Are We or Were We "The City on the Hill?"

[DKW 86 6,921]

Mathew Manweller

Central Washington University political science professor.

Wed. Oct. 6, 2004

Daily Record: Ellensburg, Washington paper

The title of the article was "Election determines fate of nation."

"In that this will be my last column before the presidential

election there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. 

The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high.

This November we will vote in the only election during our

lifetime that will truly matter.  Because America is at a

once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs

in the balance.

Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of

ambivalence.  Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its

past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. 

If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the

next 50 years of history.

   

If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current

occupant of the White House, the message to the world and

ourselves will be twofold.  First, we will reject the notion that

America can do big things.  Once a nation that tamed a frontier,

stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce

to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big

of a task for us.  But more significantly, we will signal to future

presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult

challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity

that has characterized other civilizations.

   

The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to

future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular

decisions.  America has always been a nation that rises to the

demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal.  If we turn

away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are.

 

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe

that the lesson of Somalia was well learned.  In Somalia we showed

terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when

you can defeat them in the newsroom.  They learned that a wounded

America can become a defeated America.  Twenty-four-hour news

stations and daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut

into a fatal blow.  Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. 

The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in

every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity

of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of

grizzly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the

American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. 

Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American

administration without setting foot on the homeland.

   

It is said that America's WW II generation is its 'greatest

generation.'  But my greatest fear is that it will become known as

America's 'last generation'.  Born in the bleakness of the Great

Depression and hardened in the fire of WW II, they may be the

last American generation that understands the meaning of duty,

honor and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms

are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all)

in my generation.  Too many citizens today mistake 'living in

America' as 'being an American'.  But America has always been

more of an idea than a place.  When you sign on, you do

more than buy real estate.  You accept a set of values and

responsibilities.

   

This November, my generation, which has been absent too

long, must grasp the obligation that comes with being an

American, or fade into the oblivion they may deserve.  I believe

that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election

of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. 

Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment

America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe

it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the

greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the

City on the Hill."

[TexasTiger 10,929]

Mathew Manweller

Central Washington University political science professor.

Wed. Oct. 6, 2004

Daily Record: Ellensburg, Washington paper

The title of the article was "Election determines fate of nation."

"In that this will be my last column before the presidential

election there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. 

The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high.

This November we will vote in the only election during our

lifetime that will truly matter.  Because America is at a

once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs

in the balance.

Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of

ambivalence.  Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its

past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. 

If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the

next 50 years of history.

   

If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current

occupant of the White House, the message to the world and

ourselves will be twofold.  First, we will reject the notion that

America can do big things.  Once a nation that tamed a frontier,

stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce

to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big

of a task for us.  But more significantly, we will signal to future

presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult

challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity

that has characterized other civilizations.

   

The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to

future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular

decisions.  America has always been a nation that rises to the

demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal.  If we turn

away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are.

  

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe

that the lesson of Somalia was well learned.  In Somalia we showed

terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when

you can defeat them in the newsroom.  They learned that a wounded

America can become a defeated America.  Twenty-four-hour news

stations and daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut

into a fatal blow.  Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. 

The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in

every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity

of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of

grizzly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the

American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. 

Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American

administration without setting foot on the homeland.

   

It is said that America's WW II generation is its 'greatest

generation.'  But my greatest fear is that it will become known as

America's 'last generation'.   Born in the bleakness of the Great

Depression and hardened in the fire of WW II, they may be the

last American generation that understands the meaning of duty,

honor and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms

are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all)

in my generation.  Too many citizens today mistake 'living in

America' as 'being an American'.  But America has always been

more of an idea than a place.  When you sign on, you do

more than buy real estate.  You accept a set of values and

responsibilities.

    

This November, my generation, which has been absent too

long, must grasp the obligation that comes with being an

American, or fade into the oblivion they may deserve.  I believe

that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election

of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. 

Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment

America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe

it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the

greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the

City on the Hill."

116378[/snapback]

Wow. That is one confused, deluded dude.

[Weagle98 119]

And that is proof liberals and conservatives view the world differently.

[DKW 86 6,921]

TT, I thank you for the clarity on at least this one item.

[TexasTiger 10,929]

TT, I thank you for the clarity on at least this one item.

116670[/snapback]

You're welcome. I'll even elaborate.

If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current

occupant of the White House, the message to the world and

ourselves will be twofold.  First, we will reject the notion that

America can do big things. ...But more significantly, we will signal to future

presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult

challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity

that has characterized other civilizations.

   

The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to

future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular

decisions. 

What difficult, yet unpopular decisions has this President made? To cut taxes? To wage a war that future generations will have to pay for because our leader has told us we don't need to pay for what we want? Going into Afghanistan and Iraq were very "popular" decisions. This is a president who has yet to cast a veto, even against things he opposed on "principle" like McCain-Fiengold because it was "popular."

It is said that America's WW II generation is its 'greatest

generation.'  But my greatest fear is that it will become known as

America's 'last generation'.   Born in the bleakness of the Great

Depression and hardened in the fire of WW II, they may be the

last American generation that understands the meaning of duty,

honor and sacrifice.

This guy says that to compare with the WWII generation we just got to vote for his guy and if we don't, we're not Americans?

Too many citizens today mistake 'living in

America' as 'being an American'.  But America has always been

more of an idea than a place.  When you sign on, you do

more than buy real estate.  You accept a set of values and

responsibilities.

Being American means thinking like he does and even voting like he does? What an Unamerican way to think. What "responsibilities"? The only one he mentions is voting for Bush. This is an insult to the WWII generation that truly was asked to sacrifice by its leaders. Their entire lives were changed-- women worked in factories, most healthy men were expected to serve, staple items were rationed to all citizens. We are not even asked to finance the "war" effort. This is an unprecedented approach to "war" in our history. In fact, it shows no appreciation of our nation's history of sacrifice and rising to the challenge. Both candidates are doing all they can do to convince voters that no one will ever need to serve in our military who doesn't really want to. Shared sacrifice? Where?

Perhaps the next greatest generation is the one not yet born that will pay the price for our excesses and unwillingness to pay for what we want. It certainly isn't the one that looks to Dubya to save us while asking nothing else from us but our votes and to shop.

And Weagle 98, this is how true conservatives view the world-- you don't routinely spend more than you have. You don't drive a Cadillac if all you can afford is a Civic.

Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal—Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can’t be found to do it—and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.

During the campaign, few have paid attention to how much the Bush presidency has degraded the image of the United States in the world. Of course there has always been “anti-Americanism.” After the Second World War many European intellectuals argued for a “Third Way” between American-style capitalism and Soviet communism, and a generation later Europe’s radicals embraced every ragged “anti-imperialist” cause that came along. In South America, defiance of “the Yanqui” always draws a crowd. But Bush has somehow managed to take all these sentiments and turbo-charge them. In Europe and indeed all over the world, he has made the United States despised by people who used to be its friends, by businessmen and the middle classes, by moderate and sensible liberals. Never before have democratic foreign governments needed to demonstrate disdain for Washington to their own electorates in order to survive in office. The poll numbers are shocking. In countries like Norway, Germany, France, and Spain, Bush is liked by about seven percent of the populace. In Egypt, recipient of huge piles of American aid in the past two decades, some 98 percent have an unfavorable view of the United States. It’s the same throughout the Middle East.

Bush has accomplished this by giving the U.S. a novel foreign-policy doctrine under which it arrogates to itself the right to invade any country it wants if it feels threatened. It is an American version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, but the latter was at least confined to Eastern Europe. If the analogy seems extreme, what is an appropriate comparison when a country manufactures falsehoods about a foreign government, disseminates them widely, and invades the country on the basis of those falsehoods? It is not an action that any American president has ever taken before. It is not something that “good” countries do. It is the main reason that people all over the world who used to consider the United States a reliable and necessary bulwark of world stability now see us as a menace to their own peace and security.

These sentiments mean that as long as Bush is president, we have no real allies in the world, no friends to help us dig out from the Iraq quagmire. More tragically, they mean that if terrorists succeed in striking at the United States in another 9/11-type attack, many in the world will not only think of the American victims but also of the thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed and maimed by American armed forces. The hatred Bush has generated has helped immeasurably those trying to recruit anti-American terrorists—indeed his policies are the gift to terrorism that keeps on giving, as the sons and brothers of slain Iraqis think how they may eventually take their own revenge. Only the seriously deluded could fail to see that a policy so central to America’s survival as a free country as getting hold of loose nuclear materials and controlling nuclear proliferation requires the willingness of foreign countries to provide full, 100 percent co-operation. Making yourself into the world’s most hated country is not an obvious way to secure that help.

I’ve heard people who have known George W. Bush for decades and served prominently in his father’s administration say that he could not possibly have conceived of the doctrine of pre-emptive war by himself, that he was essentially taken for a ride by people with a pre-existing agenda to overturn Saddam Hussein. Bush’s public performances plainly show him to be a man who has never read or thought much about foreign policy. So the inevitable questions are: who makes the key foreign-policy decisions in the Bush presidency, who controls the information flow to the president, how are various options are presented?

The record, from published administration memoirs and in-depth reporting, is one of an administration with a very small group of six or eight real decision-makers, who were set on war from the beginning and who took great pains to shut out arguments from professionals in the CIA and State Department and the U.S. armed forces that contradicted their rosy scenarios about easy victory. Much has been written about the neoconservative hand guiding the Bush presidency—and it is peculiar that one who was fired from the National Security Council in the Reagan administration for suspicion of passing classified material to the Israeli embassy and another who has written position papers for an Israeli Likud Party leader have become key players in the making of American foreign policy.

But neoconservatism now encompasses much more than Israel-obsessed intellectuals and policy insiders. The Bush foreign policy also surfs on deep currents within the Christian Right, some of which see unqualified support of Israel as part of a godly plan to bring about Armageddon and the future kingdom of Christ. These two strands of Jewish and Christian extremism build on one another in the Bush presidency—and President Bush has given not the slightest indication he would restrain either in a second term. With Colin Powell’s departure from the State Department looming, Bush is more than ever the “neoconian candidate.” The only way Americans will have a presidency in which neoconservatives and the Christian Armageddon set are not holding the reins of power is if Kerry is elected.

If Kerry wins, this magazine will be in opposition from Inauguration Day forward. But the most important battles will take place within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. A Bush defeat will ignite a huge soul-searching within the rank-and-file of Republicandom: a quest to find out how and where the Bush presidency went wrong. And it is then that more traditional conservatives will have an audience to argue for a conservatism informed by the lessons of history, based in prudence and a sense of continuity with the American past—and to make that case without a powerful White House pulling in the opposite direction.

George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies—a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky’s concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies—temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election—are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans “won’t do.” This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

[DKW 86 6,921]

Whoosh! That was the sound of the whole point of the article flying like a 747 over your head.

No TT, you have it wrong again. The point was Democratizing the Middle East. To ignore it is to throw the world's collective future on the trash heap. Things changed forever on 9-11. We are at War for every freedom we hold dear. The Muslim Extremists will not be bargained with. Ask Jimmy Carter. They want everyone not willing to bow before Allah to die. To withdraw now from the Middle East, or worse, turn Iraq over to a totally irrelevant organization like the UN that has failed so badly the people of Rwanda, Sudan, etc. is just cowering in the face of our collective burdens. Instead of being the Greatest Generation, we are turning out the be the Great Cowards.

[TexasTiger 10,929]

Whoosh! That was the sound of the whole point of the article flying like a 747 over your head.

No TT, you have it wrong again. The point was Democratizing the Middle East. To ignore it is to throw the world's collective future on the trash heap. Things changed forever on 9-11. We are at War for every freedom we hold dear. The Muslim Extremists will not be bargained with. Ask Jimmy Carter. They want everyone not willing to bow before Allah to die. To withdraw now from the Middle East, or worse, turn Iraq over to a totally irrelevant organization like the UN that has failed so badly the people of Rwanda, Sudan, etc. is just cowering in the face of our collective burdens. Instead of being the Greatest Generation, we are turning out the be the Great Cowards.

116764[/snapback]

Thank you. Even though, as usual, you didn't respond to a single point I made.

The Neocons wanted the Iraq invasion long before 9/11 because they have a notion that we can somehow turn Iraq into a model of democracy and then it will sweep through the Middle East-- the domino theory in reverse. It is naive and irrational, but it is what they believe. That is NOT how George Bush sold this war to the American people. It is not the rationale given to the troops who were asked to put their lives on the line. It is not the rationale Bush used in trying, and largely failing, to win meaningul world-wide support. If we are to lead the world, we need to be able to tell them why we are doing what we are doing and then convince them that they should follow.

In any event, being an American doesn't rest on buying the Neocon theory. If so, George HW Bush is not a good American-- and he is a member of the greatest generation. Eisenhower's son must not be a good American since he, a long-time Republican, endorsed Kerry. Any other WWII veteran who doesn't support this theory is not a good American. Address that.

This is Nation Building-- the very thing Bush said he was against when he ran. If you change your mind, and I believe that is okay to change one's mind when circumstances warrant, then you need to thoroughly explain why you have changed course. This did not happen leading into this war. If this theory is so crucial, and Bush can't sell it, then he has failed as a leader.

Turkey is a democracy. We could shore them up in an effort to build democracy in the middle east. We could have really focused support in Afghanistan. Even with the election, the battle there is uphill and I supported that invasion all along, as did most people.

This is typical fascist crap. You support the leader and all he wants to do, or you are not a good American.

[DKW 86 6,921]

This is typical fascist crap. You support the leader and all he wants to do, or you are not a good American.

When did a discourse on generational burdens de-evolve into a debate on closed mindedness?

If you dont agree with every single point of the Left you are a Nazi? Excuse me, but isnt that being just like the Nazisin itself? I do not agree with everything Bush has done. I would love to see him veto a hundred or so idiotic pork barrel programs the last 4 years. You and I hopefully, as thinking men, will never agree with anyone 100%.

As an exercise, try and find one criticism of Kerry from the Left. They will be extremely few if any and very well muted. No, I just told you how I and many others disagree strongly with Bush. Can you give a strong criticism of Kerry are you just another slow witted kool-aid drinker?

Your point about disagreeing with the leader being verboten is just more Liberal Rhetoric, ie Crap.

[TexasTiger 10,929]

This is typical fascist crap. You support the leader and all he wants to do, or you are not a good American.

When did a discourse on generational burdens de-evolve into a debate on closed mindedness?

If you dont agree with every single point of the Left you are a Nazi? Excuse me, but isnt that being just like the Nazisin itself? I do not agree with everything Bush has done. I would love to see him veto a hundred or so idiotic pork barrel programs the last 4 years. You and I hopefully, as thinking men, will never agree with anyone 100%.

As an exercise, try and find one criticism of Kerry from the Left. They will be extremely few if any and very well muted. No, I just told you how I and many others disagree strongly with Bush. Can you give a strong criticism of Kerry are you just another slow witted kool-aid drinker?

Your point about disagreeing with the leader being verboten is just more Liberal Rhetoric, ie Crap.

116851[/snapback]

I almost left that last sentence off because I knew it would give you an excuse to totally ignore the substance of the post-- disagree with the Neocons on Iraq, and you refuse to accept your responsibility as an American.

Too many citizens today mistake 'living in

America' as 'being an American'.  But America has always been

more of an idea than a place.  When you sign on, you do

more than buy real estate.  You accept a set of values and

responsibilities.

You're not just wrong, short-sighted, misguided, you are not living up to what it means to be an American. You are just living here, taking up space. You haven't responded to this. You post stuff and then you are afraid to defend it head on. I assume you agree with this guy since you posted it.

You're not going to turn this around until you respond to the substance of my post, which you rarely do.

Interesting how most right wingers here see Kerry as soooo leftist. Frequent lefty sights and you will find most on the far left find Kerry too moderate. Those folks preferred Kucinich. Most on the far left preferred that he had not voted to authorize force in Iraq. Many would like him to be stronger on gun control. Some want a one-payer health care system. Many wish he wasn't against gay marriage. Some would like him to repeal NAFTA. Some, like Nader, Kucinich and Sharpton, advocate immediate withdrawal from Iraq, etc., etc.

[DKW 86 6,921]

GWB sold us the war as a part of the War on Terrorism. The cash was definitely flowing toward Terrorists out of Iraq. Saddam was sending cash to martyr's families, etc.

The invasion was not to just "stop terrorism." It was to establish a new beach head in the Middle East to start a trend toward Democracy.

The body politik that the Left loves to refer to would point to a needed leap forward for the trailing Islamist World. A Democracy would allow freedoms to creep into the Region that the Mullahs and Imams would not be able to suppress anymore. That is the end goal of Iraqi War.

Too many citizens today mistake 'living in

America' as 'being an American'.  But America has always been

more of an idea than a place.  When you sign on, you do

more than buy real estate.  You accept a set of values and

responsibilities.

I totally support that statement and all the implications that some Americans do not want to lead anymore in the world. They want us to accept decay as the EU has embraced.

[TexasTiger 10,929]

GWB sold us the war as a part of the War on Terrorism. The cash was definitely flowing toward Terrorists out of Iraq. Saddam was sending cash to martyr's families, etc.

The invasion was not to just "stop terrorism." It was to establish a new beach head in the Middle East to start a trend toward Democracy.

The body politik that the Left loves to refer to would point to a needed leap forward for the trailing Islamist World. A Democracy would allow freedoms to creep into the Region that the Mullahs and Imams would not be able to suppress anymore. That is the end goal of Iraqi War.

Too many citizens today mistake 'living in

America' as 'being an American'.  But America has always been

more of an idea than a place.  When you sign on, you do

more than buy real estate.  You accept a set of values and

responsibilities.

I totally support that statement and all the implications that some Americans do not want to lead anymore in the world. They want us to accept decay as the EU has embraced.

116988[/snapback]

I want America to lead the world toward democracy. We do that best by modeling the behavior to which other countries aspire. We establish ourselves as having the moral authority with which to speak to issues such as tyrannical states. We can't force democracy.

Do you seriously doubt that our standing in the world is diminished? Do you doubt that fewer countries see us as the model than they did four years ago? George Bush has the distinction of being the first U.S. President in modern times to not be the unquestioned leader of the free world. He commands the biggest and best army, but he is less respected as a leader than any modern President. We are less respected as a democracy with him as our president.

[DKW 86 6,921]

Do you seriously doubt that our standing in the world is diminished? Do you doubt that fewer countries see us as the model than they did four years ago? George Bush has the distinction of being the first U.S. President in modern times to not be the unquestioned leader of the free world. He commands the biggest and best army, but as he is less respected as a leader than any modern President. We are less respected a democracy with him as our president.

I see what you mean in the same vein that Churchill was less respected than Chamberlain just before WWII. I mean that as deep and as serious as it can be meant. Churchill was taken out of power just before WWII, as the storm clouds gathered. Chamberlain made the most horrific goofs in world politics trying to negotiate with a mad man.

Kerry would easily be our Chamberlain although it would take 4 years to replace him. Our voting cycle is not like the Brits. You do not negotiate with madmen. The only negotiations they understand is at the end of a gun barrel. Bush is Churchill acting Pre-emptively.

I totally expect and will be very surprised if blood isnt flowing in Spain and France very soon with the Terrorists. A police force will not stop them from retaking al-Andaluus. it is the next step for them.

[TexasTiger 10,929]

Do you seriously doubt that our standing in the world is diminished? Do you doubt that fewer countries see us as the model than they did four years ago? George Bush has the distinction of being the first U.S. President in modern times to not be the unquestioned leader of the free world. He commands the biggest and best army, but as he is less respected as a leader than any modern President. We are less respected a democracy with him as our president.

I see what you mean in the same vein that Churchill was less respected than Chamberlain just before WWII. I mean that as deep and as serious as it can be meant. Churchill was taken out of power just before WWII, as the storm clouds gathered. Chamberlain made the most horrific goofs in world politics trying to negotiate with a mad man.

Kerry would easily be our Chamberlain although it would take 4 years to replace him. Our voting cycle is not like the Brits. You do not negotiate with madmen. The only negotiations they understand is at the end of a gun barrel. Bush is Churchill acting Pre-emptively.

I totally expect and will be very surprised if blood isnt flowing in Spain and France very soon with the Terrorists. A police force will not stop them from retaking al-Andaluus. it is the next step for them.

117011[/snapback]

Spain and France have been fighting home grown terrorists (ETA) for years. Great Britain has, too (IRA). I don't know what you base the notion that Kerry would try to negotiate with terrorists. As we all know, the only President to ever do that was Reagan with Iran.

I think Islamic fundamentalists will focus on retaking Arab states, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and oh yeah, Iraq, before they focus on taking Europe.

[CCTAU 2,313]

I think Islamic fundamentalists will focus on retaking Arab states, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and oh yeah, Iraq, before they focus on taking Europe.

And by the time you and Skerry figure out you are wrong on this, the woeld will be in total chaos.

Islamic terrorist want the world. Islam wants the world. Their teachings say to spread out and multiply. And they have to the tune of over 50% growth in the last 30 years in almost every non-islamic state. So their goal is not to take back arabic islamic states, they already have a domonaite population their whom they feel will ALWAYS do the islamic thing, even if not the terrorist thing.

But make no mistake, the terrorists want the world. And this one of the biggest fundamentalist flaws in liberalism today.

[TexasTiger 10,929]

I think Islamic fundamentalists will focus on retaking Arab states, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and oh yeah, Iraq, before they focus on taking Europe.

And by the time you and Skerry figure out you are wrong on this, the woeld will be in total chaos.

Islamic terrorist want the world. Islam wants the world. Their teachings say to spread out and multiply. And they have to the tune of over 50% growth in the last 30 years in almost every non-islamic state. So their goal is not to take back arabic islamic states, they already have a domonaite population their whom they feel will ALWAYS do the islamic thing, even if not the terrorist thing.

But make no mistake, the terrorists want the world. And this one of the biggest fundamentalist flaws in liberalism today.

117033[/snapback]

Christians are supposed to spread the word and win converts, too. That was part of the thinking behind the crusades-- you know what Bush called what his plan after 9/11 (A "crusade.")

They will continue to attack us when they can, we will need to root them out and kill them when we can and stay vigilant. I don't think any thinking person on the left or center thinks otherwise.

[CCTAU 2,313]

You are thick-headed. You answered your own accusation. Christians spread the word, not their seed.

The muslims are taught to go and spread their seed. Did you not read the part about increase muslim population. These are not converts, they are offspring.

[DKW 86 6,921]

I have a work associate from Thailand. He tells everyone about how the Thai people are getting ready for a War in the lower three provinces in Thailand. The Muslims have taken them over and are now demanding self government. You see Muslims do not respect a secular Govt. In the Muslim law, Islam IS THE GOVERNMENT! They have no room for negotiations on this. They want an Islamist World and they deny any secular govts to be a part of it.

TT, no offense here guy. But I would bet the house on what I just told you.

[AURainman 6]

Christians are supposed to spread the word and win converts, too.  That was part of the thinking behind the crusades-- you know what Bush called what his plan after 9/11 (A "crusade.")

They will continue to attack us when they can, we will need to root them out and kill them when we can and stay vigilant. I don't think any thinking person on the left or center thinks otherwise.

117036[/snapback]

To compare Bush's advances into the middle east to the Crusades is the most near-sighted, dim-witted, faulty argument you've had to date.

[TexasTiger 10,929]

Christians are supposed to spread the word and win converts, too.  That was part of the thinking behind the crusades-- you know what Bush called what his plan after 9/11 (A "crusade.")

They will continue to attack us when they can, we will need to root them out and kill them when we can and stay vigilant. I don't think any thinking person on the left or center thinks otherwise.

117036[/snapback]

To compare Bush's advances into the middle east to the Crusades is the most near-sighted, dim-witted, faulty argument you've had to date.

117286[/snapback]

Since you haven't understood a single argument I've made to date, I'm not sure your qualified to judge. You missed this one, too.

[AURainman 6]

No, I caught your argument completely. I just object to your claim that Bush is trying to launch a holy war.

And I don't think anyone gave YOU the right to judge who's qualified to call out a lie when he sees one.

[TexasTiger 10,929]

No, I caught your argument completely.  I just object to your claim that Bush is trying to launch a holy war. 

And I don't think anyone gave YOU the right to judge who's qualified to call out a lie when he sees one.

117472[/snapback]

I didn't claim Bush is launching a holy war. Search the entire board. I pointed out his ignorance and poor judgement in using the word "crusade" given the term's history.

I responded to this:

Islam wants the world. Their teachings say to spread out and multiply.

with this:

Christians are supposed to spread the word and win converts, too.  That was part of the thinking behind the crusades-- you know what Bush called what his plan after 9/11 (A "crusade.")

I don't think most reputable theologians will say that either religion mandates that their followers conquer others by force. You don't believe Christianity does that, do you? Yet there have been times when it was used that way. Christianity is not to blame for those actions any more than Islam is for the actions of those who choose to wrongly attribute their actions to it.

[Wishbone 0]

"The city on the hill" analogy was originally about the U.S. leading by example from an isolationist position. It was in reference to America not behaving like the European powers on the 18th century which joined alliances and entered into wars to maintain their economic and political influence. The analogy is an endorsement of isolationism which was one of the tennents of the founders.

[MDM4AU 307]

I don't know what you base the notion that Kerry would try to negotiate with terrorists. As we all know, the only President to ever do that was Reagan with Iran.

You sure Reagan was the only one to negotiate? Well, I guess apologizing and cowaring to Iran really isn't negotiating is it?

November 4, 1979

[TitanTiger 18,124]

I don't know what you base the notion that Kerry would try to negotiate with terrorists. As we all know, the only President to ever do that was Reagan with Iran.

You sure Reagan was the only one to negotiate? Well, I guess apologizing and cowaring to Iran really isn't negotiating is it?

November 4, 1979

117640[/snapback]

Damn.

[TexasTiger 10,929]

I don't know what you base the notion that Kerry would try to negotiate with terrorists. As we all know, the only President to ever do that was Reagan with Iran.

You sure Reagan was the only one to negotiate? Well, I guess apologizing and cowaring to Iran really isn't negotiating is it?

November 4, 1979

117640[/snapback]

No. It's just being weak. Arms for hostages. That's negotiating.