Question for the Left

I understand the main point, I think.  But the second paragraph lost me.

I love OS so much.

WGP guy wrote: If I was a liberal, I would answer that.  But since I'm not, I wonder the same thing.

Precisly.

First of all, OS... good to see you're still around. I haven't been on for a Loooong time. And last I'd heard you had been kicked from the forum.

Alright, down to business...
The political divisions in your country are more dramatic now than I think they have ever been, with each side taking fairly extreme stances. I think the solution to the issues you've brought up lie somewhere in between the positions that Republicans and Democrats have sandbagged and begun fighting over in earnest. The USA could be so much better if it weren't for the narrowmindedness of people like Ann Coulter. If you only surround yourself with people who agree with you, you grow ignorant and resentful of outside opinion... no one can grow or adapt and stay sharp in such a situation. This goes for both sides... although at the same time, there's merit on both sides as well.

As far as beliefs, either political or religious are concerned... if you can live and let live... you're a step ahead. Let the majority rule, as mandated by the very concept of democracy. And in a political system like that, to impose a belief system on anyone is fairly anathema to the whole point. Which is why the state and religion are to be kept seperate, or "Athiestic" as you say.

If you want an outside view, here I am. I think that you may be blinded by the beliefs of a few Middle Eastern fanatics. The entire Islamic world does not wish death upon the "Great Satan" of the USA. In fact the majority of muslims are hardly any different from the majority of Catholics... their religious beliefs are not the problem. The problem is political. The Saudi Royal family despite being islamic is not well-liked in the eyes of fanatics; neither are the leaders of Egypt. The Shi'ites, and the Sunnis are constantly at each others throats throughout the world. The Iraqi insurgence is being carried out partially because of this feud between those who have different interpretations of Mohammed's teachings... as such, no matter what the military leaders conducting the counter-insurgency operations in Iraq do, there are always going to be reasons for one group of people to want to avoid the upcoming elections: the Shi'ites are going to win it.

There are thousands of muslims living within western countries, and they are generally peace-loving people who are just as appalled at the use of terrorism as you or I. The fact that thousands of them exist happily within the social structure that we consider to be "normal" and are perfectly content with it is an indication that it has nothing to do with their religion. There are social systems in place in many muslim countries that are really not that different from what we live in, so it's not a social thing either.

Are there Islamic Terrorists who dream about splashing joyously in rivers of western blood? Of course... but you can't say that 1.6 Billion muslims in the world are ALL terrorists, or that they ALL want to see the west fall and the world retreat back into the 7th century...
Should war be made on the terrorists? You bet... no one disagrees with that. I think that the debate is about the best way to go about doing that... Topple sovereign governments? Maybe in some cases... but in all cases? Probably not... because there comes a point where it stops looking like self-defense and starts looking like "blood for oil".... regardless of the reasons given. And like it or not, we all live on the same planet, and sooner or later we're going to have to learn to get along.

And with that... I'll take my leave... I've got stuff to do.

That is a very good, thoughtful post, Bravo.

I understand that Tippy, my point was that he was trying to say that the majority liberal view was that we should not have dealt with Germany. That's ridiculous because he's trying to compare the threat of Germany to the threat of Iraq. It's apples to oranges.

Edited by Dune

Dune wrote: That is a very good, thoughtful post, Bravo.

Who are you speaking to?

My fault, I thought you talking to me for a second........

Clark Kent wrote: I got to the part where it said that "the Left and the Democrates [sic] state..." and then I stopped reading, since it is obviously just partisan drivel after that.

I should have stopped there too Clark.

As to the mugging of an old lady part? Where do you get the idea that I wouldn't step in. Besides the fact that I am already a law enforcement officer, if I was only a civillian of course I would step in. You're generalizations of liberals is astounding and useless to combat against. I'm sure the right would get pretty angry if I generalized them as gun-toting racist bible thumpers, but of course I have respect for others.

Old soldier put it best I think on the religion aspects.  If I'm not mistaken, this is the second arguement on that matter[slightly different issues though] in 3ish days.  I totally agree.  We tried to be more than reasonable, well not we as in America but as allies, with hitler with appeasement by sacrificing smaller countries.  These are the same europeans that call us imperialistic and self-centered.

Clark Kent Wrote: "I got to the part where it said that "the Left and the Democrates [sic] state..." and then I stopped reading, since it is obviously just partisan drivel after that."

If you don't agree with him, then stand up for it.  Don't wait for someone to come along and take up your cause.  Say what you think instead of "its obviously partisan."  Reasons might just help your agenda.

Edited by TheHoff

OS Can I have ur Baby?