Iraq: The worst mistake in American History....or was it?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Which kinda proves the point about 'saving lives' by dropping both bombs.

If Japan wasn't willing to surrender after the firebombings, or the first A-bomb....surely they would have fought to the death had the allied forces invaded.

Pretty hard to really know given it never happened. If we look at the fact that Japan had few remaining weapons, supplies, vehicles, food, able-bodied men, veteran soldiers/leadership... I would contend that we don't know 'for sure' what would have happened. I know it's popular to claim that 'Japan definitely would have resisted to the last man, woman and child'... I personally don't see it give the sad state of affairs Japan was in at the moment.

But in history we were repeatedly cautioned against saying we 'knew what would have happened', these are just my opinions.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

How did they lie?

Originally Posted by Azure

Every report that Bush and his administration used to orchestrate the war was available to everyone in Congress. Even if Dean wants to say that the intelligence they received was 'corrupt'....nothing was mentioned in the Senate Report in the intelligence gathered on Iraq leading up the war.

Not true in any shape or form. Congress does NOT have full access to information, especially intelligence data. The only ones who had access to the reports that Bush and Cheney used to cook up the evidence were on the Senate Intelligence Committee. The name escapes me right now, but the Democratic head of that committee demanded that the reports be provided to Congress and Cheney sent him a tersely worded email that basically told him to keep his nose out of the affairs of the White House. The information that Congress was working with was hand-picked and grossly flawed. The Silberman-Robb Commission report stated as much.

Also, Bush and his 'cronies' do not generate intelligence. And like I said earlier, there was almost 100% support from the

US intelligence community in regards to the intelligence they found. IIRC, the only thing some had a problem with was the 'nuclear'....side to the whole equation.

You don’t recall anything correctly. Cheney and Wolfowitz had complete control over the intel that was gathered and had final say on what information was included or rejected. There was also a great level of discord in the intelligence community over the handling of the data that lead to war.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yes, all those 'insiders.'

I'm surprised that the Senate Report never mentioned them. Surely if they have 100% verified proof that Bush and his 'cronies' hand-picked evidence, they'd have brought it up.

Curveball was a intelligence 'failure.'

Originally Posted by Azure

Tenet was responsible for bringing him in and using his so-called intelligence as a major requisite for going to war.

No, it was an intelligence disaster, completely preventable by which happened because of manipulations by the Bush Administration and some memory lapses by the CIA. The whole Curveball source is very well outlined in ex-CIA Director George Tenet’s book, At the Center of the Storm, My Years at the CIA. To summarize the Curveball saga, the BND (the German CIA) had this chemical engineer walk into one of their refugee camps making al sorts of outrageous claims. Because some of his descriptions were plausible they took the guy in and identified him as an asset. The information they got was shared with the Americans, but no American agent was every allowed to interview the guy. When the Americans finally pressed, to confirm for themselves the guy was real, the Germans said the guy was not a reliable source of information and thought he was mentally unstable. Tyler Drumheller, head of the European Division met with BND himself and got this information, so there was zero potential for misunderstanding. Curveball was known to the intelligence community as a failed asset. In his testimony to the Silberman-Robb Commission, Drumheller stated that this information was disseminated throughout the agency and that he actually talked to John McLaughlin directly about the Curveball data included in Colin Powell’s speech to the UN. McLaughlin has taken a stance of “I don’t recall” which is a wise move since it would be his head that would roll. The BND called several times before the UN speech to make sure that the Curveball data was not included, but those calls “never reached the appropriate levels” even though the BND claim to have talked directly to Tenet (Tenet, 2007, p. 375-383).

So, Tenet never brought the guy in, never talked with the guy, and no American agent ever had one word with this guy. That directly from the head of the CIA.

Seriously, if the guy in charge of my intelligence comes up to me and says with 100% certainty that the intelligence they have gathered is correct....I'd go to war too. Unless of course you believe Tenet was in on the whole deal to cook the evidence. They must have not paid him enough though....as he left the CIA and wrote a book blaming Bush about everything.

That’s funny, because no one ever said there was any certainty of anything. The only person who actually had the cojones to stand up and say, with certainty, that anything was going on was Joe Wilson (Tenet, 2007, p. 453-454). He stood up and said the whole story was BS and he provided the data to support the position. For that, his CIA asset wife was outed in an act of treason by someone within the White House (hello Dick Cheney).

'Slam Dunk.' I bet his publisher said that too.

That comment is taken completely out of context and has been discussed over and over. A whole chapter is in Tenet’s book outlining the comment and the circumstances surrounding the comment itself. The “slam dunk” comment was made:

• Ten months after the President saw the first war plan for Iraq.
• Four months after the Vice President’s speech to Veterans of Foreign Wars where he said the was “no doubt” about Saddam’s possession of WMDs.
• Three months after the President told the United Nations that the Iraqi regime should immediately disclose, remove or destroy WMDs and related materials.
• Several months after the United States repositioned assets to be used in a war with in the Middle East.
• Two months after Congress has authorized the use of force, based on falty intelligence.
• Two weeks after the Pentagon had issued first military deployment orders.

In fact, the sound bite comes from a meeting where John McLaughlin mad a presentation of the “intelligence” to the select few cabinet members. Once McLaughlin was done it was obvious the intel was not good enough and would have to be re-crafted before it was presented to the UN and the American people. Tenet told Bush that strengthening the public presentation was a “slam dunk”. In other words, the public presentation needed to be reworked and strengthen (which also indicates Tenet knew the story was bogus). This comment was published in Bob Woodward’s (admittedly faulty) book Plan of Attack. Never did Tenet say that the intel was a slam dunk (Tenet, 2007, p.359-364).

Course, it didn't help that the Germans kept their mouths shut about his validity. Guess they were concerned about the whole oil for food scandal .

The Germans did try communicate with the Americans. It was their asset to begin with and they told the Americans that the information was suspect and not to be trusted (Tenet, 2007, p. 377). Speaking of not to be trusted, you may also want to do a little more research on the whole “oil for food” scandal. That is the biggest red herring ever to be floated in the whole Iraq mess. American and British companies took advantage of the program in the same way companies from every other country did. In fact, a British MP was caught up in the mess, but this was ignored, along with the American involvement, but the hawkish RW media. Ironically, not many sources cared to follow this story at all, except this RW media outlets with an agenda.

I believe Saddam had WMD at one point....but I think the

US intelligence community really screwed up the 'when' portion of that argument. Obviously he never had them when they invaded.

Yeah, they sure did. The United States provided the technology and materials for them to build them. The United States also idly sat by while Saddam used them on his own people.

Of course the United States know the Iraqis didn’t have WMDs. The UN inspectors said so. The United States inspectors said so (Ritter, 2005). The intelligence community said it was unsure, but backed their inspection teams. The military didn’t believe it and stated flatly that Iraq was no threat to anyone, even in the region. Everyone said it was unlikely except for the Bushies.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Welcome back, Kotter.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Prove it.

Prove it that he intentionally lied, and fabricated evidence leading up to the Iraq War.

Prove that he and his cronies cooked intelligence reports. Prove it.

It already has been proven through several reports, including the Silberman-Robb Commission report. No, they don’t come right out and say that the Administration lied, but they are pretty pointed in where they point out the failures.

BTW, no one needs a full admission to know that someone lied. Your parents know when you lie and they don’t need you to make an admission of that fact. Your friends know when you’re full of crap too, but don’t need an admission. Your parents come home from vacation to find the car banged up, and you were the only one with access to the vehicle, they are going to know how it got banged up. You can try and claim innocence all you want, but they know the truth. They know you’re lying even if they don’t have the proof.

Your logic makes no sense. If Bush was lying from the start, why wouldn't he send in a black-ops team and plant WMD in

Iraq? That way he can justify his war...Cheney can justify making millions....public support for the war would probably still be up at 40-50%....and nobody could in theory say he 'lied.' I mean, if the guy is such a crony, and Cheney is so greedy, why wouldn't they make sure all those ends were covered?

Couldn’t have anything to do with incredible number of inspections that took place? Couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that other countries also have intelligence assets that would immediately come forward and point out the fact that the evidence was planted? That probably never clicked for you because you believe the United States lives in a vacuum and that they are the only country with the power or capability to have intelligence assets.

Its funny really. Seems like its popular to say that Bush lied....the whole world believes it already because of the 'spin' the media has used to turn 'intelligence failure' into 'Bush lied - people died.'

Spin? Are you kidding me? The media treated Bush and Cheney like rockstars for the majority of their tenure in office. Almost every media chain in the country fell into lockstep behind the President and assisted in forwarding his agenda. It was brilliant and almost worked.

To make this judgment you must look at the zeitgeist as a whole and appreciate the level of manipulation that has taken place. It truly is an amazing piece of work. From the patriotic bluster and propaganda to the echo-chamber sloganeering, it has been a magnificent job of perception management. From the brilliant job at shifting the general perception of the media, to the deregulation of ownership rules, to the development of new media sources, to the development of subversive campus “thought police”, the whole game has been brilliantly executed. The only problem in what took place was the generation of free thinkers that couldn’t be coerced into swallowing every single thing told to them in the media. That is slowly changing though, as a new generation is being indoctrinated through the new media, and they will so assume the seat of power making another crack at this inevitable. In the future no one will dare question the motives or actions of the executive, because you’ve been condition to not to. The President doesn’t lie, unless he’s a Democrat and there’s cum stains on a dress.

Yet, every single report dedicated to finding out that exact so-called 'lie'...has ONLY talked about a massive intelligence failure.

That’s the American political way. You don’t point fingers at the office of the President, especially if your agency needs more funding, which the President controls.

Nothing has been documented about Bush 'lying'......except for those 'insiders'....who suddenly come out and write books telling the whole world how Bush forced the intelligence community to generate evidence that would prove Saddam had WMD. Yet, the real sources....those who investigated the WHOLE fiasco, never said anything about that.

Really? What of Hans Blix? What of Scott Ritter? What of Richard Clarke? What of George Tenet? These were the guys that were right in the middle of the whole thing, they investigated the whole fiasco, they lived the whole mess, and they have come out and outlined where the Administration has lied. Not good enough for you though. No, you’re not going to believe anything until Dubya holds you in his lap and tells you face-to-face that he lied and cooked the books.

So who are we going to believe? Insiders who take advantage of popular opinion and write books? Or a Senate Intelligence Committee who gathered ALL the evidence available and came to a different conclusion?

The Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the Silberman-Robb Committee Report both pointed out the failings of the system. That is what their job is to do. Look at the institutions and find flaws in the systemic processes that are used to gather and process intelligence. They did not name names because that is not their job. As well, the President and Vice President REFUSED to answers questions under oath or have their statements transcribed, which means they can not be used in identifying any wrong doing. So even if they wanted to name the Administration directly as lying, they could not, as if falls outside of their mandate and the commentary from the executive not examined.

Lying is a pretty big demeanor...and by theory, it should be sufficient groups to impeach a President. If Bush did lie....don't you think the Democrats would push the impeachment process? There is a reason the majority of them are staying away from that. And I firmly believe it is because they failed the American people as well.

The reason they refuse to impeach are pretty obvious and they are all political. Having Bush in office for the remainder of his term pretty well guarantees the Democrats an easy ride in the election this fall. If they impeached they would have to take over this mess and be responsible for making changes in a very short time frame, or feel the wrath of the electorate come the second Tuesday in November. It’s better to let Dubya twist in the wind and try and clean up the mess when you have an actual mandate from the voters, not from the courts.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

No. Honestly, to understand this conflict, you have to understand the ideological morass of the

Originally Posted by peter12

United States. If you don't understand millenarianism, the development of Wilsonian intervention and how these two ascend and descend in influence upon American foreign policy, then you really have nothing to add.

Ah Peter, missed people tossing around theories like Millenarianism and concepts like Wilsonian doctrine without understanding the context in today's world, especially while attempting to cloud the two with the terms ascension and decension, as if there is any relationship what so ever.

Now, its been a while but, millenarianism is the belief that a major transformation comes because of some sort of cosmic cycle. These groups can be religious, political or (anti) social in nature, but their beliefs are that great change will take place because of actions outside the control of man. To believe that this type of faction exists within the true control structures of American government is ridiculous. The bodies which provide continuity of government for the United States is strictly focused on one thing, continuity and expansion of American hegemony. If these people really believed they could bring about the end of days or the dawning of a new age, they would use the incredible arsenal of weapons at their disposal and do so. Fortunately the groups that provide the continuity of government are multi-theist in their beliefs and worship daily to the Gods of Money and Power. Millenarianism would likely bring an end to each of these constructs and these guys would no longer have what they desire.

Wilsonian doctrine is also BS. The United States abandoned this dogma in the 60’s and has gone completely in the opposite direction. The foundations of Wilsonian doctrine can be found in his 1918 Fourteen Points speech delivered just over 90 years ago. Wilson believed that peace could be achieved through equality and outlined how such a noble goal could be achieved in this speech. Here are the present day issues from this 1918 speech and exactly the United States and the Bush administration is in direct conflict with Wilsonian doctrine.

(1) Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.

The United States abandoned this principle shortly after WWII and have been using the intelligence services to make sure this goal is never attained. To make matters worse, the United States has taken to backdoor diplomacy, as their standard modus operandi, in achieving any or all of their goals. Diplomacy is to be conducted behind closed doors and kept secretive. That has never been more evident than under the Bush Administration.

And let us not forget the number of international accords that the Bush Administration has thumbed its nose at and unilaterally implemented whatever levels or systems they see fit.

(3) The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.

I think we can pretty well agree that the United States does not hold to this belief in any shape or form. Ask anyone who worked in the softwood or wheat industries during the late 90’s and start of this decade and you’ll see that the only fair deal for the United States is the one that works for the United States. Screw everyone else.

(4) Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety. This also said that this safety would be kept in place for years to come.

Wilson must be spinning in his grave. Considering that Bush, today, announced a $3 trillion budget that would see more increased spending on the military, and decreases to all social programs, I would think that this is in direct conflict with Wilsonian dogma. When you consider that the United States spends more on weapons than the rest of the world combined you quickly realize that Wilsonian doctrine is dead.

(5) A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.

The United States’ position on Israel sinks Wilsonian doctrine. When you look at what happened with the invasion of Iraq, a sovereign and non-threatening nation, and the resulting chaos and civil war, the Bush Administration has taken a big steaming crap on Wilsonian doctrine.

(14) A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike

This lead to the League of Nations which in turn lead to the United Nations. This is the heart of Woodrow Wilson’s vision of a cooperative world where nations would work together to find solutions to the horrors that was the first world war. How does America find itself now? Completely critical of the United Nations, refusing to acknowledge and abide by the International Courts, and in general believing that the United States has he right to implement what every policy it wants regardless of the negative outcome to other nations.

There are some who still cling to the belief that the United States holds Wilsonian doctrine in high regard, but those are few and strictly ideologues. Wilsonian dogma is as dead an buried as Woodrow is himself. Some may talk a good game, and like to quote Wilsonian doctrine, but the reality is that the actions of the United States speak loudest.

BTW... I hope school is going well for you.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Ah Peter, missed people tossing around theories like Millenarianism and concepts like Wilsonian doctrine without understanding the context in today's world, especially while attempting to cloud the two with the terms ascension and decension, as if there is any relationship what so ever.

Now, its been a while but, millenarianism is the belief that a major transformation comes because of some sort of cosmic cycle. These groups can be religious, political or (anti) social in nature, but their beliefs are that great change will take place because of actions outside the control of man. To believe that this type of faction exists within the true control structures of American government is ridiculous. The bodies which provide continuity of government for the United States is strictly focused on one thing, continuity and expansion of American hegemony. If these people really believed they could bring about the end of days or the dawning of a new age, they would use the incredible arsenal of weapons at their disposal and do so. Fortunately the groups that provide the continuity of government are multi-theist in their beliefs and worship daily to the Gods of Money and Power. Millenarianism would likely bring an end to each of these constructs and these guys would no longer have what they desire.

Wilsonian doctrine is also BS. The United States abandoned this dogma in the 60’s and has gone completely in the opposite direction. The foundations of Wilsonian doctrine can be found in his 1918 Fourteen Points speech delivered just over 90 years ago. Wilson believed that peace could be achieved through equality and outlined how such a noble goal could be achieved in this speech. Here are the present day issues from this 1918 speech and exactly the United States and the Bush administration is in direct conflict with Wilsonian doctrine.

(1) Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.

The United States abandoned this principle shortly after WWII and have been using the intelligence services to make sure this goal is never attained. To make matters worse, the United States has taken to backdoor diplomacy, as their standard modus operandi, in achieving any or all of their goals. Diplomacy is to be conducted behind closed doors and kept secretive. That has never been more evident than under the Bush Administration.

And let us not forget the number of international accords that the Bush Administration has thumbed its nose at and unilaterally implemented whatever levels or systems they see fit.

(3) The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.

I think we can pretty well agree that the United States does not hold to this belief in any shape or form. Ask anyone who worked in the softwood or wheat industries during the late 90’s and start of this decade and you’ll see that the only fair deal for the United States is the one that works for the United States. Screw everyone else.

(4) Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety. This also said that this safety would be kept in place for years to come.

Wilson must be spinning in his grave. Considering that Bush, today, announced a $3 trillion budget that would see more increased spending on the military, and decreases to all social programs, I would think that this is in direct conflict with Wilsonian dogma. When you consider that the United States spends more on weapons than the rest of the world combined you quickly realize that Wilsonian doctrine is dead.

(5) A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.

The United States’ position on Israel sinks Wilsonian doctrine. When you look at what happened with the invasion of Iraq, a sovereign and non-threatening nation, and the resulting chaos and civil war, the Bush Administration has taken a big steaming crap on Wilsonian doctrine.

(14) A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike

This lead to the League of Nations which in turn lead to the United Nations. This is the heart of Woodrow Wilson’s vision of a cooperative world where nations would work together to find solutions to the horrors that was the first world war. How does America find itself now? Completely critical of the United Nations, refusing to acknowledge and abide by the International Courts, and in general believing that the United States has he right to implement what every policy it wants regardless of the negative outcome to other nations.

There are some who still cling to the belief that the United States holds Wilsonian doctrine in high regard, but those are few and strictly ideologues. Wilsonian dogma is as dead an buried as Woodrow is himself. Some may talk a good game, and like to quote Wilsonian doctrine, but the reality is that the actions of the United States speak loudest.

BTW... I hope school is going well for you.

Well, I think if we take a step back to the cultural significance of millenarianism and Wilsonian doctrine, I could make the case for there being a significant affect upon the cultural foundations of the United States and hence it's government.

To begin, your understanding of millennial movements is incomplete as it only describes a religious millenarian movement. As I would see it, a millenarian movement is one that views present society as dualistic, good against evil. There is a struggle which brings society towards a monistic finality in which human nature is perfected. In the case of a religious movement, you have the Kingdom of God on Earth. The notion that the divine will intervene on behalf of the righteous to enter in the final age. Of course, dispensationalism, premillenialism etc.. are all parts of this world view.

In the secular sense, this struggle is more influenced either by rationalistic Enlightenment thinking or by left-Hegalian doctrine. Namely that through purely atheistic human action, an end of history can be achieved. Thomas Paine, the ultimate American Revolution apologist, coined it perfectly when he said, "We have the power to make the world anew". That's pure millenarianism. It's reflected in things like Manifest Destiny, which STILL have an impact upon American policy and thought.

The US has deep cultural roots in all kinds of millenarianism, whether it be Wilson's idealism, the Scofield Bible, or Moody's Bible Institute. To put a complex theory crudely, it has certainly impacted the American crusade to bring democracy to the world.

[Ford Prefect]

Welcome back Lanny ... our word count has been lagging lately.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, I think if we take a step back to the cultural significance of millenarianism and Wilsonian doctrine, I could make the case for there being a significant affect upon the cultural foundations of the United States and hence it's government.

To begin, your understanding of millennial movements is incomplete as it only describes a religious millenarian movement. As I would see it, a millenarian movement is one that views present society as dualistic, good against evil. There is a struggle which brings society towards a monistic finality in which human nature is perfected. In the case of a religious movement, you have the Kingdom of God on Earth. The notion that the divine will intervene on behalf of the righteous to enter in the final age. Of course, dispensationalism, premillenialism etc.. are all parts of this world view.

In the secular sense, this struggle is more influenced either by rationalistic Enlightenment thinking or by left-Hegalian doctrine. Namely that through purely atheistic human action, an end of history can be achieved. Thomas Paine, the ultimate American Revolution apologist, coined it perfectly when he said, "We have the power to make the world anew". That's pure millenarianism. It's reflected in things like Manifest Destiny, which STILL have an impact upon American policy and thought.

The US has deep cultural roots in all kinds of millenarianism, whether it be Wilson's idealism, the Scofield Bible, or Moody's Bible Institute. To put a complex theory crudely, it has certainly impacted the American crusade to bring democracy to the world.

Wonderfully stated, and still a load of hooey. If you think for a second that anyone in the real government thinks about anything but expansion of power and wealth you're kidding yourself. It's wonderful to quote the founding fathers, as their ideals were brilliant, but we have to understand context. In their time their "world" was "new" and the majority of it had not been discovered. Our "world" is substantially different and we know a lot more than we did then. The millenarianism belief had much more support during the time of Paine, but we have grown past that. Heck, even by Wilson's time millenarianism was on the wane, and things were pretty primative then. Those who believe in millenarianism are on the very fringe of society, and not trusted by those in positions of authority. Millenarianism and Wilsonian beliefs may have had a place in formulating American foreign policy in the past, but those days are dead and gone. Again, US actions internationally speak louder than all the rhetoric in the world.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Welcome back Lanny ... our word count has been lagging lately.

Trust me, I've noticed. The monosyllabic content on the site is at an all time high!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Trust me, I've noticed. The monosyllabic content on the site is at an all time high!

What'chew talkin bout Lanny?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Wonderfully stated, and still a load of hooey. If you think for a second that anyone in the real government thinks about anything but expansion of power and wealth you're kidding yourself. It's wonderful to quote the founding fathers, as their ideals were brilliant, but we have to understand context. In their time their "world" was "new" and the majority of it had not been discovered. Our "world" is substantially different and we know a lot more than we did then. The millenarianism belief had much more support during the time of Paine, but we have grown past that. Heck, even by Wilson's time millenarianism was on the wane, and things were pretty primative then. Those who believe in millenarianism are on the very fringe of society, and not trusted by those in positions of authority. Millenarianism and Wilsonian beliefs may have had a place in formulating American foreign policy in the past, but those days are dead and gone. Again, US actions internationally speak louder than all the rhetoric in the world.

Lanny, one of the tenets of a small-c conservative political science is an emphasis on the continuity of ideas. Millenarian ideas influence what Edmund Burke called the social fabric. Cultural knowledge or mythos, which profoundly affects the very roots of world-views. The Founding Fathers, definitely not all of them, thought America was a new opportunity to fundamentally change the way human beings behaved. This sort of thinking does not bring with it pluralism or pragmatics, but a fanatical endeavour to progress or change, regardless of incremental reform.

I think you see this reflected in American foreign policy. The notion that American ideals are able to inject themselves into foreign countries, regardless of their own cultural traditions, and completely transform the people of that society into something "new". That's not to say American ideas are bad, America is better as a conservative nation. One that sees the value and beauty of the ideas that it helped coax along through the world's troubled times, but also respectful of the Western cultural tradition that brought them to us.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

Lanny, one of the tenets of a small-c conservative political science is an emphasis on the continuity of ideas. Millenarian ideas influence what Edmund Burke called the social fabric. Cultural knowledge or mythos, which profoundly affects the very roots of world-views. The Founding Fathers, definitely not all of them, thought America was a new opportunity to fundamentally change the way human beings behaved. This sort of thinking does not bring with it pluralism or pragmatics, but a fanatical endeavour to progress or change, regardless of incremental reform.

I think you see this reflected in American foreign policy. The notion that American ideals are able to inject themselves into foreign countries, regardless of their own cultural traditions, and completely transform the people of that society into something "new". That's not to say American ideas are bad, America is better as a conservative nation. One that sees the value and beauty of the ideas that it helped coax along through the world's troubled times, but also respectful of the Western cultural tradition that brought them to us.

Okay, we're in 2008, not 1778. A lot has changed, especially in the last 60 years. Our increased knowledge has cast millenarianism aside. All sane individuals will acknowledge that some massive event is not going to come along and change the way we all think. I'm pretty sure that anyone who believed that has had their hopes dashed when 2000 came and went (and we're still here) and 9/11 did nothing to alter the collective consciousness. In fact, I'd say it made things much worse and we're more divided than ever.

America is better as a liberal nation. That is when the world has been most trusting of her and believed most in her values. The founding fathers were liberals and their liberal beliefs are still there in the National Archives for all to read. This is what inspires people and makes them believe in America. This is wat makes people believe that America will alter its foreign policy. Little do they know that American power is entrenched with the conservatives, and this is why they should be afraid of what she has to offer. Until the Wilsonian beliefs are fully embraced again I think we're kidding ourselves about the spread of American democracy.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

(lots of good reading)

Welcome back.

I love you.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Welcome back.

I love you.

Thank you. I love you too? And I hope you mean that in the most hetrosexual way possible.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Thank you. I love you too? And I hope you mean that in the most hetrosexual way possible.

Hey if no ones around its just two bro's helping each other out.

(Ok, I just cringed at that one)