If you peruse any leftist web sites, Washington monthly.org is one fairly tame one I look at. You will see just that question posed quite often. "Do we really need a war on terror?". Or "We should just treat them like criminals." Or "Containment worked for the Soviets and we should use it for Terrorrists." Or "We should apply our American Ideals to the Israeli, Palestinian Conflict."(which I have no idea what means.) So yes, I think the problem is there is probably a signifigant part of the U.S. and definately the world that sees just this way.

Chads

I take exception with the 'Kerry is just like Bush ' meme that is cropping up. Name one thing that Kerry has said that is consistent? He has said that he will take the war to the UN, when clearly the UN does not want it anyway, then he said that there are foriegn leaders who have privately satated that they prefer that he is elected; a statement that was seized by the press and he made turgid retractions. The list goes on and on. Is there anything that he has not nuanced to death?

The longer he stays in the public eye, his poll numbers drop. Some have convinced themselves that what he is saying now is merely to get elected but have you ever met anyone who actualy believes a word? No one. Zero.

Credibility. Was there something about the 'devil you know'? What has shifted for them as 'any devil but Bush'? What about him has toasted thier world view so much that they stop listening to anything at all to concentrate on the preacher? Don't they realize when they campaign against proselytizing as absolute evil, that it becomes Huxley NewSpeak and self fulfilling prophesy? Are they the fanatics they are talking about? The disconnect is so bad, that thier feedback loop is feeding the feedback loop. I have seen it occasionally spill out here where ten of them come in and ask the same question on an appropriately titled thread, anything negative will do and pounce with such tenacity as to be believed based of the veracity of thier feelings alone. They are getting it from somewhere but to find the source is to be one of the acolylites. The ultimate elitists are complaining about being out of the loop, when in fact they all are stuck in and endless loop that stopped. They no longer synthesize new ideas, or modify old ones based on new evidence, preferring to direct the creative process into negating the recent developments, they effectively become the terrorists Joseph Goebles. Who could live for long that way? How many are planning on slitting thier wrists if they lose this election? Not many are rich as Johnny Depp and can move to France.

The real reason the Clintons have thier books out in this surreal political season is that they sense the last hurrah of hogwash is approaching and they have to get thier last fade of gaslight to shine on them. The maudlin act is repulsive. They all sense that that train is zipping along the tracks and it aint never coming back for thier brand of socialism and indeed, that other i word; isolationism. Kerry presidency will likely be punt when we have already martialed all of the necessary resources. These people have gone beyond caring about credibility, they are litterally so delusional that to thier thinking, they are fighting a shadowy and elusive final showdown with evil and it has got a stranglehold on reality for them.

To them, the cold war was never won so much as faded from boredom, the WWII guys were mental maniacs and poeple in college have it all worked out. Their freedom cry is One Queer Nation and Do It 'Till It Falls Off. Well, thats what eventually happens when the body is no longer animated by the brain, I have heard. Total Spiritual Death. See kids, thats what having no morality at all does to people.

Have fun and Peace.

-Tsu-nami

I think I'll give up drinkin' Green Tea.

Would that help my Outlook? The first blog that I found after TCP was OneHandClapping. What Rev. Sensing has to say is usually worth the read.

Tsunami (poor man's Billy Grahm..),

You have no idea what values this republic was founded on. Spirituality does not encompass our constitution, especially your demented view of what it SHOULD BE. This is a secular republic. You sound like an old geyser ranting about the 'good old days...'

Morality is relative. And frankly, I and many Americans dont really care what you think is moral.
That is why this country is great.

We need a war on terror like a war on drugs and like a hole in the head. It aint doing crap. We are flailing around just like Israel. What people cant seem to realize is that you can fight unconventional wars with unconventional means. The best way to kill a submarine is with another submarine. The best way to kill terrorist networks is to use spec ops. Let us terrorize them.. systematically kill them in the black of night.

Why bang down the god damn door if we dont have to?

How many lives and how much money have we spent again? Hey that Osama guy and his LT's are still all over the place right?

Do we have any idea where he is or what he is thinking?
Is he on the run? Would we even know anyway?

On Bush and consistency? Didnt Bush try to screw the U.N. by waging unilateral war, only to come crawling back to them and the members of the G-8 for support afterwards? Am I seeing things? That is certainly my kind of consistency.
The neocons crying that the U.N. was useless then crying for its support when Iraq blew up in their faces.

Methinks somebody has been playing too much rainbow-6, WHAT?!?!

There is a 5th possibility, and its the most likely one.

The US maintains a theoretical war on terror along the line of the war on drugs. It devolves into intermittent sabre rattling and bloodless strikes, but in reality we go back to a law enforcement mentality combined with a realist based foriegn policy based on propping up whichever bastard regime is most friendly to us. This is essentially the Kerry approach at the moment, but Bush could conceivably go that way as well if the Scocroft/Buchanon segment gets in his ear. Its terribly disapointing that this is essentially the leftist's best idea at the moment. Theyve spent years (rightly in many cases) criticizing our proping up of one dictator to fight another, but now that is precisely what they are advocating in the Middle East, especially Iraq.
If we really believe that democracy and the rule of law is the only just way for humans to live, we've got to see this through. There is karma in the universe. Every time we as a nation take the easier, seductive path we come to regret it.

Like Churchill said, 'Americans always do the right thing... after they have exhausted every other possibility.'

Mark

You are correct, in that what the left seems to want is to go back to the good old cold war days. They only problem is, the Soviets never struck us at home, never destroyed our buildings, and never, to my knowledge, bombed our embassies(sp) over seas. This is nothing like the cold war and all the Generals on TV, bred and educated for a service of INACTIVITY can't take it. In their world if you had to take action you had failed.

All the occasional missle strikes of the Clinton era did are embolden our ememies, that should be clear. We must follow up on the action at hand, we have the chance now, to make real change. If we back out, which is what Kerry will do however slowly, we won't get this chance again untill we have had more 9/11's and 3/11's.

The problem in Israel isn't that they have been fighting, it's that they haven't been fighting enough. The Israeli's are now getting tough and if the Palestinians and Syrians don't calm down will probably get tougher. At some point we're going to have to just tell them to take whatever territory they want and get on with it. With the shape of Israel right now they can never have security.

Chads

One Liberal source that is GOING DOWN. It is off topic on the War on Tereor except that these people are strong bin Laden supporters and VERY, VERY Anti-American.

Click Here

The problem in Israel isn’t that they have been fighting, it’s that they haven’t been fighting enough
*************************************************************
World War 3 anyone?

Yeah right. Dude you are a moron. They could nuke the place and terrorists would still be there the next day. They are like roaches. It is an ideology not an army. You must defeat the ideology. They feel robbed, cheated, that is why they bomb. Can it be any simpler to explain?

One Liberal source that is GOING DOWN. It is off topic on the War on Tereor except that these people are strong bin Laden supporters and VERY, VERY Anti-American.
*************************************************************
Alright McCarthy...Franken et al are no more whacked out than pill poppin Divorcin' Rush.

The hypocrisy in politics is amazing.....

"They feel robbed, cheated, that is why they bomb. Can it be any simpler to explain?"

Thats not why they bomb. Lots of people feel robbed and cheated but they dont strap explosives to their bodies.
They bomb because they live in the most oppressive societies in the world where the political fascists herd them off to the madrassas to learn to hate infidels and jews to keep their minds off how horribly backwards and repressive their own nations and societies are. Terrorists arent bred by poverty, they are trained by cynics with huge bankrolls protecting their jealous feefdoms.
You're right we cant kill them fast enough, but much like the insects they are if we dont attack the nest they will just continue to breed and spread.

Exactly.

I think we differ on what that nest is though Mark. That nest is not only the opressive regime they live in, but our utter contempt for the opinions of the people of the middle east. Our desire to force our Foreign Policy down their throats exacerbates their shitty quality of life factor.

Killing more of them certainly is no longer a viable option. We have to change course, not stay the course.

My previous post was a very simplistic version of what I meant. But in general, they feel wronged, and you are right, that wrong is what terrorist recruiters play off of. We must do all we can to eliminate a) the recruiters, but more importantly b) the initial desire to delve into that culture in the first place.

"We must do all we can to eliminate a) the recruiters, but more importantly b) the initial desire to delve into that culture in the first place."

We agree with the principles. Of course the devil is in the details. You abhor shoving our foriegn policy down their throats. Does that include democracy? Universal suffrage? Human rights? I find it astounding, but somehow the progressives have come to the position that these ideas are cultural imperialism. BS. What they are is every human beings birthright. It is their lack that is what feeds the nest, not our (to date tepid) insistance on them.
I wont put words in anyones mouth, but here is what I have gathered. Leftists have been asked for a gameplan on what to do in the ME, consistantly they refuse to divulge details. What i have peiced together by their various proposals is that we should be abandoning our alliance with the only liberal democracy in the region, shoring up our relationships with the most fascist regimes on earth, toning down our rhetoric on the dangers of extremism and islamofascism, and above all taking any and all 'sticks' off the table. What is that if not surrender? Do we truly expect power hunger cleptocrats to reform themselves voluntarilly? Or religious extremists to suddenly mellow out when they sense opportunity for expansion? All of this flies in the face of everything we know about human nature.
On the other hand we know from experience (particularly the cold war) that freedom has an allure all its own. But the message has to get to the people, and the autocrats and imams wont allow it at present. Leftist proposals have no mechanism for advancing this cause, to their shame.

what2: Are you aware of the obvious contradicions and falicies in you statements?

"Morality is relative." : This is a common expression that, in its simplicity, does not mean what it is usually meant. Are saying that it is not immoral for me to kill my neighbor if I don't think it is? I doubt you believe that. There is a basic common fundamental set of moral rules that are universal throughout human societies, and, as such, it is illogical to dismiss any specific religious teaching of morality solely based upon the fact that it is religious in origin. If I say the sky is blue because of the scattering of light and someone else says it's blue because God painted it that way, their faulty reasonong does not negate the truth of their statement. As such, this platitude is a meaningless way to dismiss another's position without having to either present or support your own.

"Let us terrorize them.. systematically kill them in the black of night. Why bang down the god damn door if we dont have to?"
"You must defeat the ideology. They feel robbed, cheated, that is why they bomb. Can it be any simpler to explain?"

So, which is it? Kill individual terrorists or defeat the ideology? Actually I think they are complimentary goals and need to be pursued in parallel. And no, they do not bomb because they feel robbed and cheated. Millions of people feel that way, but are these millions responding by killing people, especially people that have nothing directly to do with their perceived situation? They bomb beacuse it is taught to them that bombing is a moral choice, nay, an obligation. The ideology is endemic and taught in government sponsored schools and mosques. Without addressing the societal systems created, sponsored and sustained by their governments there is no chance to alter the ideology. As such, "bang[ing] down the god damn[ed] door" seems entirely in line with the goals.

"Didnt Bush try to screw the U.N. by waging unilateral war, only to come crawling back to them ... for support afterwards?"

Do you really believe this or are you reproducing the talking points received from others? Forces were ready to go in January. This not only would have been advantageous from a weather perspective (avoiding the spring sand storms and escalating temperatures), but also would have minimized Saddam's preparation time. So why did we delay until March? Maybe it was because Bush was trying to get another UN resolution through? The decission to go without the UN's blessing was only reached after it was made blatantly clear it would never be given. After major combat we have continually returned, giving the UN a chance to get onboard but have, rightly, not given in to some members' demands to give up full control after making the sacrifice.

Further, I fail to understand some people's faith in the UN as a panacea that cures all ills. First and foremost, nor only is their track record in the area of preventing genocide (one of the specific charters of the organization) woefully nescient, their batting average on nationbuilding and effective peace keeping is damn near in the dirt as well. One only need look at how the UN figuratively pimped the Iraqi people for billions in the Oil for Food/Palaces program or how they have literally pimped young female refugees from Kosova to the Congo in exchange for food and relief supplies. Any organization that allows Sudan to sit on its human rights commission at the same time that government is aiding, abetting and instigating genocide such has happened through out the south and is currently happening in the Darfur region has no right to ask for credibility. Talk about a picture-perfect case of "fox" and "hen-house". Please explain how this is your model of the group that is going to "fix" anything?

"That nest is not only the opressive regime they live in, but our utter contempt for the opinions of the people of the middle east. "

Is that why the Bush administration and the military have bent over backwards to invite Muslim clerics to post-9/11 observances?

Why they didn't level Fallujah at the request of the IGC?

Why they didn't cut down Muqtada al-Sadr in a hail of bullets and bombs because they were worried about damaging holy sites?

Why they are transferring power and governance of resources - even if incrementally - to Iraqi citizens?

These are just a few areas in which the US has NOT expressed "utter contempt for the opinions of the people of the middle east". They aren't trivial.

You need to change your assertions to reflect reality a little more if you want to be taken seriously.

submandave,

1)
I repeat morality is relative. Individual rights are not. That is where the line stops. The whole screaming fire in a public theater line. It is simple. That is why our country is great, we leave everyone to be, as much as we can. It is called FREEDOM.

2)
To answer your post in short, yes pursue spec ops and defeat the ideology in parallel. But no, we can never win by going into countries and conquering them. No matter how ruthless the regime. We have no right to do so unless they attack us. Pre-emptive war is illegal war. I was all for going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. But leave the brigades and divisions the hell out of this. They are ill equipped and trained for this kind of thing.

Defeating the ideology is going to be hard, because we will have to concede and actually treat the ME fairly and not be such a pro Israeli state. We must show them respect. How can they respect us, with our cavalier attitudes that eventually birthed Abu Gharib?

3)
To answer the 3rd part, the U.N. gives us legitimacy that is why we need them. It gives us a mandate to do things. Sometimes we need that. Why? Money troops, less violence when we do go in. It all makes sense really.

Steve in Houston,

Hardly...I am not just talking about Iraq genius....

Try looking at the map again and realize that the ME is comprised of more than ONE country !

Just a quick question....if morality is relative, who decides that screaming fire in a crowded theater is wrong?

I don't think there is going to be a solution to this problem not with war, not with criminal prosecution.

My motto has always been, "forget what they say, what do they DO?" When 9/11 happened, what did we do? Church attendance shot up, flags came out, etc., because we'd been attacked. Not condoning, supporting, aiding or abetting the psychos with the bomb belts in the least, what are they doing? They feel attacked, so they are taking refuge in God and country -- or, Allah and Islam. Unfortunately, their method of "god and country" includes murder, suicide, and general mayhem. (Of course, if they'd stop freakin' beheading people, they might stop feeling attacked, I mean, civilization, ever heard of it????)

So, what to do? The harder we tell them they're wrong, try to promote democracy, etc., the more we entrench the belief that that they are being attacked. My personal belief is that the future is going to look like a mix of Donald Sensings 3 & 4. The war is going to be permanent, until the next dark age.

johnnymozart,

Screaming fire is not a moral question it is a question of rights, which is not something that is relative. The law of the land dictates where the line is drawn on individual rights. The beauty of the u.s. is that morality is relative. Questions of rights (enumerated in the Bill of Rights) and subsequent Constitutional Amendments.... are settled in the courts. The preceding are obviously not relative. Their is a standard, and that is stricly adhered to.

The U.S. cannot force you to be moral in the traditional sense. Trust me, Billy G. said so :)

But you didn't answer my question.

Although I disagree with your premise, what2, let's assume I don't. Let's say that hypothetically that you are introducing a bill to suggest that screaming fire in a crowded theater should be illegal, obviously because it is wrong.

On basis do you determine that it is wrong? Or, if you prefer, that it should be illegal? Its a simple enough question. Because it is on that basis that you are arguing your point. Because, by your argument, this is what you are basing the law, and thus individual rights on.

“We must show them respect"

Is that just pretend respect? I always thought respect had to be earned.

Actually IMO the problem is they have a very low opinion of themselves. They see ulterior motives in everything we do. They believe the most absurd things about us. They don’t trust each other let alone us. They drown in a sea of humiliation. They have no interest in other ideas or cultures.

To correct this situation we would have to go back in time and change history. This is not possible.

johnnym,

simple answer: It is illegal because your right to scream fire in a theater intrudes upon the rights of the patrons of that theater. With most things, you have rights until you start messing with other peoples rights, other peoples way of life.

In general who makes these decisions? The Federal Courts, and sometimes ultimately the Supreme Court.

Ok, you are now making the same argument, just with a different example. You have asserted that these are not moral decisions. Ok, that's cool. So you say that it is wrong to scream fire in a crowded theater on the basis that it is apparently wrong to interfere with the rights of others.

So, on what basis do you make that judgement; ie, that it is wrong to interfere with the rights of others? ( I agree with this, by the way, but for apparently a different reason than you)

Because it says so in the Bill of Rights? Because the Supreme Court says so? Fine. But ultimately, those courts or documents had origins. Reasons on which those noble ideas were based. You have argued that those reasons are other than what they were. Couldn't it be succesfully argued that those documents, those institutions that you say are your basis for why certain things should be illegal were based on the convictions and ideals of the men (and women) who founded them? And on what those convictions were based?

Here's a hint for you:

"Democracy is designed for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for any other."
--John Adams

So, again I ask, on what basis do you think that infringements on other people's rights are wrong?

GW1: War on Drugs Result: Failure
GW2: War on Terror Result: Failure

This is your brain...this is your brain on drugs any questions?

God Help Us All.

Yes what2, that's very nice , but what does that opinion have to do with my question to you?

johnnym,

Your Adams quote means nothing to me. He is just an opinion like everyone else. What are you trying to prove. You wasted 30 minutes on Google for nothing buddy.

I couldnt give a shit if Adams thought morality and democracy are intertwined. I can probably find quotes from his contemporaries that say just the opposite. I personally do not agree with that quote. The Constitution does not either. The Constitution does not mention morality in any significant way nor does the bill of rights there genius. What are you trying to say?

You are trying to tie morality where it does not belong, and I know why. You have a religious agenda. Please dont push that shit on me or try to argue that the crap you hear at your baptist church that is the size of Reliant Stadium at Sunday somehow is in the Constitution.

Spare me. This is a secular democracy and will always be one.

If anything, religion is hampering our effort to improve as a society, i.e., stem cell research. We need to dump anything even remotely unsecular from govt.

"Screaming fire is not a moral question it is a question of rights, which is not something that is relative. The law of the land dictates where the line is drawn on individual rights. The beauty of the u.s. is that morality is relative."

Man, you are confused. Morality is not relative in the US, it is debated. Relative implies everyone is entitled to whatever position they wish.
Secondly what you are proposing is the heart of what fascism is. Rights are dictated and defined by the state. Do you realize what an incredibly dangerous argument you just made? So if 51% of the people decide that slavery should be reintroduced, thats fine with you because the government defines our rights and morality is relative?
I see the problem here. Human rights are inalienable, they are god given, they are our birthright. That is what this country at its very heart is. Take that away and nothing else can stand. The argument you are making is the same one the autocrats, oligarchs, and their apologizers make, that they are living how they wish. Well, clearly the vast majority that is oppressed dont have that say in it. Clearly women being treated as property isnt a good thing. The greatest difference between us and them is that we believe equality and liberty isnt assigned by the government, it is inherint in everyone. Its honestly frightening you dont get that.

Mark and Johnny

Can you both stop being dumbasses?

Obviously rights are dictated by the state but there are some rights that are not up for majority voting. O' stater of the obvious please help me. I art thou lost. I cannot and will not write a freaking 15 page dissertation stating every single element of this argument. Yes, I failed to mention unalienable rights. Sorry.

And yes morality is relative. Rights are not. You can choose to be immoral. You cannot choose to violate peoples rights without consequence for any long period of time.

You are acting like I am a child. No shit, we have unalienable rights. What the hell does that have to do with whether I choose to lead a moral (relative to who you ask) life?

In short,

Where can you find a Constitution of Morality or a Bill of Morality?

Please tell me, and I will stop saying that morality is relative.

There is no standard. Therefore, it is relative. How can you get any simpler.

You are pathetically trying to find any little thing in my argument that I fail to mention and then trying to throw the merits of the whole argument away due to the absence of addressing another angle of the subject matter.

I know it hurts, but you can only go to Church on Sundays in the giant collesium that is your multidenominational monstrosity. I know how you are aching to renew your license and hear contemporary Christian at the state motor vehicle dept. while in line.

Sorry...:(

What2

Basically what you seem to be arguing is that if it ain't illegal and it ain't unconstitutional then it ain't wrong. How silly is that. Is That moral relativity.

And as for religion in our govt. How can you deny it. In God We Trust--it's on our money. The Senate and House have a prayer before every session. As do the Houses and Senates of nearly every state in the nation. Look at Lincolns speeches, Hell, look at Reagans. To try to take this Govt out of the context of Christian beleifs is just silly. Hell, the whole Bill of rights comes from Beleifs that were contemporary in their day. And yes, you can claim whoever you want to was a materialist or an agnostic or whatever, but the truth is it's a little hard to ask them now, isn't it? And I would have to say that that time in history was so much more "conservative" than now that even finding definitions that match nicely would be nearly impossible.

Chads

"You are acting like I am a child. No shit, we have unalienable rights. What the hell does that have to do with whether I choose to lead a moral (relative to who you ask) life"

Your problem is you are confuses Morality and religion. Religion is a social construct. Morality is an underlying dynamic of the universe. You 'forgot' inalienable rights. Ok. But where do they come from? Why are they fundamental?
Take the Ten Commandments, you dont have to be religious to realize for the most part they encapsulate morality shared by every disperate part of the human race. Murder and theft are wrong. Thats a relative concept? Only the state makes them illegal because they violate 'rights', but otherwise they would be fine? What you are missing is that your are mixing up what is fundamental. Rights develop out of morality, not vice versa. Violating another persons rights is 'evil' because it interferes with their freedom. You are arguing that interfering with free will is 'illegal' because it violates a persons rights. This is incoherent. Where did these rights orginate? Why are they what they are and not something else? Are the utterly arbitrary? Can they be changed with a flash of a pen? Explain to me the origin and concept of inalienable rights.

LOL.

Wow, all that venom and still not anything remotely resembling an answer to my question.

No, what2, although you an I have had significant differences in the past, it was not, despite what you think, my intention to treat you like a child. I'm sorry that you feel that way.

My intent, quite simply, was to show you and other readers the inherent flawed logic in your position. In fact, you keep making my point for me. You keep bringing up the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the Supreme Court, etc. All of which which were conceived by men based on their inherent understanding of right and wrong: an understanding they derived, what2, from their moral beliefs. I know that reality seems to offend you, but it is what it is.

Nowhere in my post am I advocating the US being anything but a secular democracy, despite your rather childish ranting about my "agenda."

It was a rather simple question. Ultimately in the course of your logic, without morality, you arrive exactly where Mark showed you.

Q: Why is screaming fire wrong?
A: Because infringing on other people's rights is wrong?
Q: Why is that wrong?
A: Because its the law.
Q: On what basis was that decided to be the law?
A: Because we have inherent rights.
Q: On what basis do we decide that we have inherent rights?
A: Because that's what the legal documents in this country say?
Q: Whay do they say that?
A: Because that what the Founding Fathers wrote?
Q: Why did they write that?
A: Because that was the law....

Now, you could simply stop there and say "that was what they believed" or you could continue to go further and talk about John Locke, and the enlightenment, British Law, and Jewish Law, but you cannot, cannot get around the fact that these men and the the things they wrote grew out of a moral understanding of right and wrong, based on a particular religion.

Now, if you want, you and I can continue to debate this in a civilized way and you can answer the question, or you can continue to tranparently avoid the question (true to form) and make some more hilarious unsupported personal attacks for my amusement, trying to hide your inability to debate this.

Either way, please proceed.

I don't know, Mark; we may not be dealing with rational thought anymore.

I think John Adams just pushed him over the brink. :)

This thing has lasted way too long. Look, I will still believe morality is relative. Obviously the founders acted based on their morals no shit. However, my argument is that in the U.S. you are free to choose your morals. Govt has no say until your moral choices violate law.

Anyway I am done beating the dead horse.

Govt has no say until your moral choices violate law.

The circular reasoning here is amazing. While your above comment is true, those laws are themselves moral imperatives. Simply saying that something is right or wrong implies that there is a standard based on which the two can be distinguished. That, by definition, cannot be relative.

Despite your nasty responses, what2, you may note as you look back through these posts that I haven't actually disagreed with anything you've said, other than your fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of rights and laws.

what2 Uhhh, I hate to belabor the obvious, but I think YOU are the dead horse this time around.

BTW, what you are espousing is called Moral Relativism. You can live with it and you can die with it. It ain't gonna change the outcome much.

I would point out however, that the Founding Fathers of this Nation said up front that WE have inalienable rights, and that those rights were granted to us from Above. The Creator. They didn't just come to stating these things by a laying of hands on pen and paper. They also recognized the right of the individual to believe and practice their religion without it being impossed upon them by the State. They never expected that their declaration would result in the degradation of society to the point that ours has degraded.

You can pick and choose whichever 'moral code' you would like to follow, including the one of Charles Manson. Don't expect but a handful to pick that up and run with it. Not in my neighborhood, nor as long as I can draw a breath.

I see a step in reasoning that I skipped and in doing so may have caused confusion. It was postulated that morality is relative, but individual rights are not (as in what2's above posts); in what2's mind, those are absolute. But as I have shown, and as what2 agreed, the laws in this country, the documents of this country, and the beliefs of the men who wrote those documents all derive from a moral foundation. Thus if morality is relative, you cannot derive an absolute law from it, because that would be impossible to do. The laws then would also be relative, and from that derives the beginning of fascism as Mark said.

johnnymozart You're better with the words than I am. BTW. I still owe you.

Jeeze, what set him off?

LMFAO!

If anything, religion is hampering our effort to improve as a society
Posted by: what2 at June 22, 2004 03:49 PM
*************************************************************
As I recall the Soviets tried to completely eliminate relgion.

!00 Million Plus dead later, their attempt to
"improve" society came to an abrupt halt.

You seem to have traces of "Freedom of thought" ends with your own definition of morality,

I will stand mute on the subject of stem cell research but will comment that those whose views you oppose have an equal rights under the Constitution to you.

If they do not wish the govenment to be involved in some activity, they as you have the right to make their views known to their representatives.

You stand boils down to extinguish all points of view except for the one I hold and then we will have Paradise on Earth.

What2 says: "It is an ideology not an army. You must defeat the ideology. "

You're right about that. And giving the Iraqis the opportunity to form a representative government will go a long way to defeating the ideology. (Why do you think the terrorists are attacking Iraqi infrastructure & moderate leaders so much? You must have noticed they're not just attacking the coalition.)

What2 also says: "But no, we can never win by going into countries and conquering them. "

Then you aren't paying close attention to what we are doing. Let me go over it again. We did not "conquer Iraq." We removed specific people from power, because those people would not give the rest of the country any say. We intend to (and need to) get Iraq back on her own feet again (that is, independent and stable).

The ongoing battle is not with the people of Iraq, for the most part. The people who are attacking our soliders, the Iraqi infrastructure, and the Iraqis who are rebuilding their infrastructure--are 1) a tiny minority, 2) unpopular with the majority, and 3) largely foreign to Iraq.

Your arguments ignore the fact that the vast majority of Iraqis are glad SH is gone, and the majority is looking forward to a chance to build a non-repressive regime. Our battle is not directed against these millions of people, and largely they know that. It doesn't mean they're happy about it all, but for them, the overarching goal is not fighting, it is building.

Islamicists are NOT fascists, damn it. They are theocrats. Fascism is rooted in nationalism. Islamicists are not nationalists; they are rooted in religion. This makes them theocrats. I wish people would get their friggin' terms right.

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

What exactly about that definition doesn't fit?

Given that Islam is so closely linked with government in Muslim thought, flaime, its an appropriate enough term.

Let's call a spade a spade.

The most popular term is Islamo-fascism.

As Johnny has rightly demonstrated fascism is absolutely the correct term for what they seek to impose. Islam is somewhat unique in that its very tenants make seperation of religion and the state inseperable. The Taliban were the ultimate expression of that relationship. Islam doesnt have Bishops or Popes. By definition, the religious leader is who he is because of his superior understanding of Sharia Law, he is equally the political leader for the same reason. Hence, in fundamentalist Islam, it is impossible to seperate nationalism from religion and hence the term Islamo-fascism.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: