Originally posted by jimbo
Just my two cents, please don't take any of this the wrong way. I am an east coast progressive who is humbled (honestly) by the power of the red states.

It seems to me a battle is going on worldwide between two competing philosophies. At the root is the question as to whether the personal freedoms and secular beliefs that we have gained in the past hundred years are a good thing or the cause of unhappiness and moral decay.

I think the culture of the individual coming first and the absolute separation of religion and government (even given the problems it has created) is the best thing that has ever happened to the world. I don't want to see anything take it away.

I know most of you will probably disagree with me, but very dangerous men (in my opinion) are controlling our country right now. The connection between the philosophy of Leo Strauss and many of the men in the Bush administration is easily verifiable. I find Strauss's philosophy scary and fear a future decade of perpetual war. (Strauss felt this warfare and struggle would be good for the morals of the common man and keep the Philosopher Kings, i.e. neocons, in power)

Research it for yourself if you like.

Coincidentally this philosophy and its disdaine for modern secular freedom and liberalism (i.e. modern America and Europe) is very similar to the philosophy at the root of the Islamic Fundalmentalist movement.

Perhaps it is a common idea whose time has come. (the BBC just produced a documentary about these belief systems called "The Power of Nightmares")

Many in our government including John McCaine disagree with these men (the neocons). It seems quite likely that the president's father disagrees with some of the radicals his son has placed in powerful positions as well, though he will never make any public statements that might interfere with his son's presidency.

Please don't flame me, I'm only trying to shed a little light. ;dp;

If you have any interest in the philosophy that we have just given our leaders (mostly unknowingly) a mandate to pursue in force see these links:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...S_GRAPHIC.html
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/200...e_strauss.html
http://www.acutor.be/silt/index.php?id=572
http://www.acutor.be/silt/index.php?id=575
http://home.earthlink.net/~karljahn/Strauss.htm
All very interesting articles, written by liberal journalists and shaped to prove whatever point they are trying to prove. As far as the "made up or imagined" threat of terrorists mentioned - WTF is that all about?? Did anyone forget about 9-11, did someone forget about the threats continuing to made on the American public by these people, do they not watch their own liberal newscasts showing the suicide bombers??? I don't get it!!

I guess a lot of people think if we leave them (the terrorists) alone, they won't bother us - we weren't bothering anyone on 9-11 that I recall. These people are called terrorists because terror is what they use to further their cause - they will not go away if we quit going after them; in fact, just the opposite will happen. We are the object of their disdain - like it or not. They do not like what we represent, what we have accomplished, or the wealth that we have. The only way to win a battle is to fight. There is a battle right now for our way of life - we must fight to preserve it, or cower in a corner and watch it slip away.

One of the articles mentioned in the above post talked about us going on a empire building crusade in the Middle East - that is not the purpose of our mission there - the only way to stabilize that region of the country is to remove the totalitarian leaders who harbor, train, and fund our enemies, while oppressing and further enflaming their people. That area of the world has been rife with warfare and battles since as far back as history goes. I don't believe in getting involved in a coutry's internal affairs as long as they don't have a direct affect on us. But damn it 9-11 changed that little comfortable feeling that what goes on accross the ocean doesn't have any effect on me. Never in the history has peace been negotiated without first there being a resounding victory. Some people get confused on this issue, and think that we can negotiate a truce - look at history, that has NEVER happenned without there first being either a victory by one side, or a long battle that finally wore down the opponent to the point of surrender. We were attacked unprovoked, we had to go to Afganistan to get them. We had to take out their friend and ally Saddam, I think we'll have to take out Iran as well. The only way we can have peace and stability here is to have peace and stability there - the world is an increasingly small place.

Then there's the misleading, lying Republican politicians - did we forget about - I did not have sexual relations with tht woman - Monica Lewinski?? Of course the religion thing comes up again as well - I gues we forget also about William Jefferson Clinton going to church and mentioning his belief in God on numerous occassions - of course a lot of those times were after he was caught lying, and maybe he was trying to redeem himself??