How America Met the Mideast

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.

Originally Posted by bradclark1

What self determination?

You know. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Or better yet, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'.

Under Islam there is only one religion, and pain of death or tribute be upon you if you do not abide.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

No. You've missed the point. America thinks that the ideas of freedom and democracy are universal in nature and do not contradict Islam in essence. America is not attempting to sway Islamic countries to become Christian. America is in vain trying to convince Islamic countries that they can be freedom loving without contradicting their religion. The American government is extremly naive and dangerously so.

Your definition of the Crusades is historically accurate and reflects what I said about the goal of the crusades not to be the proselytization of non-Christians but rather a clergy-sanctioned military reconquest of lands previously under Christian sway and rule, which were overrun by Islamists.

You have me wrong. I know we aren't. What I'm saying is that Orens article says we are and in a round-about way Oren is saying Bush started this action as a means to change the middle east to our way of living. In other words we attacked because of Bush out right lying in his reasons. In essence a crusade.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by waste gate

You know. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Or better yet, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'.

Under Islam there is only one religion, and pain of death or tribute be upon you if you do not abide.

So you are saying we attacked to give them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? To change hearts and minds? The reasons Bush gave were just a pretext?

Originally Posted by bradclark1

So you are saying we attacked to give them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? To change hearts and minds? The reasons Bush gave were just a pretext?

No more a pretext than congress authorizing the use of force based on all available evidence. Including but not limited to French, German, Russian, Isreali, and any number of other domestic intellagence agencies dating back through the Clinton administration.

[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?

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

You have me wrong. I know we aren't. What I'm saying is that Orens article says we are and in a round-about way Oren is saying Bush started this action as a means to change the middle east to our way of living. In other words we attacked because of Bush out right lying in his reasons. In essence a crusade.

The review doesn't say that "Bush started this action as a means." Bush "declared a policy" states the review. This was after the declaration of war, whose reasons are listed all over the Internet. Bush's policy is an attempt to prevent a relapse in Iran. Wishful thinking.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

The review doesn't say that "Bush started this action as a means." Bush "declared a policy" states the review. This was after the declaration of war, whose reasons are listed all over the Internet. Bush's policy is an attempt to prevent a relapse in Iran. Wishful thinking.

How America Met the Mideast

The U.S. encounter with the Middle East began centuries before the Iraq War, propelled by idealists eager to tranform the region in their own image.

Just the last half of that sentence for starters.
Got to leave for a while and besides that my head is beginning to hurt.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

How America Met the Mideast

The U.S. encounter with the Middle East began centuries before the Iraq War, propelled by idealists eager to tranform the region in their own image.

Just the last half of that sentence for starters.

But I was referring to your understanding of the reference specifically to Bush in the WP review.

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

[joea]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

The Crusades were not about proselytization. And while America has always been a Christian dominated nation, it's promotion of values are and were for the most part Universal and not theological in nature. At least this is what I understood from this book review and what I've always understood about American history.

Yes that's pretty much my understanding, what I think has changed are the means of promoting those values.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

But I was referring to your understanding of the reference specifically to Bush in the WP review.

Today, the conventional view is that George W. Bush took the United States on a radical departure when he declared a policy to transform the Middle East and that, as soon as he leaves office, U.S. policy will return to an alleged tradition of realism, rooted in the hard-headed pursuit of tangible national interests. This is both bad history and bad prophecy, as Oren shows in Power, Faith, and Fantasy, a series of fascinating and beautifully written stories about individual Americans over the past four centuries and their contact with Middle Eastern cultures

Now I haven't read the book and I'm just going on this review. This paragraph speaks of the region. Not Iran, not Iraq but the middle east.
The real question is is this believable?
It started with 9/11 and Afghanistan now did it leapfrog to a policy to transform the Middle East? The underlined above says its a conventional view. My question to Waste Gate was does he believe that. Does anyone believe that. If Iraq had of gone hunky dory what was the policy/plan after?

[The Avon Lady]

You can read chapter 1 of Oren's book here.

For a book dedicated solely to this history of the US Navy's battle against the Islamic pirates 2 centuries ago, I highly recommend Victory in Tripoli, by Joshua London.

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Now I haven't read the book and I'm just going on this review. This paragraph speaks of the region. Not Iran, not Iraq but the middle east.
The real question is is this believable?
It started with 9/11 and Afghanistan now did it leapfrog to a policy to transform the Middle East? The underlined above says its a conventional view. My question to Waste Gate was does he believe that. Does anyone believe that. If Iraq had of gone hunky dory what was the policy/plan after?

“War is the continuation of policy by other means."
- Karl von Clausewitz

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Sounds like an interesting read for the history buffs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011901298.html

Thanks waste gate for the tip.
I read the article and decided to buy te book. It may be the American counterpart of 'BIBLE AND SWORD, How the British came to Palestine' by the eminent historian Barbara Tuchman.
I'm looking forward to read this book...