• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Faith-based war

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_19_05_PB.html

By Pat Buchanan

"This is a very positive day ... for world peace," said President Bush, following the referendum on a new Iraqi constitution. "Democracies are peaceful countries." Considering that Iraq is perhaps the least peaceful country on earth, the statement seemed jarring.

It should not be. For it reflects a quasi-religious transformation in George W. Bush -- his political conversion to democratism, a faith-based ideology that holds democracy to be the cure for mankind's ills, and its absence to be the principal cause of terror and war.

In the theology of a devout democratist, if Americans will only persevere in using their power to convert the Islamic world, then the whole world, to democracy, we will come as close as mankind can to creating heaven on earth.

As Bush said in his second inaugural, "So, it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

Speaking, three weeks ago, to the 20th birthday conclave of the National Endowment for Democracy, Bush recited the true believer's creed: "If the peoples (of the Middle East) are permitted to choose their own destiny ... by their participation as free men and women, then the extremists will be marginalized and the flow of violent radicalism to the rest of the world will slow and eventually end."

The president was seconded by Vice President Cheney on CNN: "I think ... we will, in fact, succeed in getting democracy established in Iraq, and I think that when we do, that will be the end of the insurgency."

Upon this faith Bush has wagered his presidency, the lives of America's best and bravest, and our entire position in the Middle East and the world. But as the Los Angeles Times' Tyler Marshall and Louise Roug report, U.S. field commanders George Casey and John Abizaid are skeptical that any election where Iraq's Sunnis are dispossessed of pre-eminence and power will ensure an end to terror. It may, they warn, bring new Sunni support for the insurgency.

Also challenging the Bush faith is Brian Jenkins, a terrorism specialist at RAND. He cites Colombia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Northern Ireland as countries where democracy has failed to end political violence.

Nathan Brown, a Mideast expert at the Carnegie Endowment, agrees: "The democratic process as it has worked so far (in Iraq) has certainly done nothing to undermine the insurgency."

But the most sweeping challenge to President Bush's faith-based war comes from F. Gregory Cause III in Foreign Affairs. Writes Cause: "There is no evidence that democracy reduces terror. Indeed, a democratic Middle East would probably result in Islamist governments unwilling to cooperate with Washington."

In Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria, it is anti-American Islamists who seem positioned to seize power should it fall from the hands of the authoritarian rulers the National Endowment for Democracy and its neoconservative allies seek to destabilize and dump over.

If Cause is right and Bush wrong, the fruits of our bloody war for democracy in Iraq could mean a Middle East more hostile to American values and U.S. vital interests than the one Bush inherited.

That would be a strategic disaster of historic dimension.

Not only does democracy offer no guarantee against terror, writes Cause, democracies are the most frequent targets of terror. Not one incident of terror was reported in China between 2000 and 2003, but democratic India suffered 203. Israel, the most democratic nation in the Middle East, endured scores of acts of terror from 2000 to 2005. Syria's dictatorship experienced almost none. While Saddam's Iraq was terror-free, democratic Iraq suffers daily attacks.

Researching 25 years of suicide bombings, scholar Robert Pape found the leading cause was not a lack of democracy, but the presence of troops from democratic nations on lands terrorists believe by right belong to them.

The United States was hit on 9-11 because we had an army on Saudi soil. Britain and Spain were hit for sending troops to occupy Iraq. Russia was hit at Beslan because she is perceived as occupying Chechnya.

Democracy is thus no more a cure for terror than its absence is the cause. Osama has no moral objection to dictatorships. He means to establish one, a caliphate where mosque and state are joined, and sharia law is imposed without recourse to referendum.

As with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ho and Castro, so, too, with bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Such men seek absolute power and use revolutionary terror as the means to establish their dictatorships.

By January, we shall know whether Iraqi democracy is the antidote to terror Bush believes it to be. If it is not, he and we will have to face the grim consequences of his conversion to a utopian ideology in the name of which he pursued a potentially calamitous three-year war.
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
[/HTML]
Kandahar said:
No thoughts on this at all?
How many times have we heard the same story?

Next Summer, with the midterm elections coming up, the WH will withraw a few troops to prove the "success" of Bush's war, and to try to minimize a public backlash against the Republicans. And we'll be hearing how all we need to do is keep democracy in place for a year or two to let it sink in, and when they finish re-writing the constitution, *then* the insurgency will be over. But the insurgents will still be fighting the foreign occupiers and their collaborators, and we will still be the occupiers. And we still won't have a date for when it will end -- maybe in a year or two we can begin a slow withdrawal, they will say. And Bush will tell us that its because we can't give the insurgents a timetable or we will encourge them. But what he will mean is the same thing he means now -- he cannot withdraw American troops or else the US installed Iraqi government will collapse and this will be proved without veil to be the worst US foreign policy debacle since the Bay of Pigs. But of course the war-mongers will be blaming it all on the objectors.
 
Last edited:

JKD COBRA

New member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You guys crack me up, lol. Its funny to read some of these post's. I feel bad that you guys have to live with such negative attitudes. I am sure it isn't fun.

Why do you keep calling it a faith based war? Are you trying to blame his faith for what you "think" he has done wrong?

And answer this: if democracy is so bad that it will not stop the terrorists, and if their new constitution is so terrible that they will never agree on it, then why are the terrorists doing everything they can to stop it from happening?

You would think that, if what we are doing is going to make things worse, that the terrorists would be right there with us cheering us on. You would think they would just give up and let us mess things up. You would think that the terrorists would start running for office so they can take over again. But they aren't. They are fighting what we are doing with everything they have. That can only mean one thing. We are doing something that WILL hurt them. Something that WILL promote freedom. Something that WILL set them back and hurt their progress.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
JKD COBRA said:
You guys crack me up, lol. Its funny to read some of these post's. I feel bad that you guys have to live with such negative attitudes. I am sure it isn't fun.
Sorry, but I prefer living in reality to the "fun" of denial about the state of our occupation of Iraq.

JKD COBRA said:
Why do you keep calling it a faith based war? Are you trying to blame his faith for what you "think" he has done wrong?
His blind faith in democratism. Read the article.

JKD COBRA said:
And answer this: if democracy is so bad that it will not stop the terrorists, and if their new constitution is so terrible that they will never agree on it, then why are the terrorists doing everything they can to stop it from happening?
Again, read the article. Terrorists have been attacking Iraq since the Baathist regime fell. The prospect of elections and a constitution haven't just suddenly set off alarm bells in their heads.

They are attacking us because we are on land that they consider to belong to them, not because they "hate us for our freedom" or any other such nonsense. You can spin that however you like, but it is the primary motive for people to join the insurgency.

JKD COBRA said:
You would think that, if what we are doing is going to make things worse, that the terrorists would be right there with us cheering us on. You would think they would just give up and let us mess things up.
Their main goal isn't the ruin of their country, it's to get us OUT of their country.

JKD COBRA said:
You would think that the terrorists would start running for office so they can take over again. But they aren't.
How incredibly ethnocentric. Many people in Iraq (including some who support America) simply do not view democracy as the solution to their problems. You can't just invade a country with no history of democracy in 4,000 years and suddenly expect it to be obvious to everyone in the country that anyone who wants political influence should run for office. Why would they "start running for office" if they believe the system is imposed by Americans and will soon collapse? If the insurgents ran for office, that would involve a tacit admission that the American system would be permanent, which they most certainly do not want.

JKD COBRA said:
They are fighting what we are doing with everything they have. That can only mean one thing. We are doing something that WILL hurt them. Something that WILL promote freedom. Something that WILL set them back and hurt their progress.
If we're hurting them so much, why are there just as many (if not more) insurgents in Iraq today as there were a year ago? What makes you think that our occupation is killing insurgents faster than it is causing the recruitment of new ones?


The point of the article is that democracy is not a cure for all of the world's security woes, nor does it even necessarily help to solve the problems. If democratization is indeed the only justification left for the war in Iraq, we are in dire straits.
 
Last edited:

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
JKD COBRA said:
You guys crack me up, lol. Its funny to read some of these post's. I feel bad that you guys have to live with such negative attitudes. I am sure it isn't fun.
Being fed the same BS by your own government from the get go time and time again isn't fun. Kinda sad, I think.
 

JKD COBRA

New member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Lol, you guys must be a lot of fun at party's.

Kan - Dont call this a faith based war. You are intentionally making people think that you are bringing religion into this.

And I hear this all the time "they attacked us because we invaded them" or "if we would just pull out of Iraq they would stop." 911 wasn't the first time terrorists have attacked us. So that proves that theory wrong.

Lets use that same type of thinking in another situation to see if it makes sense. If we would just stop putting criminals in jail, then they would stop breaking the law. If we would just get rid of our local police force, have them pull out, then the criminals would stop breaking the law.

Does it makes sense? No. Are you guys messing with me? Do you honestly think that if we stopped fighting terrorism, that it would stop?
 

JKD COBRA

New member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
And if democracy always fails, and we are forcing this on the people of Iraq, then why do so many of them come out to vote? Why do they come out in record numbers despite all of the empty threats from the terrorists? They had a larger turnout % then we do in our own country!

I am sorry guys, the facts just aren't on your side.
 
Last edited:

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
JKD COBRA said:
Kan - Dont call this a faith based war. You are intentionally making people think that you are bringing religion into this.
Democratism IS a religion for many members of the Bush Administration, as their faith in it blinds them to reality.

JKD COBRA said:
And I hear this all the time "they attacked us because we invaded them" or "if we would just pull out of Iraq they would stop." 911 wasn't the first time terrorists have attacked us. So that proves that theory wrong.
Not all terrorists have the same reasons for attacking us. Just because there are ties between Zarqawi and Bin Laden doesn't mean that every single Iraqi fighting in the insurgency supports Al-Qaeda's objectives.

The main reason the terrorist leaders in Iraq like Zarqawi have been able to recruit as many insurgents as they have, is because many Iraqis consider America to be an occupying force.

It doesn't have anything to do with why the people actually LEADING the insurgency hate America. The fact is that the average impoverished insurgent has joined the calling to get the occupiers out of his homeland, and without these people the insurgency would not exist regardless of the actions of Zarqawi. Our presence there fans the flames of terrorism.

JKD COBRA said:
Lets use that same type of thinking in another situation to see if it makes sense. If we would just stop putting criminals in jail, then they would stop breaking the law. If we would just get rid of our local police force, have them pull out, then the criminals would stop breaking the law.
I see your analogy, and raise you one: If we want to put criminals in jail, is the best way to do this by throwing open all of the jail doors and then trying to round them up? That's essentially what we've done in Iraq (and continue to do), as there weren't any organized terrorist groups of any importance in Iraq prior to our invasion.

How many terrorist attacks against Americans on American soil have been committed by Iraqis? None. How many terrorist attacks against Americans on Iraqi soil have been committed by Iraqis? A lot. Common sense tells us that if there weren't ample American targets to attack in Iraq and no motive to attack them, then the terrorist attacks against Americans in Iraq would stop.

JKD COBRA said:
Does it makes sense? No. Are you guys messing with me? Do you honestly think that if we stopped fighting terrorism, that it would stop?
Killing people (most of whom wouldn't be fighting in the first place if we weren't there) every day until an undefined point in the future is not the same as fighting terrorism.
 

JKD COBRA

New member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Democratism IS a religion for many members of the Bush Administration, as their faith in it blinds them to reality.
So. . .then that means I was right when I said "Why do you keep calling it a faith based war? Are you trying to blame his faith for what you "think" he has done wrong?"

First you say "no, I was not talking about religion" then, when I call you out on it you say "yes, democracy is a religion to Bush."

But lets just get past that. Please don't start trying to fool me by saying things like "blinds them to reality". Things that blind you to reality is NOT the definition of religion. So, using your own words, this cannot be called a faith based war.

It doesn't have anything to do with why the people actually LEADING the insurgency hate America. The fact is that the average impoverished insurgent has joined the calling to get the occupiers out of his homeland, and without these people the insurgency would not exist regardless of the actions of Zarqawi. Our presence there fans the flames of terrorism.
And if that is actually true, that still doesn't prove anything. If police start cracking down on gang violence, and regular people in the neighborhood start joining the gangs to kick the police out. . .does that mean the gangs are doing the right thing? NO.

I see your analogy, and raise you one: If we want to put criminals in jail, is the best way to do this by throwing open all of the jail doors and then trying to round them up? That's essentially what we've done in Iraq (and continue to do), as there weren't any organized terrorist groups of any importance in Iraq prior to our invasion.
Obviously, our analogy isn't going to match up perfectly. But we can do the best we can. First of all, it is not true that there were no ties to Iraq and terrorists.

Back to the analogy. The rules are different when it comes to war. So yes, we need to "round them up" as you say. We can't just sit around and wait. You need to take the initiative.

How many terrorist attacks against Americans on American soil have been committed by Iraqis? None. How many terrorist attacks against Americans on Iraqi soil have been committed by Iraqis? A lot. Common sense tells us that if there weren't ample American targets to attack in Iraq and no motive to attack them, then the terrorist attacks against Americans in Iraq would stop
No, common sense doesn't tell me that. Common sense tells me that we live in a great country and it is 100 times harder for them to attack us here then in Iraq. Remember, 911 was supposed to be the beginning. It was supposed to be the beginning of the attacks. So, then where are the rest of the attacks? Listen, I am not trying to argue with you. I am really trying to show you another side. I am just trying to show you a different way to look at things. A more positive way.

Killing people (most of whom wouldn't be fighting in the first place if we weren't there) every day until an undefined point in the future is not the same as fighting terrorism.
First of all, your quote is misguided/incorrect. It is setting me up for failure. But, I am not tricked that easily. It should say this "Killing people every day until an undefined point in the future is not the same as fighting terrorism" Now, that question I can answer because the belief that we caused the terroism has already been proven incorrect. So, yes, we need to kill the terrorists until we win. We can't announce when that time will be because it will just give them an advantage on strategy. You don't want your enemy knowing when you will do things.

Listen man, this is a different kind of war. These terrorists jump around from place to place and country to country. They do this for many reasons. But, one reason is that it makes it hard to fight them. Wherever we go, we look like the bad guy because it looks like we invaded a country that had nothing to do with it. But that is not the case. Sadaam was harboring terrorists. And I know what your going to say, there were terrorists in other countries as well. Yes there were. But, bringing freedom to Iraq is the basis of this whole thing.

Like I said. If this wasnt going to work, and the terrorists were going to win, then no one would be showing up to vote in Iraq, and the election days would be very bloody. But just the opposite is happening. The violence is decreasing, and more and more people are showing up to vote. That proves things are working.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
JKD COBRA said:
So. . .then that means I was right when I said "Why do you keep calling it a faith based war? Are you trying to blame his faith for what you "think" he has done wrong?"

First you say "no, I was not talking about religion" then, when I call you out on it you say "yes, democracy is a religion to Bush."
When I said no, I meant that I wasn't implying that his faith in Christianity had anything to do with it. His faith in democracy solving all of the world's problems, on the other hand, is a serious impediment to our foreign policy.

JKD COBRA said:
But lets just get past that. Please don't start trying to fool me by saying things like "blinds them to reality". Things that blind you to reality is NOT the definition of religion. So, using your own words, this cannot be called a faith based war.
Call it what you like. The point is that there now seem to be only two justifications for being in Iraq: 1. The fighting of terrorists that weren't there in the first place prior to the invasion (more on that below), and 2. The spreading of democracy throughout the Middle East which will supposedly end terrorism, which is nothing more than an article of faith and has no factual or historical evidence to support it.

JKD COBRA said:
And if that is actually true, that still doesn't prove anything. If police start cracking down on gang violence, and regular people in the neighborhood start joining the gangs to kick the police out. . .does that mean the gangs are doing the right thing? NO.
The issue isn't whether the Iraqi insurgents are "right" and we're "wrong." The issue is that our presence in Iraq is THE driving force behind the insurgency. The rank-and-file insurgents aren't interested in Al-Qaeda's grandiose plans to establish a caliphate from Spain to Indonesia, bring down the Great Satan, and push Israel into the sea. They just want us out of their country.

As for your analogy: If police start cracking down on gang violence, and regular people in the neighborhood start joining the gangs to kick the police out (at a rate equal to or greater than the police are arresting gangsters), then obviously the police are not accomplishing their goals and need to find an alternative solution. It doesn't matter if the gangs are "doing the right thing" or not.

JKD COBRA said:
Obviously, our analogy isn't going to match up perfectly. But we can do the best we can. First of all, it is not true that there were no ties to Iraq and terrorists.
Saddam financially backed Hamas. That's about the extent of his involvement in terrorism. He had no interest in helping Islamist terrorists, nor was he supporting any terrorist groups committed to attacking America.

But that's not what my previous post said anyway. I said that there weren't any terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion. There were no extremist madrasses to encourage Muslims to be martyrs. There were no terrorist training camps in Iraq.

JKD COBRA said:
Back to the analogy. The rules are different when it comes to war. So yes, we need to "round them up" as you say. We can't just sit around and wait. You need to take the initiative.
We shouldn't measure success in terms of how much action we take versus how much we "sit around and wait." We should measure it in terms of whether or not we're accomplishing our objectives. If our objectives are to end the insurgency in Iraq, we're failing miserably.

JKD COBRA said:
No, common sense doesn't tell me that. Common sense tells me that we live in a great country and it is 100 times harder for them to attack us here then in Iraq.
Fair enough. But then why make it 100 times easier for them to attack us by being in Iraq?

JKD COBRA said:
Remember, 911 was supposed to be the beginning. It was supposed to be the beginning of the attacks. So, then where are the rest of the attacks?
Terrorist attacks on American soil have never been particularly common. Between April 1995 and September 2001, there were none. Less time has elapsed since 9/11 than in that time period. Therefore I find it difficult to believe that the war on Iraq has somehow made us safer from terror simply because of the absence of attacks since then.

JKD COBRA said:
First of all, your quote is misguided/incorrect. It is setting me up for failure. But, I am not tricked that easily. It should say this "Killing people every day until an undefined point in the future is not the same as fighting terrorism" Now, that question I can answer because the belief that we caused the terroism has already been proven incorrect.
Has it? Are you saying that all of these insurgents have always been terrorists that were just hiding in the woodworks waiting for their opportunity to strike until the last couple years? Most of them were ordinary people with ordinary desires who have been influenced by extremist propaganda. The presence of American troops may not have anything to do with the terrorist leaders' actions, but it does provide a good excuse to recruit thousands of Iraqis to their cause.

JKD COBRA said:
So, yes, we need to kill the terrorists until we win. We can't announce when that time will be because it will just give them an advantage on strategy. You don't want your enemy knowing when you will do things.
We can set a reasonably open timetable for withdrawal without making it specific enough to give terrorists a tactical advantage.

JKD COBRA said:
Listen man, this is a different kind of war. These terrorists jump around from place to place and country to country. They do this for many reasons. But, one reason is that it makes it hard to fight them.
Most of these insurgents are Iraqis who have rarely if ever been outside of their own country. The mistake that supporters of this war often make is assuming that every terrorist in Iraq thinks alike, and all have the political opinions of Osama Bin Laden.

Let's try this from a personal perspective: Imagine you're a young, uneducated (easily misled) Iraqi. You don't have any particular grudge against the outside world, and may have even welcomed American troops when they toppled Saddam Hussein. Two years later, you still don't have a job, your house doesn't have electricity, and someone in your extended family has been killed by an American bomb. American troops no longer seem like liberators but more like occupiers. You hear Islamist leaders preaching how America is the source of all your problems, and (because you aren't educated) you buy into it. Voila! Another insurgent has just joined the ranks. You still don't have any desire to travel to other countries to train in Islamist camps, nor do you have any desire to commit 9/11 like attacks on American soil. You just want the occupiers out. You're still just a regular guy who has been misled by extremists, only now you're labelled a "terrorist" by Americans. You'd be happy to go back to your old life if America would just leave.

JKD COBRA said:
Wherever we go, we look like the bad guy because it looks like we invaded a country that had nothing to do with it. But that is not the case.
Again, it's not an issue of being the bad guy. The fact is we are simply not accomplishing anything by our continued presence in Iraq.

JKD COBRA said:
Sadaam was harboring terrorists. And I know what your going to say, there were terrorists in other countries as well. Yes there were.
Actually, I was going to say that there weren't any terrorist groups in Iraq. While Saddam gave financial support to Hamas for his own political reasons, he viewed terrorist groups inside his own country with deep suspicion since they could easily turn against him.

JKD COBRA said:
But, bringing freedom to Iraq is the basis of this whole thing.
Which brings us back to the article. It's just a matter of faith that "bringing freedom to Iraq" will somehow stop the terrorist attacks. There's no historical evidence to suggest that that is the case.

JKD COBRA said:
Like I said. If this wasnt going to work, and the terrorists were going to win, then no one would be showing up to vote in Iraq, and the election days would be very bloody. But just the opposite is happening. The violence is decreasing, and more and more people are showing up to vote. That proves things are working.
It proves that democracy is working (at least for now), but it doesn't prove that our anti-terrorist actions are working. Again, there's no evidence that terrorism will decrease in tandem with the advancement of democracy.

And the violence isn't decreasing. Each month has its ups and downs, but this month there have been 2.76 coalition deaths per day...the bloodiest since June. As a whole, 2005 has been the bloodiest year of the occupation.
 
Last edited:

JKD COBRA

New member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Well, I don't know what to tell ya. We have reached the point where you will just believe what you beleive and thats it.

When I show you the facts, and how democracy is working and is brining people out to vote, instead of saying "maybe your right and it is going to work" you say "maybe its working now, but later on. . ..ohhh noo its not going to work." That shows me you are not going to change no matter how much proof I show you. It shows me that you and I have a completely different outlook on life. For some reason, you want this country to fail. You see good things happening, but you still choose to be against us.

I would go back and rebut all of your quotes, but it would just be a waste of time. There is just something about certain people that makes them want to think negatively. There are some people out there, that just don't want to support the USA. For some reason, they want us to be wrong, they want us to fail. All I can say is don't believe everything the media tells you. We have heard from the soldiers themselves that the media is NOT reporting the good things they are doing. They only report the bad. Thats why it seems like things aren't working. And your the type of person that only likes to believe that bad stuff they report. Just remember. . .the media also told us that over 10,000 people died in hurricane katrina. The last time I heard, it was only 500 people. The media likes to feed of negative things. So my only advice to you is don't get caught up in it. You will live a very angry life.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
JKD COBRA said:
Well, I don't know what to tell ya. We have reached the point where you will just believe what you beleive and thats it.

When I show you the facts, and how democracy is working and is brining people out to vote, instead of saying "maybe your right and it is going to work" you say "maybe its working now, but later on. . ..ohhh noo its not going to work."
You have missed the entire point of this thread. The point is that even if democracy DOES work in Iraq (which remains to be seen), there's no reason to believe that it will reduce terrorism. That is what the title "faith-based war" refers to.

JKD COBRA said:
That shows me you are not going to change no matter how much proof I show you. It shows me that you and I have a completely different outlook on life. For some reason, you want this country to fail. You see good things happening, but you still choose to be against us.

I would go back and rebut all of your quotes, but it would just be a waste of time. There is just something about certain people that makes them want to think negatively. There are some people out there, that just don't want to support the USA. For some reason, they want us to be wrong, they want us to fail. All I can say is don't believe everything the media tells you. We have heard from the soldiers themselves that the media is NOT reporting the good things they are doing. They only report the bad. Thats why it seems like things aren't working. And your the type of person that only likes to believe that bad stuff they report. Just remember. . .the media also told us that over 10,000 people died in hurricane katrina. The last time I heard, it was only 500 people. The media likes to feed of negative things. So my only advice to you is don't get caught up in it. You will live a very angry life.
Disappointing. And you were doing better with making coherent arguments and responding to points than most on your side have been able to do. :doh
 
Last edited:

JKD COBRA

New member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Disappointing. And you were doing better with making coherent arguments and responding to points than most on your side have been able to do
I appreciate that. I am not your average conservative. I am not afraid to say what my beliefs are. I use common sense and facts to argue my points. And when you do that, you do not lose in political debates. You may have people that just don't believe you, or are stuck in there ways and no matter how much proof you show them they still don't believe you, but there is nothing I can do about that. For example, in the beginning of this thread, you basically said that democracy does not work. It is not the answer. It will do nothing to improve Iraq and will do nothing to stop the terrorists. But, by the end of this thread, you are now admitting that democracy IS working so far. But, you are so stuck in your ways that you say "well, it is working now, but it won't work later on". That tells me that it is a waste of time to keep debating with you because it is not a real debate. You are going to think the way you want and there is nothing that can change your mind, but that is ok because you are not in the majority. So I have no reason to worry about what you say.

But listen, I am not trying to ridicule you for admitting that democracy is working (at least for now, in your opinion). I am glad you have realized that. It means that you are not totally lost in left wing thinking and that you think for yourself. Unlike the liberals, we do not make fun of you if you start agreeing with us. We welcome you. I am glad your starting to see the good of democracy and I hope and challenge you to keep an open mind about it and start to see the positive side of what is going on.

But thats the difference between liberals and conservatives. The liberals have to try and confuse people. They jump around with their beliefs. For example, when you called this war a faith based war I called you out on it and said "don't bring religion into this." Then you said:
His blind faith in democratism. Read the article.
So you said you were not talking about religion, but his faith in democracy. I then told you to stop using the word faith then, because it makes people think your talking about religion. So then you said:
Democratism IS a religion for many members of the Bush Administration, as their faith in it blinds them to reality.
So now you changed your position, and now you ARE talking about religion. Something you said you weren't talking about originally.

In your effort to debate me and prove me wrong, you showed your weakness. Now, most people would not catch that, but I knew you were going in that direction before you even went there.

So like I said, even though you still don't believe that democracy will win in the end, at least you now see that it is working right now. At first you didn't think that. So I encourage you to keep an open mind. If you would like some links to some good reading let me know and I would be happy to share information with you.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
JKD COBRA said:
For example, in the beginning of this thread, you basically said that democracy does not work. It is not the answer. It will do nothing to improve Iraq and will do nothing to stop the terrorists. But, by the end of this thread, you are now admitting that democracy IS working so far. But, you are so stuck in your ways that you say "well, it is working now, but it won't work later on". That tells me that it is a waste of time to keep debating with you because it is not a real debate.
I have made no changes in my views throughout this thread. To clarify:

1. Democracy seems to be working while propped up by the American military.
2. I believe it is unlikely it will continue to work for more than a few years after American troops leave.
3. I don't believe democracy has or will do anything to stop terrorism, and there are many historical reasons to believe this is true.

JKD COBRA said:
But thats the difference between liberals and conservatives. The liberals have to try and confuse people. They jump around with their beliefs. For example, when you called this war a faith based war I called you out on it and said "don't bring religion into this." Then you said: So you said you were not talking about religion, but his faith in democracy. I then told you to stop using the word faith then, because it makes people think your talking about religion. So then you said: So now you changed your position, and now you ARE talking about religion. Something you said you weren't talking about originally.
Again, that isn't a change of position, that is a clarification because you misinterpretated what I wrote (actually, what Pat Buchanan wrote in the original article). Bush's faith in Christianity has nothing to do with it. His faith in democratism ("faith" in this case meaning he accepts it without any evidence or reason to believe its truth) has a LOT to do with it.

JKD COBRA said:
So like I said, even though you still don't believe that democracy will win in the end, at least you now see that it is working right now. At first you didn't think that.
Show me where I've said that people aren't going out to vote, or denied the existence of a vote on the constitution. I have done nothing of the kind.
 
Top Bottom