For starters, I have to oppose the implied thought that Saddam's reign of terror was preventing this sectarian violence. His rule through the Suni minority to wage genocides against the Kurdish and Shia majority and decades of brutal repression of same all served to make the sectarian hatred and violence worse. Tally up the hundreds of thousands he killed through genocide, the million plus he killed in the Iran-Iraq war and everyone that died by direct execution or deliberate starvation level poverty and compare it doesn't stand out as starkly and objectively a desirable alternative to today.

Now if you ask what would I do differently it depends on what level of power I've got to act with. Ideally, we can go back to first Iraq war and have Bush senior march on Baghdad. This would've aborted one of Saddam's genocides. Equally importantly, this would have kept the Shia Iraqi population's view of America as a liberating force. The standing in the desert and watching Saddam slaughter them thing still carried their mistrust of American forces after Saddam's actual removal later. That singularly stupid move of leaving Saddam in power, at the urging of most of the planet, drove the Shia population of Iraq back to Iran as their sole sympathetic ally.

Next step, after the removal of Saddam, whether we can do it back then, or only a few years ago as it really happened is to truly setup an occupation government. You don't bring stability to a region by immediately trying to transition to a democracy before the shooting has even stopped. The occupation government would be run by somebody with actual knowledge and experience with Iraq, rather than as Bush senior did by sending in a guy with zero experience and a two week lead to brief himself. The task you should place on this leader, is to setup a federated Iraq, with distinct and autonomous Shia, Sunni and Kurdish states. The occupation government would dictate things after taking input from Iraqi's rather than holding them to the tyranny of the majority as Bush and co allowed. The occupation would setup an initial constitution defining what laws and agreements spanned all three Iraqi provinces/states and what extent of autonomy they had to define their own systems of government. The American military's job would be to enforce this very basic constitutional framework. Each Iraqi state/province would be aided in setting up their own governments with a transition plan again dictated not voted upon. The transition plan would define the point in time when each state transitioned from occupation rule to a self determined future and rule of law.

The above plan on the whole would work, but Bush and co couldn't have managed post Saddam Iraq more poorly if they had actively tried to.

If zero time travel is allowed and we are to 'fix' things today, you need a lot MORE power. You need an army the size of America or Russia's and the political will to spend several years doing things the public will hate you for. The end game is still the same as above, a federated Iraq kicked off under a dictatorial occupation. To get there from today though you need to create stability. You need to take an army and march it across the entire country. As each city is cleared of militants you take a census of everybody and keep it because you need it to track down future militants. In entirely hostile locations like were ISIS has full rule, you bomb them into the stone ages before marching the army in. The surviving population is given full medical treatment. Now, as for sorting militants from civilians though, you do NOT use American style innocent until proven guilty justice. Instead, any fighting age males are considered guilty until proven innocent. This level of rule of law needs to remain in place until stability can be restored. You of course guarantee lots of innocent arrests, but your trying to prevent massive numbers of innocent deaths so it's required. As you stabilize the nation you can relax back to innocent until proven guilty and work on re-integrating the convicted.

You'll note that although the methods I'd declare necessary above are by any count 'brutal', they do not extend into Saddam's usage of genocide, torture and rape as the weapons of choice.

I think Ratigan's summary is quite accurate for describing pre-9/11 motivation. Saudi promoted Wahhabi-ism can certainly be blamed for drawing stark divisions between Shia and Sunni Islam and fueling inter-Islamic conflicts in the region. Funds from Saudi benefactors (who have profited handsomely from the US/West's collaboration with Saudi Arabia due to its oil reserves) have certainly fueled terrorist groups.

Today, I would suggest that terrorist attacks are basically publicity, recruitment and funding campaigns for a militia based land battle by ISIS in the Middle East. Take for example the beheading of Americans that arguably escalated the US involvement in the conflict. it would seem that in terms of their survival this would have been counterproductive. I can only assume that a successful terrorist/militia organisation like ISIS is acting quote-unquote rationally in its own interests if it is as successful as it is. That forces me to conclude that the recruitment and funding that it gets from these publicized actions actually outweighs the cost of being attacked militarily by global powers like the US/EU.

While religion is certainly used to motivate the foot soldiers of these insurgents, I would not at all be surprised if the likes of the al-Baghdadi's of the conflict are purely in it for money and power. Kind of reminds me of how insurgents in Africa post-colonialism had to reinvent themselves to remain relevant and became either religiously or otherwise racially sectarian militias / factions.

Its not just about money. Integrating Muslim refugees (well mostly migrants) has proved to be difficult bordering on impossible in Europe. Ghettos, antisemitism, sectarian violence, attempts to impose islamic law on communities etc.

Nonetheless if a refugee asks for asylum in any EU country he will be given asylum in that country. Migrants are different, but since we do not have much of a mechanism for sending them back where they came from... not so very different.

Now some of these migrants and refugees that want to live in Germany and Sweden are supposed to be distributed by "quotas" among the other EU countries, how is that supposed to work in practice?

Dont get me wrong, we have hundreds of thousands of recently (within say 20 years) migrated foreigners in our country, but none of them are bitching about what I eat and drink, how often I pray or what my wife wears to the beach. So no big deal.

As long as these people get asylum and then get evaluated before getting citizenship and there is a limited number of citizenships available over a given period of time everything might yet work out fine.

It will not work out fine just by inertia and political correctness..

I would rather have one crazy polish fascist than a thousand people claiming to be syrian refugees come to my doorstep. I could deal with maybe five at most.

You are empirically incorrect. You are proposing an impossible scenario, that somehow 1.5bn world wide are perfectly aligned, have some say over the actions of all the other people simultaneously and ergo bear some responsibility for any actions committed under the broad umbrella of "Islam"...

http://enews.fergananews.com/articles/2698

To speak of “Islam” as a homogenous phenomenon is analogous to speaking of “Christianity” as a single whole that includes Catholics and Orthodox, Protestants and Copts, and countless other sects, including such marginal ones as the Mormons, the Scientologists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Of course, we never do so, because we intuitively recognize that the label loses all meaning when forced on to such a diverse group. We seldom have such qualms, however, when it comes to Islam, even though the label “Islam” covers just as wide a spectrum of geographic, cultural, and sectarian diversity as the label “Christianity.” If anything, it is even more internally diverse than Christianity, which crystallized around an institutionalized Church from the very beginning. In Islam, such an institution never developed. There is no religious hierarchy and no single individual qualified to pass final judgment on questions of belief or practice. Within thirty years of the death of the Prophet, the Muslim community had split on matters of doctrine. Since then, there have been multiple and simultaneous sources of authority among Muslims. Authority is located not in church councils and such, but in individuals who derive their legitimacy from their learning, piety, lineage, and reputation among peers. This gives Islam a slightly anarchic quality: authoritative opinions (fatwa) of one expert or one group can be countered with equally authoritative opinions, derived from the same sources, of another group, or one set of practices devotional practices held dear by one group can be denounced as impermissible by another. In more extreme cases, such conflict of opinion can turn into a “war of fatwas,” fought out, in the modern age, in the press or in cyberspace. (If Islam were held in a more positive light in the West today, this diversity would be described as a “free market of ideas”!) To speak of Islam as a homogeneous entity ignores this fundamental dynamic of its tradition.

This pluralism extends to the most basic level of belief. The major sectarian divide in Islam, between Sunnis and Shi‘is, goes back to the very origins of Islam. The two doctrines evolved in parallel, and therefore it is incorrect to see in them an orthodox/heterodox divide. All Muslims share a number of key reference points (the oneness of God, loyalty to the Prophet and his progeny, the need to prepare for the Hereafter, to take a few examples), but they have been played upon in different ways by different sects and movements. Nor do the two sects exhaust the diversity, for they both have many branches and various theological and legal schools within them, while many modern ideological groups straddle the divide between the two sects.

Or
http://wasalaam.wordpress.com/2007/02/06/the-myth-of-homogeny-in-islam/

I could provide link after link, discuss Sunni vs Shia, or any one of the innumerable other sects (70+ iirc), discuss Islams war with itself throughout history etc, all demonstrating that you are wrong.

You are portraying (demonising actually) Islam in the same way the two morons in the video are, by making all Muslims responsible for any action committed by a Muslim. You talk about enlightenment, but your post reeks of bigotry, hardly the hallmark of an enlightened person, right?

Incidentally, the "popular" view of Islam is of a homogenous group of people, us vs them, a group to be afraid of, or to attack. The average person on the street (ie. plumb ignorant, much like yourself) would not be aware of just how complex it is, far more so than Christianity. It's exactly why the talking heads who got schooled kept trying to make out that Islam was homogenous, and were proved wrong...

But give it your best shot trying to shoot down the considered opinions of Phd's, scholars, philosophers etc if you want to continue to make a fool of yourself.

"I know shit is very complicated and the answers aren't easy, but we can EASILY do better than this."

Sigh.

And who, now, tell me, are the "good guys" in Syria? We can't even get aid into the country; when we do, where is it going? Is it being diverted? Into whose hands? Is it feeding the troops, on either or both sides, who, rejuvenated by supplies, rally to fight and make it worse for everyone else?

The collapse of the Cold War has let the repressed sectarian and religious hatreds of a hundred years or more (the Serbians still fixate on a glorious defeat that happened in 1389...I'm not kidding) boil over across the planet...

This and the Norwegian bus stop advertisement for Syrian aid are amazing pieces---and I applaud them...

Two random factoids I can't quite resolve in my head:
1) American's think we spend 25% of our national budget on foreign; we actually spend somewhere between 1.5% and under 1 % depending on how you include certain payments (the Nordic countries embarrass us by spending 2-3X as much as us as percentage of GDP)...and

2) It is pretty much a demonstrable fact that we are now living in the most peaceful time in human history. How horrifying it must have been to live in any other time---
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence

Yes, insisting that diplomacy is likely to stop Assad's continued campaign of murdering his own people is a problem for me. Sure, maybe I should just accept it as naive and not malicious, but people are being killed while the world stands around yet again refusing to do anything, and that makes me angry.

I'm not trying to whitewash America's role in Iraq either. If anything I'd say my picture is a lot blacker than the people I disagree with the most. The only point I think I differ on is that I DO hold Saddam even more responsible for what he did than America or Saudi Arabia or any of his other backers. I see no reason to apologize for that. Read up on Saddam's Al Anfal campaign against the Kurds, his gassing of Kurdish villages was the least of the atrocities he committed against the Kurds. Saddam had been destroying everything in Iraq the entire time he was in power, from the absolute repression that was everyday life, to the endless feeding of Iraqi bodies to into the Iran-Iraq war, to the genocide of the Kurds, to the genocide of the Shia, Saddam had killed millions of Iraqis and systematically orchestrated and encouraged sectarian hatred and divisions. All that time America continued to callously back him because America was happy to see Iraq and Iran bleed themselves out against each other. If I find some solace in finally, at long last seeing America change it's tune and finally opposing Saddam it's not for because I think America is some humanitarian entity. You list all the devastation in Iraq since the American invasion, but just what realistic alternative version of Iraq do you see could exist today if non-intervention had been held to? Iraq today would STILL be under Saddam's control today, and I would insist anyone wanting that alternative doesn't know what Saddam really was like. I also insist it must be known that the Iraqi people were NOT going to manage to liberate themselves without foreign intervention. The Kurds contemplated it once, and it ended in a campaign of genocide and systematic rape to breed the Kurds out of existence. The Shia tried it once, and it ended in genocide for them too. The Iraqi people knew exactly how opposition to Saddam ended and it was NOT going to happen without someone coming in from outside.

Maybe I just see the world as that much more awful and horrific a place. Just because things are bad and horrific doesn't mean they couldn't be a far sight worse, and in fact haven't been a far sight worse in the recent past.

I don't object to demands for caution and concern that getting involved in a conflict can lead it escalate. I object to defending dictators with impossible barriers and burdens of proof. The fact the UN teams have trouble getting evidence shouldn't be touted as reason to question Assad's involvement when he steadily interferes and endeavors to hinder the UN investigations. If we require concrete evidence before declaring Assad guilty, and Assad refuses the UN access until they have concrete evidence a problem has arisen, no?

I’m glad that I learned that you’re not only a creationist; you’re a biblical literalist (at least as far as the creation story).

Do you honestly expect me to believe you understand these principles yourself and that you aren’t simply parroting what you’ve read on creationist websites?

You quote The Blind Watchmaker and The Origin of Species but I highly doubt that you’ve read them yourself. If you haven’t then you’re not better than someone who is contesting the bible without having read it. You quote a LOT of scientists that you say are hostile to your position but again, have you actually read the works that you’re quoting from in their entirety? I doubt it.

Here are just two things that I read recently that I think are worth repeating:

“The degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called "entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy increase and an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. However, the entropy of some parts of the system can spontaneously decrease at the expense of an even greater increase of other parts of the system. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The ICR (Institute for Creation Research) chapter states flatly that entropy can never decrease; this is in direct conflict with the most fundamental law of thermodynamics that entropy equals heat flow divided by absolute temperature.”

-and-

“Creationism would replace mathematics with metaphors. Metaphors may or may not serve to illustrate a fact, but they are not the fact itself. One thing is certain: metaphors are completely useless when it comes to the thermodynamics of calculating the efficiency of a heat engine, or the entropy change of free expansion of a gas, or the power required to operate a compressor. This can only be done with mathematics, not metaphors. Creationists have created a "voodoo" thermodynamics based solely on metaphors. This in order to convince those not familiar with real thermodynamics that their sectarian religious views have scientific validity.”

For myself, I am only a materialist because there isn’t any demonstrable, non-anecdotal, reproducible evidence for the existence of anything non-material. I hope you can understand that. There is the appearance of design and there is DNA, and we don’t know how everything got started but that’s not good enough for me to believe that it was designed, I need something more concrete because that is the criteria for which I will justify something as believable. I’d be very interested in some sort of evidence like that but it hasn’t happened yet and conjecture just doesn’t work for me so I’ll reserve judgment but maintain doubt and that’s all there is to it.

Just because the universe and life might have the appearance of design doesn’t mean it was designed. After all, we might all be brains in vats being experimented on by hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings and all of this is simply like the matrix. Maybe Déjà vu is evidence that it’s true but there simply isn’t any reason to believe it just like there isn’t any reason to believe in any gods.

All of the concepts of god and gods have been moved back every time we discover naturalistic explanations where once those gods were accredited. What makes you think that it’s any different with these things? Just because we don’t know what’s behind the veil doesn’t mean that the idea of someone pulling the levers is a better explanation than a currently unknown natural, non-agency explanation. If we don’t know, then we don’t know and putting a god in the place of “we don’t know” isn't a good way of helping us learn more about our universe.

You: “Scientific evidence indicates that time, space, matter and energy all had a finite beginning, making the cause of the Universe timeless, spaceless, unimaginably powerful and transcendent. Those are all attributes of God, and fit an unembodied mind. The fine tuning, information in DNA and appearance of design all point to a creator. Logic itself tells us that the first cause of the Universe must be eternal because nothing comes from nothing and you can't have an infinite regress of causes. Frankly I think it is ridiculous to believe that Universes just happen by themselves, and especially, as the greatest minds of our time are suggesting, out of nothing. Can't you see that when someone says that, it means the emperor has no clothes?”

We know that the universe, space-time, matter had a finite beginning but we can’t say anything at all about that beginning with any certainty. We can’t even say that whatever was that caused the universe is spaceless, or timeless. We just don’t know. This is the god of the gaps argument that started this whole thing. You’re putting a god in as the explanation for what is effectively a gap in our knowledge without anything solid to go off of. It would not be a god of the gaps argument if we eventually could know with a high degree of certainty that there is a god there fiddling with the controls but we don’t. That is the crux of this whole debate. That is why “I don’t know” is a better answer than “A god did it” because it’s absolutely verifiably true where as a god is not.

We just don’t know if the universe is entirely regressable into some sort of endless loop which folds in on itself, or something else, or even if there is a god or not. Furthermore, I hope you look into what physicist mean by “out of nothing” because it doesn’t mean what I think you think it means. It took me a while to understand what it meant and to be honest, it is a bit of a deceptive word play but it’s only that way because there isn’t another way to describe it. I don't actually believe that the universe came from "nothing". I don't know how it all started, so therefore, I have no belief. I don't need an answer to the big questions. I can say "I don't know" just fine and leave it at that.

The reason why I personally don’t find the whole god argument all that interesting, and the reason why I don’t actually care about it, is because it makes a heck of a lot of claims regarding the nature of god and it’s properties which just can’t be verified. There is nothing that we can concretely discover about god and no predictions that we can make which could eventually be verified meaningfully. How can we possibly know if creator is timeless, or spaceless, unimaginably powerful, transcendent, unembodied, etc? Is it rational to believe that; do you have an equal ratio of evidence to belief? What predictions can we actually make about this god(s). All we have are books and stories written and passed down throughout history. Everything else is just unjustified belief to me.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Resisting the urge to implement the 'let me google that for you.' As I am sure you can find the site, allow me to suggest the search phrase "why is egypt protesting." I would then encourage you to investigate the first link [at the time of writing this] under the news splash.

"Still, there was no indication that Mubarak, who has ruled with an iron fist for nearly 30 years, intends to relinquish power or make democratic or economic concessions, and no sign he would rein in his security forces."

"Although Wednesday's demonstrations were smaller than the tens of thousands who rallied a day earlier, the latest unrest follows repeated public outcries in recent months over police brutality, food prices, corruption and, more recently, sectarian strife between Christians and Muslims."

"There is considerable public opposition to a father-son succession and, according to leaked U.S. diplomatic memos, such a scenario does not meet with the approval of the powerful military. Still, the regime's tight hold on power has made it virtually impossible for any serious alternative to Mubarak to emerge."

"Nearly half of Egypt's 80 million people live under or just above the poverty line set by the World Bank at $2 a day. Combined, the poverty, corruption and social disparity pose a threat to Mubarak's regime at a time when he and his son have been unable to improve the lives of the country's poor."

"German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle invoked Tunisia Wednesday, saying the unrest in Egypt 'underlines the necessity of democratization, of respect for human and civil rights.'"

>> ^spoco2:

Sorry, but without any sort of background, I can't upvote at all.
Why are they revolting? What has been done to them? Etc. etc.
All I'm seeing is a collection of violent protesters, and that never makes me side with them without really good reason.
I've tried looking into it, but have found nothing that really deals with what their grievances actually are.


Or maybe I do not understand what 'tried looking into it' meant. If so, my apologies.

Have you seen some of the people that go to these types of schools? He's right -- if they're seriously thinking about attending such a school, the reality is that they probably can't handle a secular education. They can hardly handle a television remote control!

It's probably better that they attend sectarian universities, if only to keep them from spouting off or flipping out at a real school.

>> ^rougy:

Just when I thought I couldn't get more depressed....
America will never be America until Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are behind bars.


Hard to say this to you Rougy, but I agree.

I've only watched the first clip so far, but it is the first video account I've seen that finally goes after the real problem of the occupation. The failure to implement martial law after the fall of Baghdad.

What's worse, is that everyone should have known and expected things to go exactly as they did in the absence of martial law. Instead, Cheney and Feith deliberately and repeatedly refused to prepare any plans for a post war Iraq involving lawlessness or sectarian violence. They should be shot for that alone.

That said, Saddam had done far worse things to the Iraqi people, repeatedly and deliberately over the last several decades and Iraqis are better off for his removal. I still support the Iraq invasion, despite my enormous and vehement criticisms and problems with the following occupation.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Racism is just the mindset of 95% of the human race's natural tendancy. We divide by religion, race, territory, etc., so that the world's finate resources can be adequately divided by our own "groups" needs. Is nature correct or moral? Who knows, but it does dictate nearly everything we are.... just try not to ever have sex...
Natural tendancies.

Depressing point of view, but I agree that tribalism seems to be an innate tendency in humans.

I still want to strive for a future where it's more like sports rivalries rather than ethno-sectarian war.

We seem to be moving that direction in fits and starts, but right now we're definitely between starts...

I'm bringing this comment along from the dupe since it explains some of what we're seeing...

O Lord, Lead Us Not Into Graduation
by Chris Mooney

Last May at Midwestern State University, an evangelical Christian student named Mary King made a very strong case against graduation prayer. She did so not by argument, but by frothing at the mouth.

During her spring commencement benediction, she asked God to forgive her fellow students for their sins. In particular she begged forgiveness for the sin of using their time to get a university education instead of devoting their lives to prayer. After demanding that her audience repent for their caps and gowns, King collapsed, crying and gasping for air. University President Louis Rodriguez, not recognizing these symptoms of Holy Spirit infestation, called an ambulance.

As a result of the incident, the MSU Faculty Senate voted 8-7 to remove prayer from future commencements. But President Rodriguez vetoed the decision. At winter commencement, student government President Gant Grimes delivered a much less sectarian prayer, which according to the Wichita Falls Times Record News began, "Lord, we come to you at this special time in our lives to offer our thanks . . ." and ended, "God bless you all and peace be with you. Amen."

From the bottom of http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=world_15_1

Unfortunately, I can't find a publish date to know when "Last May" was.

update: This article appears to be from Fall 2003, placing the video in May 2003 or 2002 depending on how you interpret "last".

O Lord, Lead Us Not Into Graduation
by Chris Mooney

Last May at Midwestern State University, an evangelical Christian student named Mary King made a very strong case against graduation prayer. She did so not by argument, but by frothing at the mouth.

During her spring commencement benediction, she asked God to forgive her fellow students for their sins. In particular she begged forgiveness for the sin of using their time to get a university education instead of devoting their lives to prayer. After demanding that her audience repent for their caps and gowns, King collapsed, crying and gasping for air. University President Louis Rodriguez, not recognizing these symptoms of Holy Spirit infestation, called an ambulance.

As a result of the incident, the MSU Faculty Senate voted 8-7 to remove prayer from future commencements. But President Rodriguez vetoed the decision. At winter commencement, student government President Gant Grimes delivered a much less sectarian prayer, which according to the Wichita Falls Times Record News began, "Lord, we come to you at this special time in our lives to offer our thanks . . ." and ended, "God bless you all and peace be with you. Amen."

From the bottom of http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=world_15_1

Unfortunately, I can't find a publish date to know when "Last May" was.

update: This article appears to be from Fall 2003, placing the video in May 2003 or 2002 depending on how you interpret "last".

Things such as "gay marriage being accepted by the church" isn't radical, it's just asking for equal treatment.

Simple, basic rulings that say gays can visit relatives in hospitals and such are fine. These things deal with secular rights. I've never met a single person opposed to these kinds of issues. But gay 'marriage' as a concept is inherently tied to the marriage ritual, which is a sectarian ordinance that confers secular benefits. That's where the radicalism enters in...

Human society developed in such a way that Churches are where marriages tend to be performed, while secular laws were passed to promote marriage because the nuclear family unit was beneficial to society. So on the one hand if you want marriage you (as often as not) are going to a religious organization. But when you want the societal benefits of marriage, you are talking about secular rules.

So if you tell the gay community they can get 'married', then they are going to go to churches and demand the sectarian ritual to obtain the secular benefits. But many churches are highly opposed to homosexuality as a moral violation. To ask them to perform such a ritual for a gay couple would be highly offensive - the equivalent of marching into a vegan's house and DEMANDING that they personally butcher a cow and chow down on the resulting BBQ.

So when advocates demand gay marriage and DO NOT account for these distinctions, then the legislation moves from sensible to radicalism. Most gay couples just want the secular benefits. Most religions have no problem with that. But when marriage laws are proposed, they MUST contain concrete language protecting the rights of those who oppose the lifestyle on a sectarian level. Without that language, the proposal is radical because it violates 1st Ammendment protections - no matter how many 'sensible' things it may confer. This is what the bruhaha over Prop-8 was all about.

What a "civil union" might be is rather nebulous, and civil union and domestic partnership statutes as enacted thus far in the US often do not approach the breadth of rights accorded to married couples, and are in legal limbo regarding state reciprocity agreements. Accordingly, the only way to guarantee equivalent rights to married couples is for LGBT unions to have the same legal identity.

It is an issue - and one I appreciate. However - see above. You can't just say, "OK - gay marriage is legal" and ignore the fact that there are thousands of churches who will refuse to perform the ritual, and who happen to have 1st Ammendment rights protecting that stance. Civil unions are the best solution here, even though they are not perfect.

Then you can attempt to tackle the argument of forcing a religion to change its core values

The fact that there are people IN AMERICA saying these kinds of things is why religious groups are so sensitive on the subject. "Forcing a religion to change its core values" is the language of a totalitarian regime, not the USA. I know it's hard to tell with Obama in office, but it's still a free country...

Obama is no marxist. His policies are centrist liberal. Yes, he cut some taxes but they are not enough.

Furthermore, let's not forget the policies of Reagan were an antidote to the high inflation caused by the military Keynesianism/supposed golden era of Liberalism of the post war boom period (1945-67). Unions were too strong and corrupt, durable and nondurable good consumption started falling in the late 60's, the emergence of OPEC, the expansion of the communist menace leading us into Vietnam, various conflicts to combat Marxist-Leninist-Maonist armed resistence groups taking power under political party fronts and an arms race with the Soviets and off the gold standard...While Europe had their social welfare experiment, we were busy policing the globe.

After the Volcker shock of 1979 (boosted IR to 20%) this lead to the financialization of the economy and the move away from manufacturing. All of this happened under the Carter Administration. Realizing the golden era of liberalism was untenable it brought the inevitable Reagan to prominence whose new regime (following the prescription of Milton Freidman and others was to allow consumers and the market to decide and to decrease the centralized control of government) - as denationalization of the public sector was the only way to create more opportunities and jobs. Cheap credit was not only championed by Wall Street as an antitode to problems, but was also championed by Democrats.

Democrats were almost completely unelectable in the White House until Bill Clinton and his administration (was Republican lite in essence as enacting Welfare Reform and setting the infrastructure for the War in Iraq and following the financial privitization schemes of the Chicago School, the FED fueled dotcom and mortgage bubble which created the much ballyhooed and fictitiuous Clinton surplus) is the reason for the financial deregulation in the late 90's (Clinton is now distancing himself from Rubin and Summers regading derivatives). The Neoconservatives and Democrats have much in common - as they both believe in crazy spending. Neocons through military (some of which does create nascent industries of the future), and Democrats who spend on any frivoulous social programs that work to break states and keep their politicos electable. Where is the incentive to become a producer in this country? If you are not paying high taxes you are competing against government subsidized monopolies (stop whining for more jobs when you overregulate ad penalize big corporations for doing what they need to do to make profits). The Democrats kill the ability to start a small to medium sized business thus making it more attractive to join big firms - that everyone continues to attack - sending them racing abroad.

And last time I checked the "real left" - which Obama distances himself from for good reason - is too busy scratching their heads ain petty sectarianism about how all of their wonderfully utopian ideas caused over 70 years of dreary totalitarianism. Seems the working class in the US now wants nothing to do with them. They want Palin. While you upper middle class liberals eat organic, sip latte's, do your hipster environmental thing and make fun of these people - they are forming the next grassroots that will be a vital contituency to covet.

These people may not be smart - but know that Obama is untrustworthy if he thinks the Federal Government can spend its way out of this mess, not understanding that for every 1/2 cent we have saved we still owe 2 dollars and that if we start increasing our deficits to create new jobs, the Chinese will sell off their currency reserves which are in dollars and then...