How do we do that, though?

You can't get rid of all the neocons without becoming your own kind of tyrant, can you? I mean, it basically puts us back in the position of choosing a favorite tyrant, not choosing between tyranny and something else.

Yeah, I hear you. Nah, that's why I said that it was kinda "wishful thinking"... you know, I was musing.....

But ah, I think, the answer to your question is "education". That, and something else.

Let me share a little tidbit of strategy with you.

If you go to our web site, which is in my sig, on the very bottom there a link that says "Don't Tread on Me", and there's a song behind it (if you click on it, it'll try to bring up your Media Player or whatever, and play it).

So, that particular song, I've been monitoring the web stats on.

And um... this probably won't make any sense to you (although it "might"), but that song, the words to that thing, are written in a very specific way. (And I mean, that's a pre-mastered version and all, it's not fully produced yet, the radio-ready version will be up there to replace it in about two weeks).

So, in that particular song, if you listen to it, what do "you as an American", hear?

Well, my guess would be, you're gonna hear the part about "Don't Tread on Me". That's kind of an American Revolutionary "theme", yes? Gadsden Flag, "how the rattlesnake became a symbol of the American Revolution", all that?

Well, there's another little piece of the song, that the Muslims are gonna relate to. It's the part about "tearing up the contract, and changing all the rules". I mean, here in America, probably only the Ron Paul guys are gonna resonate with that part, right?

But in the Islamic world.... m.... how can I say this? They invented the kind of contract that forms our US Constitution. They invented the freakin' thing. It's an Arab invention!!!! I kid you not. That, and chess, and astronomy, and the number zero... I mean, "all that and more", comes out of the historical "Islamic" tradition and the parts that preceded it, yes?

So I mean, if anyone knows about "changing all the rules", it's the Muslims. They probably know more about that kinda thing, than anyone else on the planet.

So, you know, our thought in this regard was, "why don't we see, if we can just reach out a little, and go around the President of the United States, and talk directly to Abdul Average over in Saudi Arabia over there, and see if we can get some resonance".

And by golly, the web stats prove us right so far. We're getting a lot of hits from "somewhere in the Middle East".

Who'd-a-thunk, right?

But I mean, you know, I have a "piled-higher-and-deeper" in "belief systems", right? This kinda stuff, makes sense to me. I want those guys on the ground over there in "the rest of the world", to know, that "not everyone" over here ih the US, is a total freakin' political idiot. I kinda want 'em to know that "I" get it, even if my President "doesn't".

And I mean, you know, I could share a few of the e-mails I've gotten with you, but that would probably be some kinda perceived "violation of privacy" or something, so you know, I'm just gonna say that I've gotten several e-mails from "people" (and I mean, I have no idea who they are, right? It's just "We the People") - who've gotten out of their way 'cause they want "me personally" to know that "they" get it too, and that we're on the same page about it.

It's really quite remarkable, this internet thing. I mean, a) what a powerful medium, and then b) it's no wonder those government clowns are scared to death of the power of this thing.

RIght?

It was Ancient Egypt, about 3000 years ago, which is 180 degrees from a muslim. There have only been muslims since the 7th century, and muslim/islam is a religion, not a science.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

Yes, very good. Excellent. So, how come you know this stuff, and then you're gonna sit there with this "aggressive" approach to foreign policy?

I mean, isn't it true, that when the Founding Fathers were looking around for political models, they looked to things like Switzerland, and the Iroquois nation?

You know, it's like, if you look through history at this idea of "the contract", you'll find something quite interesting - it's like, in "early" history, the idea kinda pops up, then disappears again, the pops up again, then disappears again - and I mean, the part you always hear about in the history books, is more along the lines of, when the idea finally got "tranction", right?

And I mean, when I look through history at the "particular instances" of these kinds of "political models", they're kinda "generally associated" with this idea of "neutrality" as well, in the domain of "foreign policy" and how to relate to "other people" and "other cultures".


Like, for instance- Switzerland. Neutral, right? And the Iroquois, even took it farther, 'cause they had this additional "belief constraint" that related to the concept that "no man owns this land, God just gives it to us to take care of while we're here" - you know, or in that specific case, "the Spirits", or whatever - but you see what I mean, right?

And there have been "times" in US history, where we've kinda tended to favor "neutrality", right?

But I mean, "now", I think SS mentioned in another thread, and I think it's pretty accurate, you know, this Neo-Con foreign policy thing, is more of a "moral and ideological crusade", which seems to me, to be quite "aggressive" in nature.

So, how do you reconcile those concepts?

...whether we like it or not, there unfortunately has to be someone on top, and it just as well be us. Having al qaeda become the world leader would become our worst nightmare. Look at how well the middle east has done with their politics since islam emerged.

You either have control, or chaos.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

I don't think you have any idea how Al Qaeda functions. The greater threat is the Muslim Brotherhood... Al Qaeda is kind of like the Ford Foundation of terror... it writes the checks... the causes emerge without the organization's interference... rarely they are commissioned based on particular goals (still rare).

So that brings us to how these causes come up... usually they emerge in societies (such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen) where repressive (often pro-Western dictators) eliminate all moderate opposition leaving only the most militant voices to challenge the status quo. In these environments, small, regional groups emerge and are funded and trained to cause upheaval or change.

In almost every case, their cause is nationalistic and not religious... they do, however, seek religious sanction and in turn promise to reform their territory under their patron's ideology (usually a salafi, deobandi, or wahabi interpretation).

In summary, it isn't the rise of Islam thats at fault but the rise of unchallenged, oppressive dictatorships.

...you mean like Pakistan, great democracy. This sh*t has been going on for more than 1400 years, and pro-western anything wasn't around then. I will agree, al qaeda is the bank and force behind terrorism, and there are other nations, ie: China, Russia, and other Arab nations that help support chaos, just to knock us off the pedestal.

Electronic surveillance is one of the few options we have to squash these murdering slime.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

Dick Cheney is not us, though, first of all.

And second of all, who do you regard as being on top of you? And who do you regard as being beneath you?

Third: Doesn't the whole "there must be someone on top" thing actual run counter to the freedom of ... well ... everyone else?

Has anyone posted the link to the senate vote yet?

Oh, hasn't happened.

It's strange how this thread got away from the original false post.

So you think that if we become a nation like Switzerland (no real military, never sets the world standard for anything), no other nation will step up to the plate to make the rules.

Yep, it makes great sense if you're an ostrich. I'm afraid the world doesn't quite work that way, and also, there is no real utopia.

BTW, to answer your question, my wife is above me, most of the time. I don't consider anyone beneath me, I put my pants and shoes on the same way everyone else does.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.