Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - The Global Implications of Free Expression

HarmlessRabbit · 05-26-2004, 08:13 PM

I see your point(s). How can we continue to aggressively export "sin" to fundamentalist countries and not prepare ourselves for a violent response?

I think the problem is religious fundamentalism and intolerance in general, not just from Muslims. I see the Bush Administration, John Ashcroft, and Bush policies as an even greater threat than Muslim fundamentalists.

It easy to armchair quarterback, but I can imagine a way in which the USA would have led the world in liberating Iraq in a much different way. With the support of the U.N., the USA could have led a multinational force that would have had the legitimacy to lead to what Bush wanted: a largely bloodless war supported by the people. With that leadership, Iraq could have turned into the island of democracy that we all would like to see.

I could be wrong, however, and this idea does worry me. To me, the neo-conservatives have a long term plan to aggressively annex the rest of the world and put it under U.S. control. They may have the right idea. Given current birth rates in the western world, we're in a situation much like the decline of the Roman empire. Without some sort of upheaval, we will eventually be beaten by attrition. Do you know the birth rates in Islamic nations? They are a hell of a lot more than ours.

So, annexing Iraq by force, installing leaders that the USA can control, and using that as a base from which to control the rest of the Islamic world? It all sounds pretty good on paper.

In practice however, I don't think it is that easy to export democracy and american ideals. A commentator on NPR today was saying that the Cold War was largely created by the American determination that there *was* a Cold War. In other words, the act of defining the Cold War created in. I fear that the USA is creating a decades-long War on Terror by our actions of defining it.

05-26-2004, 08:13 PM	#5 (permalink)
HarmlessRabbit Junkie Location: San Jose, CA	I see your point(s). How can we continue to aggressively export "sin" to fundamentalist countries and not prepare ourselves for a violent response? I think the problem is religious fundamentalism and intolerance in general, not just from Muslims. I see the Bush Administration, John Ashcroft, and Bush policies as an even greater threat than Muslim fundamentalists. It easy to armchair quarterback, but I can imagine a way in which the USA would have led the world in liberating Iraq in a much different way. With the support of the U.N., the USA could have led a multinational force that would have had the legitimacy to lead to what Bush wanted: a largely bloodless war supported by the people. With that leadership, Iraq could have turned into the island of democracy that we all would like to see. I could be wrong, however, and this idea does worry me. To me, the neo-conservatives have a long term plan to aggressively annex the rest of the world and put it under U.S. control. They may have the right idea. Given current birth rates in the western world, we're in a situation much like the decline of the Roman empire. Without some sort of upheaval, we will eventually be beaten by attrition. Do you know the birth rates in Islamic nations? They are a hell of a lot more than ours. So, annexing Iraq by force, installing leaders that the USA can control, and using that as a base from which to control the rest of the Islamic world? It all sounds pretty good on paper. In practice however, I don't think it is that easy to export democracy and american ideals. A commentator on NPR today was saying that the Cold War was largely created by the American determination that there was a Cold War. In other words, the act of defining the Cold War created in. I fear that the USA is creating a decades-long War on Terror by our actions of defining it.