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 :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

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 :rolleyes:

---

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!

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.

Quote:

---

"America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence. "

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

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.

---

Hello DC:

I'm absolutely certain that the confused and misguided people at the top are going to 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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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.

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Americans who are angry about the war in Iraq are angry mainly because the Iraqis failed; anyway that's the mainstream Democratic antiwar position.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Yes, and the Nazis where fat and happy fueling the ovens too.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.:mad:

If the people of any country can't rise up and take back their freedom then they deserve to be enslaved. We are coming 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.

Of course, those who reject salvation / freedom, deserve what they get; American fundamentalisms.

I wouldn't get too excided about HR 1955 so long as the press is free to criticize the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

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 :rolleyes:

---

You are confusing religion [ evangelical Christianity ] with politics.

There is no forced conversion or death in Christianity.

Matthew 28
The Great Commission
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

We have free choice. :)


Now you state that the agenda of spreading freedom is equivalent to spreading salvation.

If that is accepted as true, is that not a noble and just cause?
To do nothing is to leave others without freedom, i.e. slavery.
Is not the alternative to spread enslavement and damnation? Is that a better cause in the minds of others? :confused:


And Lincoln, first and foremost wanted to preserve the union, against the desires of states that wanted to be free.




Grace and Peace

Quote:

---

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".

---

Thanks for the clarification. I still have to refer to my notes sometimes because people still give the"selected President "jive.

The US has in it's whole history only waged war twice because it was attacked. The other times it has been "wars of choice" and/or preemption . The only difference is that President Bush is the rare President who has been honest enough to proclaim it in national doctrine. That may prove in the long run to be an unwise move.But when he did ,he tapped into a 2 century history .

Likewise democracy promotion has always been a cornerstone of American policy .It has also been I believe one of the greatest successes of US foreign policy . I argue that the mistake in US policy for years was the decision that the Middle East was this great exception to the rule ;that we had to play footsie with strongmen. That was the mistake in US policy ;not democracy promotion. Bush can be faulted for an impatient push towards rectifying that mistake by accelerating political reform . But ,even though we do not like the results,events in Iraq ,Lebanon,and even Palestine show there is a desire by the people for self governance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Thanks for the clarification. I still have to refer to my notes sometimes because people still give the the"selected President "jive.

The US has in it's whole history only waged war twice because it was attacked. The other times it has been "wars of choice" and/or preemption . The only difference is that President Bush is the rare President who has been honest enough to proclaim it in national doctrine. That may prove in the long run to be an unwise move.But when he did ,he tapped into a 2 century history .

Likewise democracy promotion has always been a cornerstone of American policy .It has also been I believe one of the greatest successes of US foreign policy . I argue that the mistake in US policy for years was the decision that the Middle East was this great exception to the rule ;that we had to play footsie with strongmen. That was the mistake in US policy ;not democracy promotion. Bush can be faulted for an impatient push towards rectifying that mistake by accelerating political reform . But ,even though we do not like the results,events in Iraq ,Lebanon,and even Palestine show there is a desire by the people for self governance.

---

If America has Foreign Policy wrong, who’s got it right? The idea of missionizing transcends right and left but the essential difference that I’m interested in pointing out is that the left does it in the name of humanitarian intervention and the right in the name of freedom. Using the term Freedom as an explicit appeal to religious motivation. When George W. Bush came to power he set free the right to use overt religious language, missionizing language that actually moves from “freedom” to “salvation,” as a justification for American power. We cast ourselves against Saddam Hussein and the “Axis of Evil” entirely in terms of a binary evil-versus-good contest and in doing so accomplished two negatives forces: the “eating away” if you will at the ‘Wall of separation” between politics and religion and our relationship with other religions.

Is this the 1st time we have cast our enemies in terms of evil v good ? I don't think so . Roosevelt routinely invoked the term when rallying America to support Great Britain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

You are confusing religion [ evangelical Christianity ] with politics.

There is no forced conversion or death in Christianity.

Matthew 28
The Great Commission
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

We have free choice. :)

Now you state that the agenda of spreading freedom is equivalent to spreading salvation.

If that is accepted as true, is that not a noble and just cause?
To do nothing is to leave others without freedom, ie slavery.
Is not the alternative to spread enslavement and damnation? Is that a better cause in the minds of others? :confused:

And Lincoln, first and foremost wanted to preserve the union, against the desires of states that wanted to be free.

Grace and Peace

---

There was no separation between politics and religion in the minds of the first generation of Massachusetts Puritan Colonist; that is exactly what Roger Williams complained about. The Crusades were a Nobel and Just cause too, by your logic; but I don’t believe the Jews and Muslims would agree; as they don’t today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

is this the 1st time we have cast our enemies in terms of evil v good ? I don't think so . Roosevelt routinely invoked the term when rallying America to support Great Britain.

---

The issue, as I see it is not whether it has been done before, but rather which is the best theory to go forward with.

EDIT: The theory of humanitarian intervention or religious freedom. Actually it is very similar to the Massachusetts vs. Virginia concept of government and our forefathers choose the Virginia concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

If you can’t discuss the OP then remain silent.:mad:

---

Hello again DC:

If, by the above, you mean that you can say off the wall stuff, and I can't argue about it, you're DREAMING.

excon