If you agree that Islam is opposed to western culture. And also that the world is changing in that the cultures have more opportunities to clash; what do you think the answer is?

Do we ignore Islam? Do we subjugate things in our culture to accomodate theirs? Do we stand up to them, when we cannot negotiate accomodation? Do we enable their culture to perpetuate what we believe are human rights violations? Do we attempt to influence their culture so that it is more tolerant of us?

I’m not sure our current policies are effective, but I also believe that doing nothing about the conflicts, will only postpone when we will have to address them. And maybe postpone them to a time when nuclear proliferation makes the address significantly more difficult.

Read Sam Harris, “End of Faith” to get a perspective on how long that might take.

HighPlains: thanks for the recommendation.

In Islam, government and religion are one. You cant seem to grasp that what you are advocating is essentially that the US should stay in Iraq until our military changes their culture. Progressives are saying that is foolish, and even if possible would cost trillions and last centuries. Iraq had elections, Bush thinks Maliki is great, and all this Islamic stuff is going on in Basra. So already, in this democracy of Iraq, bad things are happening. Bad things in your opinion, but in the Islamic world, women have no status, and what was done to them in Basra was Islamically OK. You wanted democracy, you got it. What must happen it that Islam much change. Read Sam Harris, “End of Faith” to get a perspective on how long that might take. It took Christianity 500 years to reach its current state and will take Islam as long if they even try to change.

I could imagine your response to a patient that was wrongly operated on:

I’m sorry my friend but, Dr. Bush has opened your chest to remove a cancer that you did not have. We told him to get a second opinion. Although there are no other doctors around, we’ve decided to leave you here open on the table to fend for yourself; despite the objections of those that recommended doctor Bush in the first place. They have no credibility on the subject, due to there past assurances that there was cancer. It’s your bad fortune to have been operated on by Dr. Bush. Just because he is a doctor in our practice; we do not have an obligation to be involved in your circumstance. Besides, your treatment is costing us a fortune. And to be honest, we’re not really interested in your plight.

Good Luck, if you die, you can blame Dr. Bush and his insincere supporters.

Is that clear enough?

Yes, it is. And you have squandered your right to be heard.

but even if it were, it wouldn’t make the genocide, rape and human rights abuses any less real.

And you guys are responsible. You lackeys had your chance to show some spine, and you folded, en masse. Every time you comment, I’m going to be there, pointing out that you have no standing to express your “concern” after kowtowing for half a decade to your hero. You’re a phony, who thinks he can fool others by making “concerned” comments.

Your logic isn’t making much sense.

And you swallowed the invasion scam, whole. I would say look at your own cognitive flaws, because they’re the largest in the room.

Your fake concern for the Iraqis is touching.

barfly.

my concern for the Iraqis could be absolutely insincere (it’s not), but even if it were, it wouldn’t make the genocide, rape and human rights abuses any less real.

Your logic isn’t making much sense.

Your fake concern for the Iraqis is touching. We all know you guys couldn’t be bothered with such concerns before the invasion, so now, it’s too little too late. As before, you have forfeited your right to be concerned, when you sat silent during the invasion, and when scores of Iraqis were killed.

That’s no better for the Iraqis than Bush’s misguide invasion.

You’re obviously under the mistaken impression that your “concerns” are something to be seriously considered.

They aren’t.

You have forfeited the right to act concerned about the Iraq situation. When will you internalize that? You and your ilk were perfectly willing to accept collateral damage in the invasion, so crying those big fat crocodile tears for the poor Iraqis – and what might occur after we leave – is the apex of hypocrisy. You should only post your apologies for your past synchophancy, for in truth, you have forfeited the right to be taken seriously.

You’re speaking of Iran or Mormons in Texas?

We won’t turn a blind eye to mormon abuse of women, we shouldn’t be willing to turn a blind eye to Islamic abuse of women.

Consider this: Progressives have come to a point where they are arguing against democracy and human rights.

Imagine going back to 1850 and saying, we either don’t think it’s possible or worth it to enable blacks freedom or human rights.

Imagine going back to women’s suffage and saying; why should we support the rights of women? It’s too difficult or too costly or it’s not the culture of the people or it’s someone elses problem.

Could their be a more ‘progressive’ issue?

backup Says:

Self determination and the promotion of human rights is a worthwhile idea.

Is THAT what you call shock and awe bombing, invasion, irresponsible occupation leading to lawless looting and massive violence? Wow, that’s not what I’d call it.

More worthwhile than abandoning them to intolerant Islamic theocracy that hasn’t evolved since the Middle Ages.

Woah, back up there, Mr. backup. Let’s go back to self determination. Remember that? It was just one sentence previous in your statement. If the Iraqis self determine that they’d like an Islamic theocracy, then so be it. Democracy hasn’t changed much since ancient Greece, either, by the way. It’s probably gotten worse, actually.

May 20th, 2008 at 12:45 pm Recommend (0) | Report Abuse

You’re speaking of Iran or Mormons in Texas?

Charities know this as “donor fatigue,” but it might be more accurately described as disaster fatigue — the sense that these events are never-ending, uncontrollable and overwhelming.

So much the beloved concept that Republicans tout at every “socitalist welfare” thread: there isn’t need for taxes, people already gives to charities. This demonstrated why taxes are needed: people is volatile and not always willing to help. Especially when disasters pile up.

WASHINGTON – Despite numerous veto threats, senators in both parties have loaded up President Bush’s war funding bill with a grab bag of domestic programs, including work permits for immigrant farm labor and heating subsidies for the poor.

What has to say McIWillCutPorkAndIWillSupportTheMilitaryCain?

Self determination and the promotion of human rights is a worthwhile idea. More worthwhile than abandoning them to intolerant Islamic theocracy that hasn’t evolved since the Middle Ages. The world has change, what happens in the Middle East now has a great impact on the West. Do we ignore the area to theocracy that fosters ideas like martyrdom and jihad when the consequences have become so significant for the rest of us?

i have a weakness for coversationalizing with right wingers capeable of forming complete sentences. i find them fascinating, i wish i could put them in a giant ant farm shaped like the death star and shake them around when they started getting smarmy…

hollow words. why do you support leaders who dont accept the results of democracy?
if you say you support democracy but support leaders who refuse to, your a hypocrite. so what your saying is that if the people of iraq democratically choose to ally themselves with iran, have hezbolah run thier government, give thier tax dollar to al-queda, sell all thier oil to china and russia in euros, and impose the death penalty for anyone who descrates the koran, shaves thier beard, or lets thier wife out of the house without a view, you’d support that too, right?