900 years of the West against Islam

900 years of the West against Islam [+ favourites]

We started with the Crusades and have kept it going in one form or another, under one guise or another, our attempt to clear the world of Muslims. We can almost universally agree we screwed up with the Crusades yet we Americans (sorry non-US citizens of these 2 continents) allowed the president to lie us into another war. Who are we, nearly half-way around the world to impose our beliefs and our government on another people of another culture? If democracy is to truly work it must be self-imposed and self-sustaining. Democracy used to mean freedom of choice. The Bush definition is "Freedom to believe what I am comfortable with you believing, or I'll set it up for you." And you and I are the weights applying the strangle-hold on their necks. I for one am not proud of this voiceless bullying of hapless peoples, either in our hemisphere or out of it. That other George (Washington) had it right in his second farewell address when he cautioned against involvement in other countries struggles. That SOB Monroe got us going by making us the protectors of the Americas and no president has had the balls to stop our downhill speed trip. We got our asses kicked in Vietnam and tried to prove to the world we were still strong by attacking Granada and Haiti. Wow. What a bunch of f*cking losers we are. The pinnacle has passed. We have been flushed. The only question now is the successor. Remember the threat from the East we were supposed to be fearing as it marched across Europe? We always took that to be the Chinese. What about the Muslims in the name of Islam? Both of our days are numbered, and the countdown ain't in English. [b]

"Popular dissidents are merely pacifiers given to us by the Government to keep us in line and thinking someone is making a ruckuss."

K, its not bullying. I don't think the Iraqis wanted to keep Saddam.
And democracy is just that, we can let the Iraqis choose what they want.

Bush did fuck up though, he lied to the US people (or started war on inadequate evidence) and has been unable to stabilize the region.
He's turned Iraq from a socialist generalissimo state to a hotbed for Islamic fundamentalism.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

The question isn't whether you feel the Iraquis wanted to keep Saadam or not, or whether Bush felt that way. If some other government felt you and I didn't want to keep Bush is that any reason for them to attack us? Attacking another country is aggression, pure and simple. Do you condone that type of aggression? The matter is really black or white. It is right or it is wrong. If it is right, we are in deep do-do. Having lived nearly 1/2 my life abroad, I am well aware of the millions and millions of people that hate the United States without having ever met one of us. They might say, "well, you're different, not like the others". We both know that is a bunch of crap. Our culture is our culture, and until we have everybody in the world drinking Coca-Cola and eating Big Macs we won't be content. Tell me what we did was permissable under our form of beliefs and our form of government. FREEDOM OF CHOICE, remember? And if it is permissable, remember the long term consequences for your children and your children's children: always having to have both eyes open to avoid being attacked by someone that wants to wipe the 'savior' grin off their faces. I hope for something better for my 4 babies.

"Popular dissidents are merely pacifiers given to us by the Government to keep us in line and thinking someone is making a ruckuss."

Attacking an oppressive despotic state is legitimate if we intend to permanently free them.
That means making the democratic, rich and happy.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

quote:

---

"Freedom to believe what I am comfortable with you believing, or I'll set it up for you."

---

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

Might I define 'oppressive, despotic' state? How about a state that forces its will on others? How about a state with a leader that lies to its citizens so that they want to force their system on others? Or is oppressive/despotic only valid if it takes place inside your own borders? And what if they CHOOSE to re-install an oppressive despot? Do we free them from their selves, or is this a one-time thing? We are puppets led by a deranged puppet-master. Look Ma, no strings! Come November let's hope it's 'Look Ma, no Bush!'

"Popular dissidents are merely pacifiers given to us by the Government to keep us in line and thinking someone is making a ruckuss."

I would have thought we would have learned from Vietnam. A war that continued on to keep the military machine in business. The Moto at the time I was growing up, "question authority." You saw those bumper stickers every where. We wasn't going to let this happen again.

But recently I'm beginning to realize that this is a religious war. Christian fundamentalists against Islam fundamentalists. I would have never believed it, but I gues I had my blinders on.

quote:

---

We started with the Crusades and have kept it going in one form or another, under one guise or another

---

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

As much as I dislike Bush, there's no way his government is 'despotic'.
Saddam was a thousand worse then Bush, that's why its ok to kick him out. But only if we sort out the place afterwards.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

But who draws the line? Remember: "Judge not, lest ye be judged?" We are all everything. You are a product of all the people in the world and all of history - in degrees. At what degree of 'despot' do we draw the line between acceptable and 'we gotta get rid of this creep'? Do you truly think that George W. Bush is the man to draw the line? God, I hope he isn't. Unfortunately, I think he stepped over the line, and dragged us with him. We can NEVER in all of history to come undo what he has done. NEVER! He has made a statement in our names that we can never live down. How many of us know of the opposition to wars other than Vietnam? Check into the problems W. Wilson had with WWI. Protests and peace marches were everywhere. How many remember our tries to bury our WASP background and pro-German leanings in early WWII by changing the name of that Wisconsin town to Milwaukee? Did you know it was Germantown? We can hide some things, but will forever be branded by the deeds we do. Even trying to hide those deeds or obscure them doesn't make them go away. I am probably one of the few here that suffers daily from the embarrassment of things I did 45 years ago and wish I could take them back. I torture myself over things that only God and I can remember. But at least I did those things, I didn't let a numbskull president drag my good name down and turn me into an accomplice to genocide (somebody please correct the word genocide to mean theocracy). Turn the other cheek. If we can survive this fundamentalist president, perhaps we can turn the other cheek and turn over a new leaf and try to aid others in peaceful ways. End weapon distribution. Yes, even to Israel. But please, see the error of our ways and don't allow a lie to convince you we should be in Iraq. I don't mean WMDs, I mean the lie that it is our duty to police the world. - If you accept that it is our duty, where will we go next? Canada? Mexico? Why not?

"Popular dissidents are merely pacifiers given to us by the Government to keep us in line and thinking someone is making a ruckuss."

I'd say you're most definitely a despot once you've gone longer then your mandate and have stripped your people of some fundamental freedoms.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

Good thought. But what IS the mandate for a King, Emperor, Shah or whatever? I noted with some interest the election in India that has catapulted Sonia Gandhi into the international spotlight. Here is an Italian widow ready to take over the running of one of the largest (population wise) countries in the world. Why? Because she is the widow of descended royalty. (Yes, Virginia, the Nehru family is/was royalty) This is where things get foggy. Nehru served until he died. His daughter, Indira Gandhi, served (elected) until her death. Her son, Rajiveh served then dropped out of politics but was assassinated anyway. Now, the dynasty goes on in the form of his widow, marking time until her sons (2 in congress now as well) can muster the support to take over the family business. This is how things work in much of the world - Syria and N. Korea are prime examples. Despots pass their legacy to their sons, kind of from tree to shrub, or is that Bush to Bush??? Does it matter that we help the perpetuation of our own misery? Will it matter when America goes for a 'three-pete' with son Jeb? Will the 'novelty' insure his election? Probably. We were fools to elect George Sr., bigger fools to elect George W., and nothing can stop us from being totally foolish and adding Jeb to our misery. I respect your doggedness and the fact that you have well thought out or at least consistant logic. What concerns me is that you would allow the U.S. president to be the judge of who deserves to be in charge of another country. Good or bad. Stop all international arms trading and see how long these 'despots' last. Aid the poor directly if you must, but don't give money to these 'bad' governments. Cut them off, blockade them, but not unilaterally. Make majority rule in the U.N. instead of a few in control. If YOU want democracy, live by its rules before you export it to where it isn't wanted. We don't, couldn't, won't live that way. We just talk a good game.

"Popular dissidents are merely pacifiers given to us by the Government to keep us in line and thinking someone is making a ruckuss."

K what is the point to what you're saying?

Are you saying India is not a democracy?
Or perhaps that we should ban anyone with the same name as a former president from running for election?

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

What I'm saying is that dynasties have and do exist. Does that constitute 'overstaying one's mandate'? Is that the only criteria for ousting a leader? Where were we with Mao? Chang? The Russians? Castro? or is this a new policy we've installed? And, was Saddam the worst in the world? Who is next? Will we go there next on whatever pretext? Once something gets started, like a Holy War, it is hard to put a stop to it. It takes more balls to stop than to go on. Let's hope the next president has the balls.

"Popular dissidents are merely pacifiers given to us by the Government to keep us in line and thinking someone is making a ruckuss."

Actually I think it'll be easy to stop it because the US has no more money.
The communists are a complicated issue simply because they had the illusion of unity and the russians had nukes.

Keep in mind, I'm not pro-bush or pro-iraq war any more. But lets look at the bright side : IF (big if) the US attempts to seriously stabilize the area, things might turn for the better.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

The cost is not monitary, but our ideals. Our live and let live democratic ideals. We will have sacrificed our system to impose our system on another culture. Democracy doesn't work for everyone - it doesn't even work in our military - and isn't for everyone. I suffered this during the 50's and early 60's with communism. How could our democracy survive treating American communists differenty than other Americans? That would be un-democratic! Make all communists register? We can't even get firearms registered - violates our rights! But no one felt obliged to point that out to the politicians that cried out to register communists - except the communists. Being a democracy is difficult - being a good one is nigh on impossible.

"Popular dissidents are merely pacifiers given to us by the Government to keep us in line and thinking someone is making a ruckuss."