Thread: Political Science question . . .

Remember all the fuss over Iran? Notice there are no "war drums" being beaten anywhere now. All is quiet. The President is worried about his Congessional support being lost in the upcoming Novermber elections. He is being real quiet about Iran, but would anyone like to wager with me that it is NOT still on his mind?

After the election in November, we will hear the war-talk again and the pressure will again be put on Iran. Even if Pres. Bush sees a Democratic Congress elected, we will still go to war with Iran because the American public was so outrageously panicked by 9/11 that they gave him enough war powers to drag us into another mess even worse than we are now experiencing in Iraq.

Why does our President want to do that? Keep in mind that what politicians say is rarely what they want or will do. He says he wants to stop "nuclear proliferation." If this were the REAL issue, he would see that North Korea is disarmed! It is only a smoke screen. He is not concerned about that. He is concerned about that because he represents the thinking of millions of Southern and Midwestern Penticostal, Baptist and Evangelical religious fanatics who see these as "The End Times" and that when it finally evolves into a nuclear battle of Armageeddon against Islam, "the savior will return and we will have God's Kindgom or Heavon on Earth."

It does not bother them that they are wrong and that they are moving in a direction that will bring catastrophie on all of us including those who know better and know the real effect and consequences of a final and total war with Islam, a war in which everyone loses.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

Would you mind if I move this one to General Discussions? It could be argued that political science is a social science, but this could be the first of many political debates.

I agree with you mostly after a quick read,

The thing that niggles at the back of my mind is, Islam wants the world to convert to Islam, that means the fundamentalists, radicals would more than likely be in charge, now this frightens the living daylights out of me. They will not just go away, so what to do??? Some one has to oppose them and at the moment that role is being performed by the US, what is the alternative?

Islam is what the great masses of Muslims believe and practice. It has very little, practically, to do with what their scriptures say because they are like our own Bible. That is, they are inconsistent. You can find anything you want in the bible. It contradicts itself consistently. This is true of all religions. What Islam is is the very secular life style most Muslims live in most parts of Islam. I lived for three years in Indonesia, the country with more Muslims than any other country on Earth. The are not fanatics. They want to live like you and I.

We who are more intellectual here should avoid being sucked into this rabid call to arms against our fellow beings of another religion. By isolated them on the basis of faith, we drive them from their secular identify with us into the arms of the fanatics. We encourage the growth of hate.

Actually, the Muslim scriptures describe a much more civil religion and way of life than does Judiasm. The Judiac faith is the oldest and, hence, the more brutal of all of them. It preaches taking and keeping the main part of the Near East and killing or slaughtering instead of driving out the people who live there because it is “The Chosen Land” and they are “the Chosen People.” Yet the average Jewish citizen does not believe in taking other people’s land . Their book promotes slavery, but they do not believe in slavery! They do not practice “and eye for an eye.”

Personally, my position is that all the old religions are just too old and no longer serve a constructive purpose. They need to be replaced with something better, and until we do, it is down hill all the way . . . .

Charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

I think that what you have posted is generally agreed with by the majority of people and not just those that you term intellectuals, however it does not change things regarding Islam and their intent to dominate the world, so as I asked before, what to do next, what is the alternative, to do nothing is just too dangerous.

Yes, to do nothing to stop terrorism would be dangerous. Worse yet, it would be silly. We need to protect ourselves. We also need to be intelligent enough to figure out why some Muslims turn to such fanaticism. We need to stop doing things that drive Muslims into these organizations. Invading Afganistan, then Iraq and next Iran has caused the growth of these organizations. Our invasion of their society is naturally interpreted increasingly as an assault on their faith and way of life. Most of Islam used to be quite secular. Most of the people praised our way of life. Even their dictatorships tried to appear to be democracies. But we are putting Muslims all over the world on the defensive. We are coming off as Christian crusaders. We are driving their resistance and it is the fanatics who have developed the only way they can effectively resist. So, it is no wonder they are increasingly turning to terrorism because of our aggressive policies in their land.

If you think most people are intellectual, I stand in awe of you. Most people know all this? Really?

Charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

I did not mean to suggest that all people were intellectuals, merely that you do not have to be an intellectual to find sense in your article I genuinely think that the majority of people [not all] have a pretty good idea of what is happening although not in depth as you do, and they would agree with you. If they will ever be motivated to do any thing about it is some thing else. Apathy again.
Visiting the link that you gave in your introductory post on this thread I am of the view that you support the idea of an atheist world, although I have not searched in depth on the site. I think that would be tough to achieve.

I favor your comments, but found this most interesting:

"you support the idea of an atheist world, although I have not searched in depth on the site. I think that would be tough to achieve."

Why do you say that? The world has already come close once to slipping into an atheistic world view. If Marxism had not been such a defective ideology in other ways, we would be in a united atheistic world right now.

Look back into our long history as a species. We once believed spirits were in everything. Now, we see only a few gods. The trend is away from "spirits."

The only reason the old religions survive is because our secular faith is failing and people are desperate to believe in something. So, they fall back to it for lack of something better.

If all this IS important, it would be well for people to read my website with care.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

Dispose of religion and another focus will arise to provide for the natural antagonistic tendency of man. Consequently, to think that religion is the source of the problem, rather than a symptom, is to ensure failure in any attempt to solve it. Such a myopic approach to human conflict is also utterly human. Consistency, what a wonderful thing.

Originally Posted by charles brough

Personally, my position is that all the old religions are just too old and no longer serve a constructive purpose. They need to be replaced with something better, and until we do, it is down hill all the way . . . .

What I am trying to find out from you is. what do you consider as something better, you must have a proposal in mind, just let us in on it, then we can discuss.

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Would you mind if I move this one to General Discussions? It could be argued that political science is a social science, but this could be the first of many political debates.

I think we should have a separate forum for political debates, it is a good idea.