I'm of the school of thought that due to the decentralized nature of the Islamic religion, it is prone to inspire violence if all other things are equal. The Catholic Church has had problems but in recent years, if a Catholic priest started preaching hate to Jews or Muslims or Evangelical Christians, he would probably be relieved of his duties. I also think while the Bible has its share of violent passages, the Koran has even more and Islam hasn't undergone a needed reformation that weeds out most of the extremists.
Given that some extremist Muslims view more conflicts through a religious context instead of through other contexts such as the US fighting for oil or what they believe is right, I am of the mindset that the US should have stayed out of the Middle East entirely and not even been engaged in Iraq War 1 even though it was sponsored by the UN. Only Muslim majority countries should have been involved in that conflict and it it meant Kuwait becoming a part of Iraq so be it.
And until/unless the Muslim world had a much better perception of the US and the radical version of Islam was completely marginalized, the US should have quietly stopped Muslim immigration of most males in a respectful manner.
This will help end the cycle of violence of terrorist attacks and the US sometimes then overreacting to those attacks. If there was no Iraq War 1, there would have been no 911 in all likelihood and thus there may have been no Iraq 2 or Afghanistan wars.
To solve this problem, I think we have to acknowledge its complexities and tackle it straight on. The US has done a lot wrong but its also dealing with some legitimate extremists that even some Muslims are afraid of.
Most Muslims are perfectly fine but some extremists would want to target the US simply because of the influence of Hollywood etc.
I disagree. Over 50% of the Iranians probably did want a replacement of the Shah but the current government(blend of Theocracy/military dictatorship) is extremely unpopular as well. The difference is that this government seems to be even more willing to use force to stay in power.
An uprising in Iran might not lead to a government that is friends with the United States but it would lead to a much, much better relationship in all likelihood.
The larger point, however, is that an Israeli or United States attack on Iran is in all likelihood going to strengthen -- not weaken -- that brutal regime.
It is logical to question the United States relationship with Israel (or any other country) and the mainstream media does not do that enough. The Israeli-Palestine question is a complex issue that is not easy to solve since both countries have strong religious fanatics that do not want to compromise much at all. I believe the US should gradually rollback support to both sides of this conflict so that the parties have more of an incentive to come to an agreement.
But after what we have seen the last few years, calling Iran anything close to a democracy is a joke. They shouldn't even pretend to be a democracy since the country has deteriorated into a thuggish theocracy/military dictatorship. Other countries in the Middle East that the United States support, however, are also different types of dictatorships.
In the comments section, I also take issue with anyone calling 911 a minor attack since rather easily 50,000 people could have been easily killed that day. Imagine if the towers were closer to full occupancy and the collapsed within 2 or 3 minutes. That attack was almost a legitimate weapon of mass destruction.
All of this being said, the United States overreached in Afghanistan and Iraq only made sense for US security interests if the UN was leading the charge and that was very unlikely no matter how brutal Hussein and his sons were.
The Taliban deserved to be severely punished for harboring the Islamic terrorists that planned 911 and not turning them over after being repeatedly warned by Bush but it wasn't in the United States interests to go too far with a rebuild Afghanistan plan unless the United Nations/Nato was going to do at least 70% of the heavy lifting and that coalition was going to have better support among the average person in Afghanistan.
Lastly, the US should send most of its military troops throughout the world home since the country can't play policeman to the world.
I'm of the school of thought that due to the decentralized nature of the Islamic religion, it is prone to inspire violence if all other things are equal. The Catholic Church has had problems but in recent years, if a Catholic priest started preaching hate to Jews or Muslims or Evangelical Christians, he would probably be relieved of his duties. I also think while the Bible has its share of violent passages, the Koran has even more and Islam hasn't undergone a needed reformation that weeds out most of the extremists.
Given that some extremist Muslims view more conflicts through a religious context instead of through other contexts such as the US fighting for oil or what they believe is right, I am of the mindset that the US should have stayed out of the Middle East entirely and not even been engaged in Iraq War 1 even though it was sponsored by the UN. Only Muslim majority countries should have been involved in that conflict and it it meant Kuwait becoming a part of Iraq so be it.
And until/unless the Muslim world had a much better perception of the US and the radical version of Islam was completely marginalized, the US should have quietly stopped Muslim immigration of most males in a respectful manner.
This will help end the cycle of violence of terrorist attacks and the US sometimes then overreacting to those attacks. If there was no Iraq War 1, there would have been no 911 in all likelihood and thus there may have been no Iraq 2 or Afghanistan wars.
To solve this problem, I think we have to acknowledge its complexities and tackle it straight on. The US has done a lot wrong but its also dealing with some legitimate extremists that even some Muslims are afraid of.
Most Muslims are perfectly fine but some extremists would want to target the US simply because of the influence of Hollywood etc.
I disagree. Over 50% of the Iranians probably did want a replacement of the Shah but the current government(blend of Theocracy/military dictatorship) is extremely unpopular as well. The difference is that this government seems to be even more willing to use force to stay in power.
An uprising in Iran might not lead to a government that is friends with the United States but it would lead to a much, much better relationship in all likelihood.
The larger point, however, is that an Israeli or United States attack on Iran is in all likelihood going to strengthen -- not weaken -- that brutal regime.
It is logical to question the United States relationship with Israel (or any other country) and the mainstream media does not do that enough. The Israeli-Palestine question is a complex issue that is not easy to solve since both countries have strong religious fanatics that do not want to compromise much at all. I believe the US should gradually rollback support to both sides of this conflict so that the parties have more of an incentive to come to an agreement.
But after what we have seen the last few years, calling Iran anything close to a democracy is a joke. They shouldn't even pretend to be a democracy since the country has deteriorated into a thuggish theocracy/military dictatorship. Other countries in the Middle East that the United States support, however, are also different types of dictatorships.
In the comments section, I also take issue with anyone calling 911 a minor attack since rather easily 50,000 people could have been easily killed that day. Imagine if the towers were closer to full occupancy and the collapsed within 2 or 3 minutes. That attack was almost a legitimate weapon of mass destruction.
All of this being said, the United States overreached in Afghanistan and Iraq only made sense for US security interests if the UN was leading the charge and that was very unlikely no matter how brutal Hussein and his sons were.
The Taliban deserved to be severely punished for harboring the Islamic terrorists that planned 911 and not turning them over after being repeatedly warned by Bush but it wasn't in the United States interests to go too far with a rebuild Afghanistan plan unless the United Nations/Nato was going to do at least 70% of the heavy lifting and that coalition was going to have better support among the average person in Afghanistan.
Lastly, the US should send most of its military troops throughout the world home since the country can't play policeman to the world.