Question for Americans voters on this forum

[kerry]

Wait a minute--Christopher Hitchens invented the word 'Islamofascism' so it is totally untrue to claim that the left doesn't see Islam itself as a problem. Now, granted, Hitchens can't stand any kind of religion, and his credentials as a leftist are under fire due to his support of the Iraq war, but the description of Islam as a form of fascism is clearly a leftist description.

Bush and the religious right can't really label Islam as a form of fascism because the argument is so quickly turned back on themselves with the Bible taking the place of the Koran.

I'm a leftist. I think Bush has used 9/11 to carry out the Imperialist plans of the Neo-cons which were concocted long before 2001. I also think fundamentalist religion is a serious threat to Enlightenment values, whether that religion be Christian, Muslim Jewish or Hindu. However, absolutely nothing in the platform of the Republican party leads me to think they are interesting in preserving Enlightenment values either at home or abroad.

[Zeitgeist]

I suspect that Hitch's prior "over-the-top" use of the term is what aggravates me. I don't know if he can even be considered to be a man of the Left these days, but that's a bit moot at this juncture.


pj67coll: Kumbayah is such a great uplifting song, so why not give it a try? Gotta be more helpful than attacking, invading and occupying a (formerly) sovereign nation--no?

[fj bertrand]

For REAL men, the road doesn't stop in Bagdad, but in Tehran and Damascus

Bring 'em on...

Bush second term: Iran and Syria. they are already planning it, according to sources. Be worried, be very worried....

[GermanStar]

Z -- does it ever frustrate you that a lot of folks ether don't get or simply refuse to acknowledge the main thrust of your argument?

[pj67coll]

"Bush and the religious right can't really label Islam as a form of fascism because the argument is so quickly turned back on themselves with the Bible taking the place of the Koran."

As Bush and others have often stated they dont claim Islam to be a form of fascism but only that manifestation of it which the arch conservatives and terrorists espouse. Hence "Islamofacism" instead of just plain "Islam" which Bush claims to have no beef with.

"I'm a leftist. I think Bush has used 9/11 to carry out the Imperialist plans of the Neo-cons which were concocted long before 2001."

I am a rightist. I agree.

"I also think fundamentalist religion is a serious threat to Enlightenment values, whether that religion be Christian, Muslim Jewish or Hindu."

I agree completely with you there.

"However, absolutely nothing in the platform of the Republican party leads me to think they are interesting in preserving Enlightenment values either at home or abroad."

Unfortunately I think the same of the Democrats. Not because they dont pay lip service to "enlightenment values" but because as I stated they refuse to accept that there really is a problem such as the return of the crusades and thus will do nothing about combatting it.

I dont see it as something that just needs beefed up policing and better international co-operation. Bush is right. It is a war. Not one of the US's making. Bush was originally correct when just after 911 he stated that it would take many years (In my opinion it will take many generations) before there is a light at the end of the tunnel. He was as intellectually vacuous as Kerry when he made that stupid statement recently that "the war on terror will be won".

The best the US can hope for is to keep terrorism at bay and the enemy on the defensive. Until if lucky, some time towards the end of the century, the cultures that promote Islamofascism are vanquished/converted/rendered impotent/what have you... and no longer pose a threat to the west. If indeed the west still exists toward the end of the 21'st century.

- Peter.

[GermanStar]

Originally Posted by fj bertrand

Bush second term: Iran and Syria. they are already planning it, according to sources. Be worried, be very worried....

Now that would be out of character -- addressing countries that actually support terrorist activities rather than third parties...... Iran would have made a more interesting choice than Iraq for an "experiment in democracy" for a number of reasons.

[GermanStar]

Originally Posted by pj67coll

It is a war. Not one of the US's making.

Are you referring to the war on terrorism or the war on Iraq? One is not of our making -- the other clearly is.

[Zeitgeist]

Originally Posted by GermanStar

Z -- does it ever frustrate you that a lot of folks ether don't get or simply refuse to acknowledge the main thrust of your argument?

Ron, I left the mainstream of political thought long enough ago to just accept that my POV isn't readily digestible to most. I ain't the smartest dude around, but I do spend a lot of time analyzing politics at the meta level--the politics of politics, which doesn't correspond well with what we've all been led to understand and believe to be reality. There's no way to dispute that I represent a tiny minority of a minority of opinion here on the MB discussion board. What can ya do about that?

[pj67coll]

Ron. The war in Iraq is merely one campaign in the larger war on terror. You can claim it was badly executed (I agree) but to pretend it has nothing to do with the war on terror simply strengthens my earlier post. That people just dont see the bigger picture. Military force is as essential to changing the power structure in the middle east as anything else. In order for the US to start changing the region it was essential to gain a purchase there. Apart from the moral aspects of getting rid of the Hussein regime, there are the tactical realities that only Iraq was sufficiently vulnerable to an invasion for it to have any real chance of success. To have attacked Iran which was the most deserving of the reprobate regimes in the region would have been too dangerous because of the nature of the Iranian military which would have been able to put up a decent fight from the beginning, as fundamentalist thought is deeply embedded in that regime and military. Not so Iraq where the people were not going to support the regime and thus there was a chance of successfully establishing a secular democracy in the region.

Ideally the US should have attacked Iran and Syria but Americans have no stomach for the necessary casualties that would ensue. Hence influence must be brought to bear by circuitous means, such as knocking off Hussein.

But of course. If you think as the left does, that it's just a few malcontents who could be rooted out if we just went to the UN and asked them to be good little world citizens then you dont regard this as the return of the crusades and you dont accept the value of Pax Americana, then you will continue to see it as just another example of Neo-con nefariousness.

- Peter.

[kerry]

I can't believe Bush's claim that he was attacking terrorism when he warred against Iraq because I don't think he is that ignorant. Al Queda and the terrorists are Wahabi's and not Shiites. If there was any nation in the region supporting fundamentalist Wahabism, it was Saudi Arabia.
The war on Iraq is simply Pax Americana at work. Pax Americana is simply raw brutal imperialism. It has no connection with terrorism at all.

[GermanStar]

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Ron. The war in Iraq is merely one campaign in the larger war on terror. You can claim it was badly executed (I agree) but to pretend it has nothing to do with the war on terror simply strengthens my earlier post. That people just dont see the bigger picture. Military force is as essential to changing the power structure in the middle east as anything else. In order for the US to start changing the region it was essential to gain a purchase there. Apart from the moral aspects of getting rid of the Hussein regime, there are the tactical realities that only Iraq was sufficiently vulnerable to an invasion for it to have any real chance of success. To have attacked Iran which was the most deserving of the reprobate regimes in the region would have been too dangerous because of the nature of the Iranian military which would have been able to put up a decent fight from the beginning, as fundamentalist thought is deeply embedded in that regime and military. Not so Iraq where the people were not going to support the regime and thus there was a chance of successfully establishing a secular democracy in the region.

Ideally the US should have attacked Iran and Syria but Americans have no stomach for the necessary casualties that would ensue. Hence influence must be brought to bear by circuitous means, such as knocking off Hussein.

But of course. If you think as the left does, that it's just a few malcontents who could be rooted out if we just went to the UN and asked them to be good little world citizens then you dont regard this as the return of the crusades and you dont accept the value of Pax Americana, then you will continue to see it as just another example of Neo-con nefariousness.

- Peter.

Invading Iraq to create a crucible for terrorism where none existed before or as an example to others contemplating or continuing an active role in terrorism is utterly immoral on every level if that's what you're suggesting. That has the sordid ring of "the end justifies the means". Iraq was a minor player in the terrorism game, and that was twice removed and aimed exclusively at Israel. They posed no imminent threat to the West and played no part in 9/11.

As I understand it, the main thrust of Z's argument is that we hold a certain level of accountability for what has befallen us, and that we need to acknowledge and address that fact in addition to zealously pursuing the perpetrators of these terrorist acts. Fear-based solutions do not endure. They have a place, but their impact is strictly short term and fails to address the big picture. Our actions in Iraq are addressing the big picture, but only in the most unproductive way possible.

[Botnst]

Must've hit a nerve because the deny-ers are in full agreement and in force!

Oooookay. I'll use simple words and phrases so we can a-a-all understand.

My most important issues are:

#1. Really bad people of a certain religion who believe God has commanded that they hurt people who disagree with them. They believe God has told them to take control of the economy and society by any means necessary to fullfill God's promise.
.
.
.
.
.
Something else about 10^4 down.

[GermanStar]

Originally Posted by Botnst

#1. Really bad people of a certain religion who believe God has commanded that they hurt people who disagree with them. They believe God has told them to take control of the economy and society by any means necessary to fullfill God's promise.

That narrows it down to two choices...... Hmmmmmm........

[kerry]

At home or abroad???

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

At home or abroad???

Name the people at home, please.