Whereas nation states where religion is part of the law of the land. Well look at those nations. These are isolated states that have remained in a development vacuum but got rich off selling oil. There is no freedom of speech or democracy in those states. The very fact that the first world deals with say OPEC allows the theocracy to be sustained in those nations.

Religion was a form of government for most of Europe. Then we had the enlightenment, democracy, revolution, kings, wars, history and so on. Religious denominations in Europe are now rapidly fading. This process never occured in the Middle East. Suddenly they have BILLIONS to spend on spreading their 'faith' as a form of government intervention. Saudi Arabia building schools in Pakistan that eventually created the Taliban was not an act of religious domination but a ham fisted attempt at geopolitics via religious doctrine. Because for some fucking reason the Saudis believed the Taliban would actually listen to them or something LOL. (Is this of course ignoring specific political issues of the time, USSR, evil empire, Regean, cold war, US allies with Saudi Arabia, fighting proxy wars, stinger missiles, Charlie Wilson and so on).

Saudi Arabia is cool because its such a fucking relic of government policy they have little room for any type of social policy because that is dictat by Religion. Thus their policies stem from it. They are like evil but religiously ahaha so they just fund fundamentalists everywhere thinking it will give them political clout and power when in reality it backfires. Kinda like this US thing where it's like FREEDOM FOR ALL... THROUGH FUCKING DAISY CUTTERS. To Save Iraq We have to destroy it. To save Afghanistan. We have to keep sending troops for a dubious objective. Oh wait let's pull out now. etc.

Fundamentally we have to appreciate the fact that religion is but a theory of the that explained things prior to science. With the rise of science, it tried to fight it. Finally slowly it's either merging or being eliminated or reconstituted in new ideological belief sets.

What I mean to say is that it's only through the evolution of man, knowledge and ideas that humanity has reached a point where it starts to doubt a very flawed perception of reality. First gods were manifest everywhere. Then they were nature. Then they are ghosts. Now we are supposed to believe or have faith.

Those of a stronger mental make up could possibly accept that we live and die and that is the end. Others cling to religion because it is safe. Others believe in living eternally through genes, about the only thing we consistently carry on through time.

Time will see the end of man man religions, into new constructs of stupidity, because science still, while providing much of the answers lacks many fundamental resolutions for most issues at the core of religious belief. Time will tell us all. But so far so good.

>> ^hpqp:

How did Christianity get to Europe? Conquest. To the Americas? Conquest and colonisation. To Africa? Colonisation, slave trade. To Australasia? Colonisation. Does that mean that these means have been taking place all the way 'till now? Of course not. After a few generations of growing up with the imposed religion, you forget it was imposed in the first place. Unless you were "cleansed", then there are no next generations.
Same story with Islam. Only eventual difference: violent conquest/conversion is directly condoned, one could even say "ordained", by the holy text (e.g. 2:191-3/2:216); oh, and the prophet was also a tribal leader and war general, unlike the possibly fictional Jeebs of the Christians.
I'm not saying people don't convert, just that the majority of religion's spread is through breeding and childhood indoctrination, and that the origins of the desert monotheisms' spread (especially Christianity and Islam) was conquest and colonisation so your original comment does not seem to be making any relevant point.
edit: add to that the continual use of majority pressure and intimidation, especially when religion is part of a country's legal and political system.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Naa. Islam reached 1 billion in the 21st century.
The assumption you are making is that it's been spreading at the knife edge from what the Moor times?
>> ^hpqp:
Uh, you do know that more often than not it was spread, like Christianity, at the edge of the sword, right? Conquest, colonisation, slave trade, same old same old.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Furthermore people forget that Islam represents 22% of world population. Much of it not in the Middle East. If the religion was so shit it wouldn't have taken every other religion out there.

1. somehow they attributed this to "anti-americanism", like they hear from their right wing radios that democrats/liberals/lefties/socialists are always screaming about how terrible everything american is and burning flags, somehow in their brains un-nationalism=nationalism=fascism.

4. clinton and obama also increased military spending. we fought tons of proxy wars under the clinton administration and obama has just shifted the focus from iraq to afghanistan. and i can't argue that. they're right. even though they completely skimmed over 8 years of hyper-patriotism.

7. TSA porno-scanners. obama reauthorized the patriot act. also, can't argue with them, except theyre still ignoring the last 8 years.

8. so they're mormons, and historically, the government has interfered with the church. they see the whole prop 8 fiasco as modern day proof of that. and government is trying to legislate for the church, not the other way around.

9. no, corporate power is not protected. this socialist administration is infriging on them and the epa wants to bankrupt all the businesses.

10. unions are the enemy. nurses unions are the reason all of the hospitals in california are in trouble. labor unions are evil. theyre the mafia. blah blah blah. labor unions are fascist organizations funding the obama administration to take out the middle class. this list has a liberal bias.

11. obama killed all the student loans. there is no more access to student loans anywhere, eventhough i am currently living off of student loans. also, academia is where terrorist sympathizers hide out. which explains why her 2 most liberal children are working on graduate degrees in liberal things like physics and disability studies. and her conservative children didn't go to college. my brother and i are really the close minded fascists. if you point out my moms graduate degrees she says she got it during the clinton administration then she went and got a job with it outside of education. unlike my brother and i who don't actually have real jobs. even though my brother works for the military and the military pays for his education. nothing makes any sense.

12. they related this one to the ex con that works for my stepdad. he's finally off drugs and making an honest living and obama won't take his ankle bracelet off probably because he is a white non-violent offender. i'm not even sure what that has to do with the topic, but thats the anecdote they shared with me.

most of what they say doesnt make any sense to me. and vice versa. but i find if i break things down into really small individual issues then we agree like... climate change isnt man made... but it is bad for the planet to dump all of our trash in the ocean and bury toxic waste and cut the tops off all the mountains and burn things into the atmosphere. .... but there is not such thing as global warming.

or our border with mexico is a huge security risk and people in el paso are terrified of the drug wars raging in juarez and we need to deport all the undocumented workers and close our border for good until mexico sorts their shit out.
but women and children who flee from mexico are refugees and should be treated as such.

even when we talk about anarchism, they like anarchism. but if you were to say i was left wing and had radical leanings... they'd freak the fuck out.

so their values and morals are mostly intact, and theyre mostly just like mine... we just use different languages and theyre not worried about atrocities that happen in other places.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Wow, that's nuts. How did they spin 1, 4 and 7-12? >> ^peggedbea:
omg! i've actually gone through this exact list with her and her husband before and the most bizarre thing happened - they attached every single point to "liberals". the phenomenon here is that the language has been changed. the world "liberal" is no longer derived from the word "liberty". it simple means "ugly nazi fascist death monsters"
and the word "liberty" now means "liberty in christ".
i shoplifted a copy of "the overton window" over the summer and read it aloud to my friends, the entire thing is chocked full of doublespeak. the introduction itself is almost entirely doublespeak. and sometimes i read articles on fox's website, or the drudge report or whatever for fun. it's loaded with doublespeak. almost every article uses some device to change the meaning of language. it's brilliant.
one of my best friends brother is a linguist at UF. i'm pretty sure when those boys come back to texas for christmas we're going to have a serious discussion about this.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Have you tried explaining to her what fascism is?
Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Source Free Inquiry.co
5-28-3

It's amazing to me how ensconsed in the bubble the right is these days.

Let's break it down:

1. Ideological subversion propagation - Radical conservatives begin pushing their ideology to all members of society through churches, schools, and supposedly independent policy research "think tanks". This begins in the early 30's, and is a systematic campaign aimed at chipping away at the credibility of embedded liberalism, America's original ideology. The "threat of communism" is conflated with traditional American values like empathy, solidarity, and equality.
   
   
2. Destabilization - The 1960's reads literally like a textbook example of a country in crisis. A presidential assassination, two proxy wars, a mexican standoff with nuclear weapons, a counterculture protest movement, race relations getting strained with protests and violence, and the then-dominant Democratic party coming apart at its seams over disagreements about the war and civil rights.
   
   
3. Crisis - This one is clear. The oil crisis of the 1970's was our key takeover crisis moment. It basically ushered in an end to embedded liberalism as the American way of life. So many aspects of our political life and the way our economy was run was radically changed in the aftermath of that crisis, even though it was a walk in the park compared to today's economic problems.
   
   
4. Normalization - Conservative Republicans won 3 terms in a row, from 1980 until 1992, followed by a conservative, Southern Democrat who won in part because a third party candidate split Republican support. Party-line economists have treated the works of John Maynard Keynes the way their forebears treated the work of Karl Heinrich Marx -- they pretended it had nothing worthwhile to say, and tried their best to erase it from academic discourse. The Democrats of today consider reforms Republicans proposed in 1992 massive ideological win for the left.
   

Take the bananas out of your ears, morons.

Anyways, this is actually a pretty astute observation about how radical political and economic change happens. It's not necessarily planned like our conservative takeover was, but the framework for all ideological revolutions start with an ideology becoming commonly known, then during a period of destabilization and crisis, people may turn to the new ideology.

This is literally what more than a few libertarian bloggers say is their raison d'etre -- to make sure the ideology is lying around for when a crisis hits.

However, anyone who thinks some Russian-led infiltration of "Marxist-Lenninist" ideology happened or is happening is fucking deluded. It would've been a real trick considering your average American doesn't have a fucking clue what Marxism is...because the right stigmatized knowledge of it!

Yeah it seems that Russia's "aggressive" nature has not gotten the attention or really any at all here in America. Its all about Iran and nothing else like Russia is some sort of joke we conquered in ages past. Even though Putin has spoken very threateningly towards us if we attack Iran, even though Russia would ultimately fund Iran in a proxy war against us much like we did to them in Afghanistan, no one seems to care. Oh well, as the oil runs out my friends you will see just how civilized the world really is. (sorry for the downer but its true)

>> ^blankfist:
You need more recent proof? How about Clinton's intervention in Kosovo?
I don't think it really matters whether it's a Democrat from one year ago or one from one hundred years ago. You can say the party was a different party before the 80s, but was it really that staggeringly different than the Dem Party of today? I don't think that's accurate. Bill Clinton is just as much an interventionist as Woodrow Wilson, IMO. And so is George W. Bush for that matter.

I'd say you're changing terms -- I'd argue that nation-building involves dethroning a government unfriendly to us, and replacing it with one that is friendly to us, with bonus points if the country involved has importance to us either materially or geographically.

The intervention in Kosovo wasn't an America-only, purely pro-American move, it was to intervene against a regime involved in genocide. Clinton's involvement in Somalia, and Hati were similar, if less dramatic.

I'd say those were interventions, but not nation-building, and certainly not the craven imperialism of our invasion of Iraq.

I'm all for the ideal of a non-interventionist government, but in cases like Kosovo, or now Darfur, I'd seriously consider intervening for humanitarian reasons. If the Darfur situation turned into a proxy war with China over oil...I'd oppose our involvement vehemently.

I also think you're not giving Democrats a fair shake, if you feel comfortable painting Wilson, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton with the same brush. Both parties have had huge changes since the time of Wilson, and sizable ones since Johnson (e.g. would Democrats today filibuster the Civil Rights act?).

>> ^blankfist:
I don't think you can argue overspending and increasing taxes to accommodate that overspending to be fiscal responsibility. Overspending is irresponsible not responsible. To wit, forcing taxpayers to pay more on programs, services and aid they are NOT directly using nor have the right to opt out of is immoral because it involves the forced transfer of wealth. But, this is a whole other debate that I'll save us all from.

Yeah, I think this is just a core difference in political philosophy.

I'd argue fiscal responsibility has a non-partisan definition, though. It just means you don't spend more than you make, and balance your budget. How you do it, whether it's through spending less, "making more", or both, doesn't have much to do with whether it's fiscally responsible or not.

"Also, unlike Iran, whenever we have asked something of Pakistan, be it the old regime, or the new one, they have almost always complied... they funneled money and arms to the mujahidin for us in our proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and later, in 2001, when we needed their airspace and access to bases on the ground to support operations in Afghanistan, Musharraf rolled over and complied, becoming a surprise ally in the Bush Administration's 'War on Terror'... clearly, Pakistan is a much more cooperative state than Iran."

Was hardly "totally ignores the fact that Pakistan is a key ally of the US"

Aside from that, what "strategic triangle that exists between Russia, China and India" are you referring to. Genuine question.

@MINK, the reason the United States has no problem with Pakistan having nukes is that it does not share in any of the motivations or history of Iran, which, as I outlined above, keep the US from even considering their development of a domestic power program...

Namely, Pakistan, has never really posed a threat to Israel, either by denying its existence, or by funding Palestinian terrorist organizations in Lebanon... so therefore, the NeoCons and the Israel lobby are pretty much unconcerned with their activities. Also, as we've already been over in regards to Iran, the history of our relationship with Pakistan has been much less volatile and on the whole, we have been much less involved with Pakistan: never had a puppet regime in place there, nor had it overthrown, nor have the Pakistanis ever taken any of our diplomatic staff hostage or called us "The Great Satan"... and really, Pakistan is almost entirely removed from Middle Eastern ideological/historical conflict by virtue of its location, national identity and history... in fact, I believe the CIA has it grouped within its South Asian bureau. Also, unlike Iran, whenever we have asked something of Pakistan, be it the old regime, or the new one, they have almost always complied... they funneled money and arms to the mujahidin for us in our proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and later, in 2001, when we needed their airspace and access to bases on the ground to support operations in Afghanistan, Musharraf rolled over and complied, becoming a surprise ally in the Bush Administration's 'War on Terror'... clearly, Pakistan is a much more cooperative state than Iran.

Also, everyone knows that if the Pakistanis are going to nuke anyone, its going to be India, but, even though India is also our ally, they are no where near as dependent upon our support for mere existence as is Israel. Also, its pretty apparent that even though both India and Pakistan are now nuclear, its highly unlikely that they are going to start a war with one another because a) India is so much bigger and wealthier, and in a conventional war Pakistan would pretty much be screwed... and b) the minute a Pakistani nuke was launched (which, they have yet to prove they can actually do- they have detonated them, but as for firing one at something, that is left to be proven), India would launch five right back, and arguably, Pakistan would be less likely to recover from such an incident as it lacks the economical fortitude, population, infrastructure and resources of India. In the meantime, international pressures from most of the industrialized first world nations (ie, America and the EU) on which India depends for much of its commerce, keep it in check from attacking Pakistan on a whim. So, it would appear that, in this case, the possession of nuclear weapons has successfully kept these two rivals at sort of a standoff, and the region on the whole has been more peaceful.

There is, however, considerable apprehension right now in the States about the current situation in Pakistan, as no one likes to hear the words 'nuclear' and 'unstable government' in the same sentence. I do think though, that seeing as how all major parties involved in the power struggle in Pakistan: Musharraf, Bhutto, and Sharif, are in close contact and by all appearances, past and present, friendly to US and EU concerns for overall stability in the region, whomever it is that gains control will likely continue to the toe the line in regards to nuclear discretion.

That, in short, is why no one cares that Pakistan has nukes and there is such a furor over Iran possible getting them.

September 11, 2001 is an historic date, the day the Bush family friends and financial backers from Saudi Arabia had their son send and attack the US using their own trained Saudi citizens. In response, Bush allowed all suspect Saudis to leave the country and to this day continues to do their bidding in the middle east, including fighting a proxy war in Iraq and threatening the "other" religion in Iran.

That's nonsense. You can't pretend to know how widely I read. It's you who seems incapable of critical thinking.

"We helped maintain peace after world war 2. We've raised the economic and social standards of other countries."

The first statement is too laughable to take seriously. The list of wars, invasions, proxy wars, violent overthrow of governments, assassinations, the School of the Americas, support for tyrants and dictators, the economic plunder of countless third world nations, war-profiteering, etc., is very long indeed.

You've raised the social standards for the elites of other countries.

But keep making your assumptions about me and grafting them to some imaginary ideology of mine -- I will enjoy knocking your straw men apart.

In addition to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, Democratic presidential candidates Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich have also asked tough questions about the U.S. post WWII foreign policies. In this knee-jerk, 30 second sound bite culture, I have doubts that their positions can be heard enough to rise above ad hominem attacks and result in intelligent, reasoned debate within the mainstream media.

While I personally feel the U.S. has a right and responsibility to protect itself for legitimate defense reasons, these many covert wars, proxy wars and preemptive wars, have too often been waged to further corporate financial interests, rather than to protect our national security. Sadly, The U.S. public is sold these wars on false premises, fear, misdirection and blind patriotism. And often, we are simply altogether ignorant to their existence.

All of that said, I do still believe, that there is another side to the picture. The United States has often been a great benefactor to the world, coordinating an unprecedented amount of humanitarian efforts, and fostering principles of democracy with truly positive results. These efforts are applied unevenly however. Some regions of the world are supported while others are left to suffer unimaginable humanitarian crises.

It appears to me that we experiencing a shift in cultural attitudes and in awareness of these issues. Perhaps after 2009, we will begin to see changes in U.S. foreign policy that better reflects public opinion.

I have nothing to allege than to merely state the obvious: The psychological impact created by the events of 9/11 was used by the administration to push through conflicts of conquest using cherry picked intelligence. Somehow post 9/11, given the so called massive intelligence failure we were coaxed into a war based on reports of WMDs. You keep telling me that it's Bush this and Bush that, but thats you're only arguement and contribution to this issue.

At the end of the day the general public was fooled, we went to war with little to no international backing.

If that isn't enough to warrant a serious reassessment of the events that lead us there, then I don't know what is. Am sick and tired of this Utopian idea that this kinda of thing will suddenly never happen again, if Obama or Clinton or whichever political wank will take over.

If the entire US defense system built up during the cold war era fails in this one instance against terrorism under criminal negligence what happens tomorrow when another one occurs? And another person in power finds themselves in a perfect position to argue for a proxy war.

JFK's assassination is an important historical event. Mainly due to the US goverment stating that he got shot from the Texas Book Depository which would be a head shot to the back, and not back and to the left as shown in the Zapruder film. It was the start of the end of the first Roman Catholic President and Camelot as a whole.

His death lead to the swearing in of Lydon B. Johnson as president and almost immediate escalation of American involvement in South East Asia, based principally on the Gulf Of Tonkin incident. When JFK at the time was himself considering disengaging from pursuing a 'proxy war' with US troops against the Soviet Union and Communism in general.

Beyond the obvious questions of goverment involvement and knowledge of the assassination attempt, the strange circumstances of the event, the fact that the assassin clearly left a trail to be found, got assassinated two days later by Jack Ruby for unknown and unclear reasons. The basic fact remains that if JFK had lived our world would be vastly different then what it is now. Thus the videos posted form important historical artifacts.

Saddam Hussein, and the video that was posted was enough. We don't need to see him hanging. I would apply the same historical reverence to any execution video, as I do not believe executions are historic events. They are subjective to the people who suffered from the tyranny of others.