How America Met the Mideast

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Of course presidents have acted based on their opinion. To believe otherwise is to remove what is the human experience from every chief executive before George Bush and intellectualy dishonest.

I meant in this specific arena.

[bradclark1]

I'll get back to you AL. I have to go find what proselytization means.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

I'll get back to you AL. I have to go find what proselytization means.

Preaching to the unconverted.

Originally Posted by bradclark1

I meant in this specific arena.

Have a look at the link again. Mr. Oren specifically talks about the Jefferson presidency and his response.

President Jefferson -- so often mislabeled as an idealist, pacifist and isolationist -- eagerly launched the war and ordered the permanent stationing of U.S. naval forces thousands of miles from the nation's shores.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Have a look at the link again. Mr. Oren specifically talks about the Jefferson presidency and his response.

That was against a specific problem. It wasn't about changing hearts and minds.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collecti.../mtjprece.html

Originally Posted by bradclark1

That was against a specific problem. It wasn't about changing hearts and minds.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collecti.../mtjprece.html

I guess you are correct. You cannot change the hearts and minds of the dead.
Are you advocating the wholesale slaughter of all Mussulmen? Although that is a principal of Islam toward non-believers, the Judeo-Christian tradition does not hold the same insignifigance visa-vis human life.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by waste gate

I guess you are correct. You cannot change the hearts and minds of the dead.
Are you advocating the wholesale slaughter of all Mussulmen? Although that is a principal of Islam toward non-believers, the Judeo-Christian tradition does not hold the same insignifigance visa-vis human life.

My personal belief about radical islam can't be given because they are against the forum rules for posting. Lets just say I see radical islam as a threat to mankind.
What I am saying is that Oren's article says we are on a crusade(I use the term crusade to encompass everything I have said up to now) and to stop that crusade would be a mistake.
To believe that article is to say that Bush sent the United States Armed Forces to change the face of the Middle East. To force our values on them.
Do you believe my last two sentences?

Originally Posted by bradclark1

My personal belief about radical islam can't be given because they are against the forum rules for posting. Lets just say I see radical islam as a threat to mankind.
What I am saying is that Oren's article says we are on a crusade(I use the term crusade to encompass everything I have said up to now) and to stop that crusade would be a mistake.
To believe that article is to say that Bush sent the United States Armed Forces to change the face of the Middle East. To force our values on them.
Do you believe my last two sentences?

Hind sight is always 20/20. I don't disagree that OIF did, and will continue to change the look of the ME. I do not believe that Bush, his administration, or congress was involved in a deliberate obfuscation of the facts in order to justify the action. Too many others (national governments) believed the same intellegence reports. Also Saddam's reaction to the UN inspections and UN resolutions could only lead a resonable person to believe that WMD were present and that his regime was a serious threat to the region. As I'm sure you realize, that part of the world is important not only to the US but to every industrial and pre-industrial country on the planet. No nation can easily allow a regime with intent upon controlling the region continue.

That being said, I do not think now is the time to question the reason for OIF.
The US and other nations have boots on the ground.
Now is the time to allow a nation to evolve into a state where everyone participates in the process. Shia, Sunni, Kurd, all must be part of the system. History has shown that when one group can control all the nation's resources the outcome is bloody.

Another aspect is the mixed messeges which the US, by its political in fighting is giving those trying to make a difference in Iraq and throughout the world. Re-deploy is nothing more than democrat speach for cut and run. It has its consequences.
A good example would be Darfur and any situation of its kind. When the only super power on earth (like it or not) does not have the will to ensure a positive outcome in Iraq, where there is a vested interest, why would they help any group of dis-invested people anywhere.

OK, enough, I could go on forever and touch on many topics but I must be going.
waste gate