a great depression before the end of the year

Bay of Pigs, anyone?

If economic and political wreckage occurs, both sides can blame it on the Jews. So what else is new?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited August 8, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[Libertarian Muslim]

If Iran is attacked it will probably be by Israel with the cooperation of the Saudis with the U.S. seemingly in the background. It will probably happen in October with the premise of helping the Democrats in the November elections. This won't work but the noise will be terrific. U.S. naval forces appear to be positioning to keep open the Straits of Hormuz from Iranian counter punching. They will probably launch 600 planes. Israel will go for the facilities and the U.S. for the Straits. They will not both go for the same targets unless the U.S. Air Force launches bombers from Diego Garcia. There are very effective conventional weapons that could do the job. The problem is the actual effectiveness against Iranian facilities cannot be gauged regarding the country's eventual ability to obtain nuclear weapons. Even taking out the theocratic government is doable, but not the military qua politics. The military is going to end up ruling Iran regardless of everything and anything. That is only a matter of time. Consequent to all this will be a justifiably more fearful world. The price of gold and oil will spike over-night and the Iranians will use it all as their "Bay of Pigs" for decades to come.

--Brant

since the U.S. doesn't have the ability to put massive forces into Iran on the ground for several reasons, I fear the entire thing will turn into a horrible mess, especially if Obama gets cold feet and pulls his punches and completely half-asses the situation, for if the Straits are closed the entire world that depends on oil will be thrown into a great depression before the end of the year

OR the US could stop interfering with Iran like they promised to by removing their terrorist forces from Iran and take the sanctions off too.. They could engage in trade and acts of good will to show they hold no emnity..

The hardline government in Iran would no longer be able to make the people fear US aggression and imperialism because it would no longer exist.. The Iranian people themselves would then vote out their government and if their government didn't go quietly they'd remove it themselves as they did the Shah..

The US gives legitimacy to the hardline government in Iran by its own actions of supporting terrorism and sanctions against the country.. Iranians don't want to be ruled by foreigners as what happened under the Shah, they're not given enough credit by the West as intelligent people who would act accordingly if the US drew down..

If however Israel attacks, then watch the Middle East burn and it will be the end of Israel and even the US if it gets involved because there is no way the US could engage in this war without using Nuclear weapons and people in the US would not stand for it..

Iran has already won this war no matter how much the US and Israel postures..

[Brant Gaede]

I'm describing wha'ts going to happen and you what should happen, according to me and according to you--and we could both be wrong. The last U.S, President competent to wage war was Eisenhower. Kennedy almost started WWIII--a general thermonuclear war. Johnson made a mess of Vietnam. Bushes did their oil wars. Obama is trying to nation-build a nation that cannot be built with a war that cannot be explained except with references to stupidity, ignorance and insanity.

--Brant

[blackhorse]

Adonis, your defense of islam astounds me - as does your seeming disgust for the USA. Who is the real tyrant here? The West? How? What has the west done that has jeopardized the freedom of the Iranian's or any country in the middle east? You ought to place blame where blame belongs: It is the intimidating anti-life force of islam that has created the tyranny that infests the middles east - and yet you have the audacity to lay blame on the US and Israel. Why isn't there the type of thuggery practiced in islamic nations in countries like Norway, Holland, or Switzerland? It's because they do not embrace the anti-man anti-life mantras that make islam such a danger to peace and freedom in the world. When Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities it will be long overdue. It will be a victory for liberty across the globe. One cannot allow a fear mongering theocractic bully ad infinitum. The USA and our allies of the west need to support the burgeoning opposition to the mullahs and their cronies. We need to lend as much support to the protesting college students and opposition factions in any way we can. There is no right to enslave. The problem with libertarian thinking is that it thinks only in terms of "as little intervention as possible". That is a moral black hole. Libertarian pacifism would lead to tyrant nations like USSR, Iran, and North Korea to come into power.

Edited August 9, 2010 by blackhorse

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

blackhorse,

Since you are so sure thuggery comes from a specific religion, what do you attribute Latin American thuggery to?

Or do you even believe it exists?

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Ten Points about Terrorism, War, Fascism, Theocracy, and Islam

I think there are a number of points about the war on terrorism and Islamofascism some of which the 'doves' on the one side and the 'hawks' on the other need to understand:

1. You can't view all of one billion practitioners of a religion as fighting a physical war against you. Or supporting one.

2. For that reason you are not permitted to target all of them with physical force (or wish them dead, or view them as your mortal enemy.)

3. On the other hand, religion as such is an -intellectual- enemy of reason and needs to be fought with -intellectual- means: books, arguments, etc.

3b. And Islam, as generally practiced, with its praying five times a day, it's failure to separate church and state is a -worse- religion than other more modern or 'tame' religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Bddhism, etc. The reason it is worse is beause it is *more religious*.

4. But you must break this down into three groups:

(i)Hundreds of millions of peaceful and benevolent muslims who do not wish to stone women for the sin of being raped, who want to get rid of theocrats and secular tyrants, who want to live in a more advanced and progressive society, who do not seek to destroy the West and western ideas(or sympathize with or finance the destroyers). Or a whole host of other evil and 'dark ages' ideas and theocratic attitudes.(ii) Hundreds of thousands of muslims who DO want to return to the Dark Ages, who want secularism and modernism crushed, who want to dominate and subjugate all those who do not subscribe to their religion, who hate the self-confident, proud, productive modern world, who want women to bow down and wear veils or burquas, who want to beat people for listening to modern music or wearing modern dress.(iii) Tens of thousands of Islamofascists who want to use terror and force to achieve the goals of group number ii.

5. It is now technologically possible to destroy or greatly damage or cause an economic depression in an advanced civilization with weapons of mass destruction.

6. It is mandatory, therefore, to have a strategy and a set of policies which gives no quarter to group iii, and which discourages, intimidates, convinces, or prevents -- whichever works -- group ii from helping them.

So you can't generalize about -all- muslims. Anyone who has picked up a book or honestly studied the subject knows that the proportions of i, ii, and iii are vastly different in Indonesia or Turkey than they are in much of the Middle East.

7. But on the other hand you have to take an extremely hard line against groups i and ii. You must proclaim them to be ENEMIES OF FREEDOM. You must defeat them, in some cases with armies and weapons, in some cases with economics, in some cases by supporting people in group i, in some cases with books and translations.

It's a difficult question when or where you have to go to war or use force. But while the West cannot 'police the world', on the other hand it cannot "appease" those who advocate medieval forms of sharia, who try to intimidate women or force them into arranged marriages or murder opponents or take out fatwas against those who insult their religion.

8. Our policy, even with those countries with which we are not at war, is that we will -enforce- western civil liberties, western freedoms, western rights in our own countries. And we will self-righteously condemn the absence of those freedoms elsewhere. And in some cases, make our support for regimes contingent on liberalization.

In countries like the Netherlands where there have been killings like that of Theo Van Gogh, it must be a *top national priority* to expel those congregations who advocate such things, to hunt down and -hang- the killers. And anyone who abets them.

9. This does not mean that you sink to the level of the very murderers and intimidators that you condemn. You don't bomb or close mosques. You don't start a nuclear war. You take every precaution to minimize 'collateral damage' and only kill those who use force or aid and abet murder.

But you -do- hunt down and target those guys.

10. The biggest threat right now is the worst people getting hold of the world's most dangerous weapons...Iran and nukes. That *has to be stopped* because it could destroy peace and kill freedom and damage civilization for an entire century.

Note that the 'hawks' and the 'doves' are going to each disagree with one or more of the points that I've listed. But the key point is that you have to accept -each one- in order to have a good chance at not waking up to a radioactive New York or a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv and another anti-semitic holocaust.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

If however Israel attacks, then watch the Middle East burn and it will be the end of Israel and even the US if it gets involved because there is no way the US could engage in this war without using Nuclear weapons and people in the US would not stand for it..

The Middle East isn't going to burn. Things could get pretty bad in and around the Gulf for awhile. Israel will be in and out quickly and then the U.S. will fill the skies over the Gulf with its planes while Iran decides what to do. Longer term consequences, however, may be very bad. Anyway, the U.S. is doing a very good job of destroying itself so far. It doesn't need another war for that. Bush got bear-baited by 9-11, an act of terrorism genius.

--Brant

Edited August 9, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If however Israel attacks, then watch the Middle East burn and it will be the end of Israel and even the US if it gets involved because there is no way the US could engage in this war without using Nuclear weapons and people in the US would not stand for it..

Iran has already won this war no matter how much the US and Israel postures..

Adonis,

You have made similar predictions of Muslim victory in the event of war. I judge this to be bluster and nothing more.

Muslims have been at it against the Western world and vice-versa off-and-on for centuries and no one has won (i.e., destroyed the other). This has included horrible wars and all cultures have grown. So I seriously doubt this will change anytime soon, irrespective of the rhetoric.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis, your defense of islam astounds me - as does your seeming disgust for the USA. Who is the real tyrant here? The West? How? What has the west done that has jeopardized the freedom of the Iranian's or any country in the middle east? You ought to place blame where blame belongs: It is the intimidating anti-life force of islam that has created the tyranny that infests the middles east - and yet you have the audacity to lay blame on the US and Israel. Why isn't there the type of thuggery practiced in islamic nations in countries like Norway, Holland, or Switzerland? It's because they do not embrace the anti-man anti-life mantras that make islam such a danger to peace and freedom in the world. When Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities it will be long overdue. It will be a victory for liberty across the globe. One cannot allow a fear mongering theocractic bully ad infinitum. The USA and our allies of the west need to support the burgeoning opposition to the mullahs and their cronies. We need to lend as much support to the protesting college students and opposition factions in any way we can. There is no right to enslave. The problem with libertarian thinking is that it thinks only in terms of "as little intervention as possible". That is a moral black hole. Libertarian pacifism would lead to tyrant nations like USSR, Iran, and North Korea to come into power.

First of all.. I don't have disgust for the USA, in fact I've said many times that I love the US.. I'm a great admirer of the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.. What I don't like however is what the US government has become.. It has lost its way and has strayed very far from the ideals that it was supposed to be created on..

And you talk next about Libertarian's policy of 'as little intervention as possible' leading to the rise of the Soviet Union etc, well to be honest, military intervention didn't work to solve that problem either.. Look at the quagmire of Vietnam, the US lost 60,000 men fighting for nothing and still lost the war and today, they've built relationships with Vietnam and people invest in Vietnam now. More has been done to further relations in Vietnam since the war than could ever be achieved by such war.

You can't go and launch a war on every dictator in the world, you can however lead by example and show a better way.. The people will see that and will eventually take their country back.

Iran is a perfect example.. Everytime the US intervenes in Iran, the Iranian people will support a hardline government because they don't want their country taken over again.. If however the US extends a hand of friendship and engages in trade and diplomatic relations with Iran, the Iranian people will vote out regimes which are hardline in favor of those that seek better relationships with the West.

It's about respect.. Show the Iranian people some respect and treat them as equals, it'll work wonders.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Subject: Ten Points about Terrorism, War, Fascism, Theocracy, and Islam

I think there are a number of points about the war on terrorism and Islamofascism some of which the 'doves' on the one side and the 'hawks' on the other need to understand:

1. You can't view all of one billion practitioners of a religion as fighting a physical war against you. Or supporting one.

1.5+ billion

2. For that reason you are not permitted to target all of them with physical force (or wish them dead, or view them as your mortal enemy.)

Yes

3. On the other hand, religion as such is an -intellectual- enemy of reason and needs to be fought with -intellectual- means: books, arguments, etc.

Yes, providing that it's kept at this level at a respectful manner of discussion and discourse I'm sure you could have many a great years of dialogue that leads to mutual respect for each other even if you don't attain your goal of converting the Muslims.

3b. And Islam, as generally practiced, with its praying five times a day, it's failure to separate church and state is a -worse- religion than other more modern or 'tame' religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Bddhism, etc. The reason it is worse is beause it is *more religious*.

More religious? Can you explain?

4. But you must break this down into three groups:

(i)Hundreds of millions of peaceful and benevolent muslims who do not wish to stone women for the sin of being raped, who want to get rid of theocrats and secular tyrants, who want to live in a more advanced and progressive society, who do not seek to destroy the West and western ideas(or sympathize with or finance the destroyers). Or a whole host of other evil and 'dark ages' ideas and theocratic attitudes.

I actually would say that this number isn't just hundreds of millions, there are more than 1.5billion Muslims in the world with the vast majority, more than 99% would fit in this category.

(ii) Hundreds of thousands of muslims who DO want to return to the Dark Ages, who want secularism and modernism crushed, who want to dominate and subjugate all those who do not subscribe to their religion, who hate the self-confident, proud, productive modern world, who want women to bow down and wear veils or burquas, who want to beat people for listening to modern music or wearing modern dress.(iii)

I'm sure the amount that are like this number less than one hundred thousand and the majority live in the West. I also think that the majority of these people are ignorant to the beauty of proper American ideals and would easily be swayed towards supporting the US once it could be properly demonstrated to them that Islam and those ideals are much closer than Islam is to extremist ideology. But they'd only be swayed through good example.. Not threatening or harming them.

Tens of thousands of Islamofascists who want to use terror and force to achieve the goals of group number ii.

Tens of thousands? Perhaps but this number would be below fifty thousand for certain..

You know a great problem the West has is that they class all fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq as either being Taliban or Al Qaeda, religious extremists etc.. That's not the case at all.. Most fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places just want to rid their land of occupiers and are nationalistic.. Just as any American would be if someone occupied their lands..

5. It is now technologically possible to destroy or greatly damage or cause an economic depression in an advanced civilization with weapons of mass destruction.

6. It is mandatory, therefore, to have a strategy and a set of policies which gives no quarter to group iii, and which discourages, intimidates, convinces, or prevents -- whichever works -- group ii from helping them.

So you can't generalize about -all- muslims. Anyone who has picked up a book or honestly studied the subject knows that the proportions of i, ii, and iii are vastly different in Indonesia or Turkey than they are in much of the Middle East.

The problem with this is that group 3 is spread out across the whole world and neither group 1 nor 2 know who they are.. Therefore, to hold either group accountable for group 3's actions would only serve to help recruit for group 3.. The use of WMD's would be highly illogical due to the fact I just mentioned.

7. But on the other hand you have to take an extremely hard line against groups i and ii. You must proclaim them to be ENEMIES OF FREEDOM. You must defeat them, in some cases with armies and weapons, in some cases with economics, in some cases by supporting people in group i, in some cases with books and translations.

It's a difficult question when or where you have to go to war or use force. But while the West cannot 'police the world', on the other hand it cannot "appease" those who advocate medieval forms of sharia, who try to intimidate women or force them into arranged marriages or murder opponents or take out fatwas against those who insult their religion.

8. Our policy, even with those countries with which we are not at war, is that we will -enforce- western civil liberties, western freedoms, western rights in our own countries. And we will self-righteously condemn the absence of those freedoms elsewhere. And in some cases, make our support for regimes contingent on liberalization.

That sounds good, but also engaging in trade will also help a trade with all nations will encourage an exchange of ideas with the population of those countries, more and more will come to your way of thinking through such trade.

In countries like the Netherlands where there have been killings like that of Theo Van Gogh, it must be a *top national priority* to expel those congregations who advocate such things, to hunt down and -hang- the killers. And anyone who abets them.

Agreed

9. This does not mean that you sink to the level of the very murderers and intimidators that you condemn. You don't bomb or close mosques. You don't start a nuclear war. You take every precaution to minimize 'collateral damage' and only kill those who use force or aid and abet murder.

But you -do- hunt down and target those guys.

Ok, good..

10. The biggest threat right now is the worst people getting hold of the world's most dangerous weapons...Iran and nukes. That *has to be stopped* because it could destroy peace and kill freedom and damage civilization for an entire century.

Note that the 'hawks' and the 'doves' are going to each disagree with one or more of the points that I've listed. But the key point is that you have to accept -each one- in order to have a good chance at not waking up to a radioactive New York or a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv and another anti-semitic holocaust.

See, I don't get what the problem here is.. You'd have to be crazy to think that even if Iran did attain nuclear weapons (which it has not been proven to be in the process of doing) that it would actually use them against Israel?

Iranians aren't stupid, they wouldn't irradiate the Holy Land and have even been forbidden by their religious leadership which is their head of state from using ANY weapon of mass destruction. In fact, during the Iran-Iraq war where the US had given Iraq many WMDs to use on Iran and saturated Iranian cities with chemical weapons Iran still did not respond in a similar way because they've been forbidden from doing so.

I do support Iran developing both civilian and military nuclear technology because Nuclear Weapons are out there in the world and are active in their region with Israel possessing more than 200 such nuclear weapons.. It would, in my opinion be foolish for Iran to not research and develop such technologies to at the very least understand them and try and find a means to defeat it the Israelis or US ever use such weapons against them..

I do also think that Israel should give it's weapons of mass destruction up and if it refused to do so then Iran should be able to develop their own to ensure Mutually Assured Destruction could act as a deterrent should Israel ever consider using them against Iran although I doubt Iran would ever use them anyway.. But if I were Iran and didn't intend to use them, I'd still threaten to use them if they were used against my country.

The Middle East isn't going to burn. Things could get pretty bad in and around the Gulf for awhile. Israel will be in and out quickly and then the U.S. will fill the skies over the Gulf with its planes while Iran decides what to do. Longer term consequences, however, may be very bad. Anyway, the U.S. is doing a very good job of destroying itself so far. It doesn't need another war for that. Bush got bear-baited by 9-11, an act of terrorism genius.

--Brant

Adonis,

You have made similar predictions of Muslim victory in the event of war. I judge this to be bluster and nothing more.

Muslims have been at it against the Western world and vice-versa off-and-on for centuries and no one has won (i.e., destroyed the other). This has included horrible wars and all cultures have grown. So I seriously doubt this will change anytime soon, irrespective of the rhetoric.

Michael

It's not bluster..

If attacked, The Iranians will not be cowards like Saddam when his nuclear facility was destroyed.. Iran will take any attack as a declaration of war and respond back with an initial response by closing the Straight of Hormuz and launching rocket attack after rocket salvo against Israel and will be aiming for Israel's military bases and nuclear facilities and they have a lot of rockets..

They'll then get Hezbollah to attack Israel too..

Israel would be stupid enough to attack Syria too, then Syria won't sit this one out..

If the US gets involved then the US will suffer the loss of Iraq and Afghanistan.. It couldn't afford the war that it will have to go in, the people in the US are already sick of the wars and will most certainly be against it.. It will result in the end of the US empire because it will be a war that the US can't afford yet will print the bills to fight.. It will ultimately be defeated in because it wont be able to use nuclear weapons.. The economy will collapse..

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, an air war is relatively cheap. If the U.S. economy collapses consequent to the discussed operation it will only be because the Strait of Hormuz is closed for a protracted period of time. The economy is already collapsing. Israel can be destroyed by nuclear weapons in the same sense New York City can be destroyed by a nuclear bomb. 50,000 little rockets with conventional warheads won't destroy it. However, Israel would have a hard time retaliating to the possible retaliation if that means attacking Iran yet again because it is doubtful Saudi Arabia would cooperate with that. The Saudis just want to disarm Iran's nuclear possibilities. About the rest of it they couldn't care less. Without the use of Saudi facilities Iran is simply out of range. That'd be an interesting time because Iran wouldn't be out of range for U.S. planes.

The unintended consequences of war are legend and are hard to celebrate.

--Brant

[Libertarian Muslim]

Oh, an air war is relatively cheap. If the U.S. economy collapses consequent to the discussed operation it will only be because the Strait of Hormuz is closed for a protracted period of time. The economy is already collapsing. Israel can be destroyed by nuclear weapons in the same sense New York City can be destroyed by a nuclear bomb. 50,000 little rockets with conventional warheads won't destroy it. However, Israel would have a hard time retaliating to the possible retaliation if that means attacking Iran yet again because it is doubtful Saudi Arabia would cooperate with that. The Saudis just want to disarm Iran's nuclear possibilities. About the rest of it they couldn't care less. Without the use of Saudi facilities Iran is simply out of range. That'd be an interesting time because Iran wouldn't be out of range for U.S. planes.

The unintended consequences of war are legend and are hard to celebrate.

--Brant

You're mistaken if you think that Iran possesses only little rockets, their rockets are very advanced and they don't need chemical weapons..

Do you seriously think it would only be an air war? Those nuclear facilities are near Holy Cities such as Qom, an attack on those facilities will be an attack on the cities themselves and Iranians as a whole will demand a reaction, even from the Green Movement.. Nothing unites Iranians like a foreign power attacking, just like the Bay of Pigs united Cubans in Cuba against the US..

Also, Iran's military is one of the strongest in the region and they're not like Iraq was, first being attacked by a coalition of nations after a 10 year long war with Iran and then put under extreme sanctions for 10 years only to be pushed over..

The Iranians defeated the Iraqis in a conventional war during the 1980-1989 Iran Iraq War despite the fact that the Iraqis had Western Support and military technology at great cost to the Iranian people, millions died because they'd not been organized as they'd like to have been having just had a revolution.. Having said that, they still forced the Iraqis back..

In addition to that, even though the Iranians have been under sanctions for all of this time they've spent a lot of time and money on research and becoming self sufficient militarily, they design and manufacture the majority of their own weapons technologies including fighter bombers, tanks, attack helicopters, submarines, frigates, ICBM rockets, Missiles including guided missiles etc..

It is recognized that they are advancing scientifically in terms of research in development in many fields at a greater rate than any other nation on Earth..

The Iranians have spent the last 20 years preparing for war with the US and Israel because they always knew that the US would again try to again overthrow their government..

Then there are guerrilla wars, where the Iranians are masters.. They have successfully engaged in, trained and supervised guerrilla wars in the following theatres:

Afghanistan:

1979-1989: MuAgainst the Soviet Union

1989-1994: Against the Warlords

1994-2001: Against the Taliban

Iraq:

1980-1988: Kurds and Shia Against Saddam Hussein

Lebanon:

1982-Today: Supporting Hezbollah against the Israelis

The Iranians have perfected guerrilla warfare and advanced by huge amounts in conventional warfare in comparison to what they were in the 80's, this war will not just be a quick war like it was in Iraq and the Iranians will force American and Israeli troops to put their boots on the ground in Iran, and that will be their grave.. Within 48 hours 8 million combat trained Iranians would be deployed to fight against any force that attacks Iran.. Iran's conventional forces will engage in battle and their unconventional Revolutionary Guard will destroy every US asset they can reach both in the Middle East and abroad and ensure that the whole event is very costly for the US..

Whilst they do that, Hezbollah will attack the Israelis and launch thousands of rockets, more advanced than in 2006 and they'll be targeting Israels military bases.. At the same time, Israel will also make the mistake of attacking Syria because of Syria's support of Hezbollah and Iran and Syria will then open a new front.. Iraq will go in flames because right now, the majority of Shia within Iran under the guidance of Ayatollah Sistani have not fought against US forces.. Should the Iran be attacked, he'll give that order and you'll have many millions of Iraqis start fighting, you can kiss Iraqi army goodbye too because they won't be backing up the US.

Without the use of nuclear weapons any country that tries to attack Iran will pay a huge price, and then if they do use such weapons.. Then the result will be even worse for them because they'll be attacking a holy place.. It will unite the Muslim world which is still quite divided and you'll have a much larger war..

This war, will not be something small like Israel's attack on Iraq's nuclear facility.. It'll turn into a regional war.. The US couldn't recover from it and neither could Israel..

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adonis,

You are basing your rationale on a few principles that no longer operate in the world.

1. The first is Mutually Assured Destruction. Western superpowers abandoned this a long time ago as they sought globalization as a better deterrent for a nuclear war.

2. The second is that war will collapse the USA economy. War never has and never will. Government entitlement programs are the only villain with the capacity to do that.

There are more, but the following principle which does not operate, period, is probably the most unrealistic:

3. This time it will be different and the Muslim side will prevail. Including the destruction of Israel.

Nothing of the sort will happen. If war comes, a lot of stuff will get blown up and a lot of innocent (and guilty) people will die. Some political figures will change.

And that's about it.

With the exception of the destruction of Israel, which is a modern issue, that's the way history has been ever since Islam started. And with respect to Israel, its survival is too wedded to the interests of too many superpowers for them to sit by and watch it be destroyed in a bigoted religious war. Dream if you like, but it ain't going to happen.

I do wonder about the bluster, though. If your long macho predictions are typical of what is going around in the Muslim community, you folks have your own share of guilt in inviting this terrible stuff to happen.

Think as you will, but my advice is to focus more on the present than on future conquests you imagine based on selective omissions in assessing reality.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

While I am at it, let me be clear on something.

Just as I do not want people on OL spitefully scapegoating Islam as the source of all evil in the world, I do not want anyone on OL spitefully scapegoating Israel as the source of all evil in the world.

The ONLY form of debating these things I want on this board is intellectual. I don't want people preaching the outright destruction of one or the other as the solution to all evil. Not here. Do that hatred stuff elsewhere.

If people want to discuss Islam, let them discuss which parts of it they want to. But I don't want the kind of crap where people take one or two phrases from the Qur'an, then say all Muslims are bogeymen because of it. Ditto for Israel. We can discuss people and events with respect to Israel. But the UN charter happened and the world accepted it. Jews are not bogeymen because of that and neither are Israelis. And Zionist is not a dirty word.

We are talking about human beings, for God's sake.

I don't believe in the Devil, but if I did, I would say that the level of hatred--on all sides--I see surrounding this issue is the Devil's work. Anytime one set of people want to physically obliterate another, that is raw evil. And to wish for that in the name of some sacred value makes the evil about as rotten as it gets.

I understand strong feelings. I even understand that some people hate. I don't mind being around people with strong feelings. These are people who find solutions. I don't want to be around the haters. These are people who only seek destruction as any kind of solution, and they throw mockery in as entertainment.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I'm sorry, Adonis, but there is a great deal you don't know about the situation you should know to make such statements about war. Iran can launch a lot of missles against Israel, maybe do a lot of mischief in the Gulf and fight an effective defensive war on the ground--maybe, but the more it tries to engage the more prostrate it will be rendered for a long, long time. Nobody has to invade. You are also assuming a lot of collateral damage from an Israeli air-strike. There won't be much. In the context of retaliation, the smartest thing Iran could do is use Hezbollah as a proxy--not engage U.S. air power in the Gulf. In the former case Iran would be the strongest, in the latter the weakest. Unfortunately, we are mostly passive observers to what is going to happen, whatever that is.

--Brant

watching the U.S. disintegrate from within

[Philip Coates]

> also engaging in trade will also help a trade with all nations will encourage an exchange of ideas with the population of those countries, more and more will come to your way of thinking through such trade. [Adonis]

I agree.

> "the worst people getting hold of the world's most dangerous weapons...Iran and nukes" [Phil]

> I don't get what the problem here is.. You'd have to be crazy to think that even if Iran did attain nuclear weapons (which it has not been proven to be in the process of doing) that it would actually use them against Israel? Iranians aren't stupid, they wouldn't irradiate the Holy Land [Adonis]

The problem of acquisition of nukes by Iran is not only that they might use them against Israel unprovoked. The problem is that they are led by a combination which makes them as dangerous as Hitler was - a lunatic (Ahmedinajad), a religious fanatic (the Ayatollah and his boys), and a corrupt fascist military elite (the Revolutionary Guards). Lots of bad scenarios. Only one is that they allow the nukes to spread, give dirty bombs to Hezbollah, to Al Qaeda-like groups, then disclaim responsibility when dirty bombs go off in New York, Philly, Miami, etc.

Another is the takeover by someone Saddam-like who uses the threat of an untouchable military power to control all the oil in the Gulf (our lifeblood), drive the price up, squeeze the west into another Great Depression.

You only talked about one scenario in which a nuclear Iran could end in disaster, nuking Israel.

[Philip Coates]

My reason for making my last two posts in the Iran thread is that Michael closed the War with Islam thread I started because of one? two? of the posts there out of a whole long thread.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Robert Campbell]

It's not bluster..

If attacked, The Iranians will not be cowards like Saddam when his nuclear facility was destroyed.. Iran will take any attack as a declaration of war and respond back with an initial response by closing the Straight of Hormuz and launching rocket attack after rocket salvo against Israel and will be aiming for Israel's military bases and nuclear facilities and they have a lot of rockets..

They'll then get Hezbollah to attack Israel too..

Israel would be stupid enough to attack Syria too, then Syria won't sit this one out..

If the US gets involved then the US will suffer the loss of Iraq and Afghanistan.. It couldn't afford the war that it will have to go in, the people in the US are already sick of the wars and will most certainly be against it.. It will result in the end of the US empire because it will be a war that the US can't afford yet will print the bills to fight.. It will ultimately be defeated in because it wont be able to use nuclear weapons.. The economy will collapse..

LM,

What you are saying is, in fact, triumphalist bluster.

You should keep in mind that the United States was not bankrupted by fighting World War II.

And that the US previously survived a civil war in which around 600,000 soldiers were killed.

The consequences of war with Iran would be horrible from the American point of view. But they would also be horrible from the Iranian point of view.

And something needs to be said about your constant appeals to the number of Muslims in the world today.

As a matter of historical and demographic fact, there are over 1 billion Muslims in 2010 because in 630 and 641 and 711 and 712 (and long afterward) Muslim soldiers fought to conquer and build empires.

Muslims today are not at fault for that. Nor could the omelet even begin to be unscrambled after all this time. One might as well wish the Romans out of Spain and France, the Russians away from the Black Sea, and the Magyars out of Hungary.

But Muslims such as yourself who profess to oppose all empires will not be taken seriously, unless they apply the same criticisms to Islamic imperialism as they apply to other kinds.

On the now-closed thread you talk about how awful the pagan Arabs were. Well, my understanding is that they practiced female infanticide, which Muhammad helped to do away with. They also practiced slavery, which Muhammad (contrary to your rhetoric) did not try to do away with, and blood feuds and honor killings, which Muhammad did try to do away with, albeit without lasting success among many who claim to practice Islam today.

But the pagan Arabs never fought to conquer in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Spain, Turkey, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Persia, Sind, and many other parts of what was then the non-Arab world. (Which is not to say they didn't want to; perhaps they did, but simply lacked the organization necessary to build an empire.)

Muslim Arabs did fight to conquer in all of those places.

And there would be far fewer Muslims today had they not.

Robert Campbell

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

What you are saying is, in fact, triumphalist bluster.

See, you say that.. But I'm not doing that at all. I have assessed Iran and the US' recent history in fighting, the socio political climate in both countries and the economies of both nations.. Iran will be much better off than the US

You should keep in mind that the United States was not bankrupted by fighting World War II.

No, it wasn't but it also benefited financially afterwards through numerous means, especially through the R&D benefits it got through Nazi scientists. In addition to that, having the currency that would be used for international transactions has been the US' savior over the past 50 years.. How much longer do you think that will last? The myth of the value of the US dollar which has no backing is wearing out, which is why countries are trying to use SDRs instead of USD.. What ever will sustain the US economy during and after a failed war with Iran which will cost trillions of dollars and many thousands of lives?? You have nothing left..

And that the US previously survived a civil war in which around 600,000 soldiers were killed.

Do you think the US population could sustain that number again? Do you think the US population would put up with something like that in a war in a far away land, where they have no vested interest nor any ill will towards? Has Iran attacked the US? It's not the civil war and it's not like WW2 which required Pearl Harbor to be attacked for the US to get involved in.

The Iranians, a proud people will be defending their country from attack and occupation.. Defending their honor as people.. Look at how many people they lost against US backed Iran from between 1980-89, they lost up to 1,000,000 of their own citizens defending their country, many of the Iranian soldiers were young teenagers, answering Khomeini's call to defend their country, wave after wave they gave their lives to defend Iran.

Do you think it will be any different this time? Despite their resistance to their own government, like Americans the Iranians unite to fight foreign enemies that are attacking their country. The Iranians are smart enough to fight in a way, and have threatened to do so, to force the Americans to put boots on the ground in Iran by attacking US assets everywhere in the Gulf, in Iraq too which will just explode..

And once the Americans put boots on the ground it will be a quagmire and disaster that will surpass anything else seen before.. The Iranians have just started digging mass graves for US soldiers right next to the mass graves they made for Iraqi soldiers.. They're in final stages of preparation.. Before the battle, when two armies square off against each other and try and psych each other out.. But it's not just all talk.. The graves full of Iraqi soldiers should serve as a reminder that the Iranians should be taken very seriously..

What will result is simple..

The Americans will either have to withdraw being unable to keep hold of Iran and it will be the most humiliating defeat the US has ever witnessed.. Completely destroying US credibility..

The US could then realize that, the best bet at that stage or it could get really stupid in desperation and start using nuclear weapons.. Which will be even worse.. Yes the Iranians will suffer, but the backlash against the US for it, not just from the Muslim world, but from the people in the US will be so great that no regime in the US will be able to handle it.. No one will want such blood in their hands..

The consequences of war with Iran would be horrible from the American point of view. But they would also be horrible from the Iranian point of view.

The Iranians are the home team, not the transgressor.. The people themselves in Iran would be more than willing to die protecting their country..

And something needs to be said about your constant appeals to the number of Muslims in the world today.

As a matter of historical and demographic fact, there are over 1 billion Muslims in 2010 because in 630 and 641 and 711 and 712 (and long afterward) Muslim soldiers fought to conquer and build empires.

Muslims today are not at fault for that. Nor could the omelet even begin to unscrambled after all this time. One might as well wish the Romans out of Spain and France, the Russians away from the Black Sea, and the Magyars out of Hungary.

But Muslims such as yourself who profess to oppose all empires will not be taken seriously, unless they apply the same criticisms to Islamic imperialism as they apply to other kinds.

I definitely dislike any imperialism and that is especially applicable to imperialism from people claiming to do it in the name of Islam. I certainly don't support, never have supported and never will support any type of action which makes Muslims transgressors..

The fact is that we don't need to take countries over to spread Islam, in the West Islam is the fastest growing religion and we aren't even invading your countries..

On the now-closed thread you talk about how awful the pagan Arabs were. Well, my understanding is that they practiced female infanticide, which Muhammad helped to do away with. They also practiced slavery, which Muhammad (contrary to your rhetoric) did not try to do away with, and blood feuds and honor killings, which Muhammad did try to do away with, albeit without lasting success among many who claim to practice Islam today.

1. Muhammad pbuh didn't just help to do away with female infanticide.. He strictly forbade it.. He changed the whole way that their society worked.. There were strict punishments for such crimes..

2. Muhammd did in fact forbid slavery and ended the type of slavery seen in the West up until only a few hundred years ago more than 1400 years ago.. .. But what we define as slavery is different to what you define it.. Although I think you pick and choose where you apply it..

3. Blood fueds and honor killings? Yes there was huge successes in this.. Complete success? No.. People have free will, if they want to revert back to tribal practices then so be it.. But it's their actions.. It's not surprising though because the Muslims after his death came under the rule of people who had no right to rule and ruled in a manner which was wrong.. The people fell back into this tribalism as a result..

But the pagan Arabs never fought to conquer in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Spain, Turkey, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Persia, Sind, and many other parts of what was then the non-Arab world. (Which is not to say they didn't want to; perhaps they did, but simply lacked the organization necessary to build an empire.)

Muslim Arabs did fight to conquer in all of those places.

And there would be far fewer Muslims today had they not.

Robert Campbell

No, they kept their tribal bloodshed in the Arab peninsula which you might think is a good thing.. And actually, the Muslims didn't start the wars with the Byzantines nor the Persians.. So the Muslims responded and won..