The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[Jordan]

For the people supporting harsher sanctions against Iran, it is important to know that these effect the business class; i.e., the people who are most "western" and "pro-Democracy" in the country. They don't harm the grip the regime has over the country whatsoever and don't encourage the regime to change its policies. It's pretty logical if you think about. Iran is thinking to itself "okay, the west will hurt our primary enemies by using sanctions up to the point where they can no longer challenge the regime."

If you still support sanctions then the logic is that "hopefully" by harming citizens in Iran so much the government will fall. A) That's a pipe dream at best. History tells us that won't work. B) It takes a certain kind of belief that American and Jewish Israelis are important than Iranian citizens, which, I think is terrible.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

To quote myself from an earlier post: "Between 2009-2011 the government raised fuel prices 163%; inflation fell 7.7% between 2008-2009 due to significant and strategic government spending cuts; between 2008-2009 Syria's FDI increased 70% but actually decreased by 5% in the three main Industrial cities; and Government released data during the second quarter 2010 that show civil servants are the highest paid sector while agricultural sector is lowest. 25% of people working in services earn SYP 15,000 per month or more while 30% of those working in agriculture earn SYP 5,000 or less.

If you want more case studies I would be happy to provide them for you

I'll get to Syria in a bit, but you ignored the much larger case of Iran, which had an Islamist revolution despite being one of the most developed, wealthiest countries in the region, and the other information I posted showing how Islamists radicals often are wealthier/better educated than average. I also pointed to other examples of revolution/discontent -- such as the American Revolution -- and showed again that poverty had nothing to do with it. In other words, Militant Islamism (and revolution more generally) clearly has arisen in some places where poverty was not the cause. What is your explanation for that?

As for Syria, you've made a huge leap from "there was an economic downturn" to "this caused Islamism" without any causative links. The truth is there has been poverty throughout the ME -- and going back centuries, I might add -- that didn't previously trigger Islamism.

Further, militant Islamism in that area obviously preexisted the period covered by your data -- we were in that region fighting it since 2003. And, there were Islamist Syrians supporting AQ in Iraq long before the period covered by your data. Again, I don't see the poverty/Islamist link. And the timing of the Syrian rebellion seems linked to the widespread Arab Spring protests triggered by the self-immolation of that dude in Tunisia, not due to economic conditions in Syria. And, the first group to take up arms against Assad was the non-Islamist Free Syrian Army. Why wouldn't poverty-stricken Syrians join that group?

This is important because all of these policies drastically hurt the majority of the population while ensuring Assad's political group defended his back....Whereas, in places like Damascus and Aleppo, where many of those who benefited from Assad lived, the Islamists never took hold.

But those economic divisions mirrored tribal/ethnic/religious divisions, with Assad's Alawites, other Shi'ites, and the majority Sunnis. How do you separate out those religious divisions form the economic factors?

Also, ISIS is attracting a lot of help from outside Syria, with people from wealthier western nations such as Australia, Great Britain, and all over joining the fight. Their desire to be involved obviously wasn't due to economic conditions in Syria. So what is motivating them to join ISIS, and why can't whatever is motivating them also be what is motivating those people joining from within Syria?

I want to be clear that I'm not saying that economic discontent plays no role at all in the willingness of a population to support a rebellion. What I'm questioning is the specific link between poverty and Islamism in the face of the contrary evidence of all those Islamists who wouldn't know poeverty if it slapped them upside the head.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Iran has valid concerns that it's chief rival is a nuclear power, does it not?

No. I do not believe that Iran even believes that Israel would ever nuke Iran, absent an existential attack by Iran on Israel. In which case Iran's concern is not something that should be respected.

I think we would get farther if we could begin to somehow bridge the gap, diplomatically, between our two countries.

Diplomacy is simply a method for achieving a mutually desireable goal/end state. I do not believe the majority of Americans share Iran's vision in that regard. Though I have my doubts about the President's view

This is possible, as in, it's possible we could be hit with a meteor tomorrow. The likelihood that this would happen is surely remote, as it would almost certainly result in Articles of Impeachment from the House, and carry the very distinct possibility of conviction in the Senate.

I've stated previously why I believe all the major players know that impeachment is off the table

It's just fanciful to suggest that the President would lift sanctions against Iran on his own without Congressional approval.

Not going to happen.

Since this is inherently speculative and not susceptible of proof at this point, I'll just leave this particular topic sitting open, and we can re-address it if/when the President reaches a deal with Iran. And assuming he makes all the terms of that deal public.

 

[gourimoko]

No. I do not believe that Iran even believes that Israel would ever nuke Iran,

You are out of your mind if you think this.

You've actually just said that Iran does not feel a military need to possess nuclear weapons, even though their chief rival possesses hundreds and routinely threatens military action against them; because, Iran believes Israel would never use them unless "threatened."

That's ridiculous.

The number one line used in the Middle East with respect to obtaining nukes is "Israel has them. They have hundreds."

Diplomacy is simply a method for achieving a mutually desireable goal/end state. I do not believe the majority of Americans share Iran's vision in that regard. Though I have my doubts about the President's view

The majority of Americans and Iranians do not want peaceful coexistence with one another? That's false.

I've stated previously why I believe all the major players know that impeachment is off the table

You may have, but I don't think that's accurate and I'm a liberal. The Tea Party would push for impeachment if the President were to disregard sanctions on a state sponsor of terrorism.

Since this is inherently speculative and not susceptible of proof at this point, I'll just leave this particular topic sitting open, and we can re-address it if/when the President reaches a deal with Iran. And assuming he makes all the terms of that deal public.

Agreed... We really don't know what's going to happen.

I will say this for future reference; if the President attempts to bypass the law with regards to sanctions that he cannot lawfully remove, I would not support such a move. That's going too far.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

You are out of your mind if you think this.

You've actually just said that Iran does not feel a military need to possess nuclear weapons....

Read again. I didn't say that.

I'm quite sure they want such weapons -- I just don't believe their reasoning is valid.

....even though their chief rival possesses hundreds and routinely threatens military action against them; because, Iran believes Israel would never use them unless "threatened."

Not sure exactly who you're talking about here as Iran's "Chief Rival". The U.S.? Israel? I assumed Israel, but now I'm not sure what you mean. But assuming that you're talking about Israel, your argument is circular. It boils down to "Iran needs nuclear weapons to defend itself against attempts to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons." Because absent Iran trying to produce a nuclear weapon, Israel is no threat.

The number one line used in the Middle East with respect to obtaining nukes is "Israel has them. They have hundreds."

Seems to me that most Arab states are a lot more worried about Iran getting a bomb than they are worried about Israel having it.

The majority of Americans and Iranians do not want peaceful coexistence with one another? That's false.

Really? I thought we were the "Great Satan"? Have you taken a poll or something in Iran? Because I know how you feel about such polls....

In any case, it doesn't really matter what the majority of Iranians want if the people running the country want something different. Even if they were willing to let "the Great Satan" be, our vision of what the ME should look like varies rather sharply from that of the Iranian leadership, and perhaps even the majority of Iranians as well. For starters, our vision includes Israel. Theirs doesn't.

[qiuote]You may have, but I don't think that's accurate and I'm a liberal. The Tea Party would push for impeachment if the President were to disregard sanctions on a state sponsor of terrorism.[/quote]

The "tea party" went nuts over Obama's refusal to enforce immigration laws, yet there was no effort in Congress to impeach him. Everyone knows that not only could they never get a conviction, but that it would be an absolute godsend for the Democrats heading into the 2016 elections. If you disagree, fine.

I will say this for future reference; if the President attempts to bypass the law with regards to sanctions that he cannot lawfully remove, I would not support such a move. That's going too far.

Heck, I'll honestly be surprised if he makes entire deal is made public. If he fails to do so, I'd hope a member of Congress gets hold of it and reads it on the floor.

 

[gourimoko]

Read again. I didn't say that.

I'm quite sure they want such weapons -- I just don't believe their reasoning is valid.

I read what you said, and their reasons are perfectly valid -- they have the same reasons the Soviets had for pursuing nuclear weapons.

Not sure exactly who you're talking about here as Iran's "Chief Rival". The U.S.? Israel?

Israel....

I assumed Israel, but now I'm not sure what you mean.

Right...

But assuming that you're talking about Israel, your argument is circular. It boils down to "Iran needs nuclear weapons to defend itself against attempts to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons." Because absent Iran trying to produce a nuclear weapon, Israel is no threat.

No, your convenient strawman argument is circular.

Nuclear weapons for nations like Iran, North Korea, Israel, and even China are primarily a deterrent, to prevent violations of sovereignty like cruise missile, drone, and air strikes.

A nation whose rival possess nuclear weapons and an impossibly more advanced and sophisticated conventional military force surely has a valid military reason to develop nuclear weapons of it's own, to achieve some means of parity.

Your position is obviously biased, because you aren't taking into account the point-of-view of the Iranians. You've even stated that they don't consider Israel a threat, which is absurd.

Seems to me that most Arab states are a lot more worried about Iran getting a bomb than they are worried about Israel having it.

Because you have little understanding of the Middle East.

Arab states oppose Israel having a nuclear weapon vehemently but the fact of the matter is that Israel has and will always likely have nukes. That is now the reality in the Middle East.

With respect to Iran, Sunni led states oppose Iran in general, so obviously they do not want Iran to possess nuclear weapons. Egyptians and Saudis for example are not fond of Iran.

There is also the point that most Muslims, in general, oppose nuclear weapons philosophically as they believe that nuclear arms are contrary to the teachings of Islam.

Really? I thought we were the "Great Satan"? Have you taken a poll or something in Iran?

It's kind of sad how narrow your experience is..

"Probably no country in the world is more mischaracterized in Western eyes than Iran. Most Americans' perceptions of Iran are limited to images of President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad delivering anti-American speeches and crowds chanting "Death to America!" with the blessing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini.

Yet a 2009 World Public Opinion poll found that 51 percent of Iranians hold a favorable opinion of Americans, a number consistentwith other polls, meaning that Americans are more widely liked in Iran than anywhere else in the Middle East. The U.S. favorability rating isn't even that high in U.S. allies India or Turkey, and is two and half times as high as in Egypt.

The same survey found that almost two-thirds of Iranians support restoring diplomatic ties with the U.S. (Iranians' view of U.S. leadership is much worse, at 8 percent as of early this year.) But even these figures are likely on the low end of actual sentiment, as many Iranians might fear expressing such views to a strange pollster, out of fear of drawing the suspicion of the authorities, who sometimes monitor e-mails, phone conversations, and other forms of communication."

Because I know how you feel about such polls...

Eh? Considering that it was my job for the Obama campaign to analyze poll numbers, and crosstabs to come up with state and internet canvassing strategies and that I have a masters degree in mathematics I find it odd that you'd think I feel any way untoward about "polls."

In any case, it doesn't really matter what the majority of Iranians want

Ahh...

if the people running the country want something different. Even if they were willing to let "the Great Satan" be, our vision of what the ME should look like varies rather sharply from that of the Iranian leadership,

"Our vision." There is no "us" in this conversation with respect to having a consistent vision of the Middle East; that should be readily apparent.

and perhaps even the majority of Iranians as well. For starters, our vision includes Israel. Theirs doesn't.

They the people or "they" the totalitarian theocracy? I'm assuming you mean, "they" the theocracy. Which also means that I guess we should only deal with nations that recognize Israel's right to exist (as a Jewish State)?

The "tea party" went nuts over Obama's refusal to enforce immigration laws, yet there was no effort in Congress to impeach him.

Because that particular incident was mostly hot air. Previous Presidents had done exactly the same thing, and it was already considered to be perfectly within the law.

Providing economic relief, by way of illegally lifting sanctions, on a state sponsor of terrorism could be conceived as directly endangering the lives of Americans abroad.

Completely different.

Everyone knows that not only could they never get a conviction,

Everyone doesn't "know" this.

Q-Tip on RCF is saying this right now...

but that it would be an absolute godsend for the Democrats heading into the 2016 elections. If you disagree, fine.

I completely disagree.... Clinton would not and will not support Obama's move to lift sanctions if he does not have backing from Congress. No Democrat running for the Presidency would openly support Obama on this issue.

Heck, I'll honestly be surprised if he makes entire deal is made public. If he fails to do so, I'd hope a member of Congress gets hold of it and reads it on the floor.

For the umpteenth time ...The deal is not what I'm talking about, it's the sanctions... If he does a deal without involving Congress that's within his power; it's the lifting of sanctions that would legally require Congressional action.

 

[Jordan]

I'll get to Syria in a bit, but you ignored the much larger case of Iran, which had an Islamist revolution despite being one of the most developed, wealthiest countries in the region,

This just demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the Iranian revolution. The revolution was led by Marxists and Populists. Islamist took control after the Shah had almost fallen because they were far superior in terms of organization. Same exact thing happened in Egypt in 2011. Also, to claim that these Islamist are radicals in Iran is just wrong. For example, there is a thriving Jewish community in Iran that opposes Israel. So to paint this is "good vs. evil" is just wrong. - http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/11/middleeast/iran-jews-esfahan/index.html

and the other information I posted showing how Islamists radicals often are wealthier/better educated than average. I also pointed to other examples of revolution/discontent -- such as the American Revolution -- and showed again that poverty had nothing to do with it. In other words, Militant Islamism (and revolution more generally) clearly has arisen in some places where poverty was not the cause. What is your explanation for that?

No, you posted that terrorists are often wealthier/better educated than average. If you can't understand the difference between terrorists and Islamists this conversation is pointless.

As for Syria, you've made a huge leap from "there was an economic downturn" to "this caused Islamism" without any causative links. The truth is there has been poverty throughout the ME -- and going back centuries, I might add -- that didn't previously trigger Islamism.

Point to one time I said there was an economic downturn. In fact, the country's economy was doing well. Unfortunately, it is the lower classes, where as I've shown Islamists have popped up hugely following the outset of the revolution, that paid for the regime's economic policies. I.E., significant subsidy cuts that hurt farmers, large FDI increase in public sector but industrial cities losing FDI, and a value-added tax. Not to mentions significant benefits for working for the regime.

Further, militant Islamism in that area obviously preexisted the period covered by your data -- we were in that region fighting it since 2003.

Agreed, but irrelevant.

And, there were Islamist Syrians supporting AQ in Iraq long before the period covered by your data. Again, I don't see the poverty/Islamist link. And the timing of the Syrian rebellion seems linked to the widespread Arab Spring protests triggered by the self-immolation of that dude in Tunisia, not due to economic conditions in Syria. And, the first group to take up arms against Assad was the non-Islamist Free Syrian Army. Why wouldn't poverty-stricken Syrians join that group?

Agreed, but these Islamists were similar to US Muslim Brothers. In fact, in the 1950 and 1960s, these Islamists were pushing for democracy in Syria in opposition to the Ba'ath. They did this by running for parliament and trying to pass laws that would forbid a Syrian ruler from serving lifetime rule. Again, you are conflating Islamists and terrorists.

But those economic divisions mirrored tribal/ethnic/religious divisions, with Assad's Alawites, other Shi'ites, and the majority Sunnis. How do you separate out those religious divisions form the economic factors?

Dude, this is just naive and wrong. Assad's business networks were not sectarian. The sectarianism emerged after the revolutions began. In fact, Aleppo and Damascus were two of the most diverse cities in terms of varieties of Muslims and Kurds in the Middle East. If you want to read a book about this Bassam Haddad's Business Networks in Syria is a fantastic piece.

Also, ISIS is attracting a lot of help from outside Syria, with people from wealthier western nations such as Australia, Great Britain, and all over joining the fight. Their desire to be involved obviously wasn't due to economic conditions in Syria. So what is motivating them to join ISIS, and why can't whatever is motivating them also be what is motivating those people joining from within Syria?

ISIS are terrorists, not Islamists.

I want to be clear that I'm not saying that economic discontent plays no role at all in the willingness of a population to support a rebellion. What I'm questioning is the specific link between poverty and Islamism in the face of the contrary evidence of all those Islamists who wouldn't know poeverty if it slapped them upside the head.

Good deal.

 

[The Oi]

How is it possible for two people to disagree on this many fucking things? Jesus Christ.

It seems like pretty much everyone disagrees with Q-Tip and that he's constantly being corrected rather than countered, so it leads me to believe he's in over his head and wrong.

 

[gourimoko]

How is it possible for two people to disagree on this many fucking things? Jesus Christ.

It seems like pretty much everyone disagrees with Q-Tip and that he's constantly being corrected rather than countered, so it leads me to believe he's in over his head and wrong.

Q-Tip sees the world through his party affiliation.

Quite honestly, that's the only way I can see how someone could be wrong on so many issues... Hell, remember the Net Neutrality debate? How can anyone really have that position?

 

[The Oi]

Q-Tip sees the world through his party affiliation.

Quite honestly, that's the only way I can see how someone could be wrong on so many issues... Hell, remember the Net Neutrality debate? How can anyone really have that position?

Vaguely. He seems like a nice, educated dude. That matters more than the opinions.

But the opinions seem either illogical or trollish.

Either way, it takes too much time to scroll during these battles.

 

[gourimoko]

Vaguely. He seems like a nice, educated dude. That matters more than the opinions.

Definitely the kind of guy one could have a beer with...

But the opinions seem either illogical or trollish.

I think so too... he once said that he's not really trying to be logical, but "advocate" his point of view.. Not one to debate, but, just present one-side of an argument. So, I guess that might explain it.

Either way, it takes too much time to scroll during these battles.

Agreed....

 

[AZ_]

I've always viewed this constant back and forth as sort of a modern day William Jennings Bryan vs. a modern-day GOP sycophant.

It's enjoyable at times.

 

[Damien O'Connel]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrr5BvrAo-Y


Russ is quietly one of the most intelligent people out there...

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This just demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the Iranian revolution.

Well, let's stop right there. Not only did I watch the entire thing unfold every night on TV and read everything I could being written on it as it was happening, but it was the topic of my senior thesis at the Academy 5 years later, for which I had the assistance of professors, emigres, and some in government. My father lived in Iran during that period and got out of Dodge just in time, and a long-time family friend was one of the hostages who knew more than most about what was going on there. I also knew a fair number of people who fled from Iran at that time (including one smoking hot Iranian girl, btw), so I'm fairly confident my knowledge of that Revolution is not lacking at the level of a message-board discussion.

I'll hit the substance of your post later because I have to run now, but you are wildly understating the breadth of support the Islamists had in the late 70's, however much that may have changed in the intervening 36 years.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The revolution was led by Marxists and Populists. Islamist took control after the Shah had almost fallen because they were far superior in terms of organization.

That's simply wrong. The Islamists played the single largest part (though not the only part) in the effort to oust the Shah -- they were the only ones who could really get large numbers in the street, and it was the mullahs who torpedoed the Shah's efforts to appoint a civilian PM as a transition to a more democratic society. They were also the ones who kept stirring the pot whenever it seemed that a temporary lid had been clamped on.

The key event in the ultimate triumph of the Islamists was when Bakhtiar let the Ayatollah return to Iran, foolishly believing that the Ayatollah would support a more secular government, despite the reality that the mullahs (and Khomeini in particular) had never supported that. When Khomeini returned, he pulled millions into Teheran while openly calling for an Islamic state in which the religious heirarchy would be supreme. The new Constitution, which openly asserted the primacy of the religious authorities, passed overwhelming in a referendum. It was not something that a small, tightly organized group of Islamists forced on an unwilling nation.

But that's all tangential to the main point anyway, which is that whatever its relevant strength, a significant Islamist movement existed in Iran in the late 70's. And that Islamist movement consisted almost entirely of people who were not living in poverty. The grievances against the Shah were very largely an opposition to his forced secularization and liberalization of a population that was much more conservative in matters of religion and morals. Sure, you had your marxists and some who wanted a more open, but still secular - government. But they were simply outnumbered at that time.

Also, to claim that these Islamist are radicals in Iran is just wrong. For example, there is a thriving Jewish community in Iran that opposes Israel.

There is absolutely zero contradiction in having an Islamist state that tolerates an anti-israel Jewish minority.

No, you posted that terrorists are often wealthier/better educated than average. If you can't understand the difference between terrorists and Islamists this conversation is pointless.

I understand the difference quite well. Terrorism is simply a tactic. It is not the reason those people choose to engage in conflict. Any number of underlying ideologies can be the motive for engaging in terrorist acts.

What I have been pointing to are middle-class/wealthy Islamic terrorists, and asking you how it is we have so many wealthy-middle class Islamists if poverty is truly the underlying cause of Islamism. You have yet to address that.

ISIS are terrorists, not Islamists.

You seem to think those two are mutually exclusive. They are not. People do not wake up one morning and decide to engage in terrorism for its own sake. They choose terrorism as the particular tactic to advance their chosen ideology, be it Islamism, neo-nazism, or anything else.

ISIS are Islamists, though it obviously is not an interpretation of Islam with which all Muslims agree. I'm much less certain that they are just Islamic terrorists, because they do engage in what amounts to conventional warfare as well.