American fundamentalisms… conversion or death; however the first seeds of descent, during the first generation of Colonist, was spread by Roger Williams and his concept of a “wall of separation” between the magistrate and the religion. Thomas Jefferson would latter use that phrase to describe the distinction between the church and the state. “Go forth and teach all nations,” Jesus commands and that mandate is still fundamental to American fundamentalisms.

Today it is perpetrated by Mr. Bush and his chosen administration where the word freedom is equated with the concept of salvation. Holding to the tradition of Abraham Lincoln…“The last best hope of mankind.” The United States of America is justified by the virtue of its mission… the “manifest destiny” of a free people extending freedom. A key doctrine in what I am calling American fundamentalisms.

So that today whether it be a Liberal or a Conservative, in the matter of Iraq, the destruction of Iraq was an act of purification and the failure is not on Americas but rather on the Iraqis failure to yield on their “sectarian” agendas. These people won’t get together and form a cohesive government. America is a city on a hill, exceptional and virtuous. If we’ve gone to Iraq and it turned out to be a fiasco, it can’t be our fault because we were motivated by good intentions.

Discussion

Nechi44

All religions teach the existence of a noble spirit called God and advocate brotherhood and sacrifice for the sake of humanity.

When Rama killed Vali from behind the tree, throwing apart the norms of the war, it was to protect the common good. When Krishna asked Archuna to kill his own Guru or his preceptor, it was for a noble cause.

If we want to contain terrorsim which destroys innocent people, we are right in waging a war against those who give asylum to such people.

Whether we win or not, we should never retrace our path. Destiny will prevail!

tomder55

First can we put this myth of " chosen administration "to rest. Yes it was wrong for the courts to mediate in the 2000 election ,but subsequent recounts by independent groups confirmed that President Bush won Florida.

What you call fundamentalism Alexis de Tocqueville called in 'DEMOCRACY
IN AMERICA' exceptionalism.

G. K. Chesterton

Few Americans would deny that if popular rule is extended it would improve lives around the world. The debate is clearly what role America should play in extending liberty .

Being a supporter of the war from the beginning ,I would have to say that it is undeniable that American mistakes have played a big role in how the post war events played out. Specifically handing over control of the "occupation" to a Viceroy was not in the original game plan the way I understood it pre-invasion.

The original plan was a swift turn over of Iraq to Iraqi control . There were a core group of Iraqi expatriates who had trained and prepared to lead the transition. But L Paul Bremer made the decision when he arrived on the scene that it was a "reckless fantasy" that Iraqi sovereignty could be rapidly returned to the "unrepresentative" group of "exiles" who had formed the core of the anti-Saddam opposition.

But he missed the point ;there was going to be a transition phase regardless ,but under the original plan there would've been an Iraqi face on the transition team. Bremer could easily have given the Iraqis more governing responsibility and a more prominent place in the spotlight but he chose to keep himself front an center. Even when he was compelled to appoint Iraqis to a transition team he complained about their work habits. He completely antagonized Ahmed Chalabi an Jalal Talabani ;two of the more competent members of the current Iraqi government.

His hand was ultimately forced by pressure from Ayatollah Sistani and by Condi Rice. The decision was taken from his hands and Lakhdar Brahimi, an Algerian diplomat from the United Nations,was given the task to appoint a transition government . That government ,led by Ayad Allawi did a credible job organizing elections ,and the Iraqis (except the foolish move by some Sunni groups to boycott) held elections and proved themselves capable of self rule. Ironically as I noted ,many of the people who were originally going to be the Iraqi face were freely elected into the government .So much for Bremer's claim about them not being "representative" enough to form even a caretaker administration .

I am sure that things would've gone smoother had Jay Garner been left in the role as civilian point man . He knew the transition team and was willing to go according to the game plan.

excon

Hello DC:

I'm absolutely certain that the confused and misguided people at the top are gonna think exactly that.

Clearly, this was a war WITHOUT a plan. Only a really stupid, and I mean REALLY stupid jerk would do what Bush did.

excon

PS> I think Rummy, Cheney and Bush ought to be shot by a firing squad!

Dark_crow

Excon, I think that we must be aware that there's something much deeper than the Bush administration in all of this, and so let's go back to what kind of a nation the United States is. All of our wars, and particularly our war against the Soviet Union was a religious war. If you recall, and maybe you are too young but the history is there to confirm, John Foster Dulles [under President Eisenhower] was practically explicit about this in his speeches. Not just "communism," but "atheistic communism" was the rhetoric. Dwight D. Eisenhower was baptized while he was president and the general feeling during the Cold War was that we were involved in a Christian defense of the nation against an atheistic enemy. However, it is important to make a distinction and that is that the religious tradition of Christian fundamentalism is one thing; the tradition of American exceptionalism another. Although I am reluctant to use the example because some people may feel slighted about it, but I think the example between evangelical and modern Catholicism (excluding the current Pope) works; that is, the difference or a “wall of separation” between the magistrate and the religion.

Dark_crow

Tom, I think there is something that's important to acknowledge: Americans who are angry about the war in Iraq are angry mainly because the Iraqis failed; anyway that's the mainstream Democratic antiwar position.

There are times when the forceful exercise of American power is necessary for the sake of humanitarian causes, human rights. That’s the liberal embrace of humanitarian intervention. However, the evangelical, the evil-versus-good of the Bush and et al doctrine is where my quarrel is focused and that was my meaning behind the term, "chosen administration".

excon

Hello again, DC:

Wrong! The Iraqis didn't fail. They were doing fine before we invaded them. Oh, we didn't like their leader...... But they didn't have terrorists, they were NO threat to us, and the Iraqi people were fat and happy.

Nope, I'm angry about the war because GEORGE BUSH failed. Period, end of story.

excon

PS> I have no idea what "mainstream" democrats think. You do?

excon

Hello again, DC:

Are you saying that Saddam and Hitler are the same???? Are you also saying that the Iraqi people are the same as the German people were????

Dude! You’re waaaaay off base here.

Saddam was a bad guy. There are lots of bad guys in the world - none of whom pose a threat to us any more than Saddam did. Hitler was a monster. He DID pose a threat to us. I don't see any of them out there.

excon

PS> Do you know that your crow looks like an owl?

Dark_crow

Look, if you want to talk about whether Iraq should have been invaded I suggest you start a thread about it. All you’re doing is tossing in a ‘Red Herring’ that contributes nothing to the conversation. If you can’t discuss the OP then remain silent.

magprob

If the people of any country can't rise up and take back their freedom then they deserve to be enslaved. We are comming to that point now. It goes in cycles. The greesy greedy bastards that have appointed themselves the Masters of the Universe are hard at it. You can sit here and argue about it for ever but the one on the side of the worst case scenario is probably the most correct.
The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This bill is one of the most blatant attacks against the Constitution yet and actually defines thought crimes as homegrown terrorism. If passed into law, it will also establish a commission and a Center of Excellence to study and defeat so called thought criminals. Unlike previous anti-terror legislation, this bill specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism. Amazingly, 404 of our elected representatives from both the Democrat and Republican parties voted in favor of this bill. There is little doubt that this bill is specifically targeting the growing patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution.