How the world views the USA.

Regarding the drone comment I deliberately used Belgium as an over the top example to illustrate the point that no nation should attack another unless in hot self defence or declared war. I fully agree that after 11th Sept the USA had every right to go after the perpetrators; thus Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan could legally and morally have been toast at the time. However they first attacked the most secular dictatorship in the whole region, Iraq. Who had nothing to do with the attack, but much oil. Then they attacked Afghanistan, but maintained the semblance of normal relations with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The whole point of "Iraq has WMD" was somewhat hypocritical, as we all know that the "USA has WMD", so do we others thus have the moral right to invade the USA? I know it would be stupid and suicidal, but apparently not wrong by the USA's own precedent.
Regarding the religious issue I don't think that many bible belt Americans realise that to the majority of the developed world the Christian religious right's influence on politics is very little different to the muslim, jewish, buddist, or hindu influence in other religious countries. As an immediate example my spell checker won't let me type Christian with a small c, as I can the other religion titles.
Sex, religion and politics are the most contentious topics known and it is admirable that so many strongly opinioned people here have been able to discuss these without flaming.
I personally don't buy the muslim taking over western civilisation bit, as from what I can see the opposite is happening with the muslim youth assimilating rapidly behind their parent's backs. The western media delights in sensationalising news, and there is always an obliging ratbag self appointed sheik available to make inflammatory statements. Over the years I've shared many a beer and meal including pork with lapsed muslim friends. On a long haul flight I sat next to a young muslim lady who was in a full black burqua, and her iPad played Eminem at full volume for the flight

However they first attacked the most secular dictatorship in the whole region, Iraq. Who had nothing to do with the attack, but much oil.

The whole Iraq decision was a lot more complicated than just oil. It was in a large part viewed as unfinished business. Bush I invaded to get Iraq out of Kuwait, then stopped short of finishing Saddam. Various agreements were signed by Saddam as a condition of remaining in power. Agreements which he started violating virtually as soon as the ink was dry. So there was a lot of feeling at the time that Bush I made a mistake and that Saddam should have been removed in Gulf I. So in large part Gulf II was to correct what was widely seen at the time as a mistake. Additionally, media savvy Iraq opposition leaders had been in the US addressing congressional hearings and giving 100s of media interviews announcing that as soon as Saddam was gone, their people were ready to step into place smoothly transitioning Iraq from a dictatorship to a democracy. There is a lot of 20-20 hindsight going on right now and a lot of congressmen with really bad memories. At the time there was not a lot of opposition to this (House 296-133, Senate 77-23). Even internationally the opposition was minimal. EVen though they made little or no complaints at a time when the decision was being made (and strong enough complaints might have actually influenced it), now that it has turned out so poorly everyone and his uncle is complaining about the decision.

The whole point of "Iraq has WMD" was somewhat hypocritical, as we all know that the "USA has WMD", so do we others thus have the moral right to invade the USA? I know it would be stupid and suicidal, but apparently not wrong by the USA's own precedent.

Generally I'm not too concerned with the US having WMD since they won't use them first in a conflict. Likewise I'm not particularly worried about Australia, Great Britain, Sweden etc. I do worry about countries like Iran that are crazy and would use them first. I also worry about states with poor security having weapons stolen and sold to the crazies. I am much more concerned about nukes than chemical weapons and I feel that if a crazy or poor security state is likely to get their hands on them, that action is warranted if diplomacy fails. But as far as I'm concerned you Aussies can have as many WMDs as you want.

Regarding the religious issue I don't think that many bible belt Americans realise that to the majority of the developed world the Christian religious right's influence on politics is very little different to the muslim, jewish, buddist, or hindu influence in other religious countries.

Because the USA has religious freedom enshrined in the constitution and was founded by refugees from Europe's religious tyrannies our experience with religion and politics has been very different from Europe's. It is unconstitutional for the state to impose religion on it's citizens. Everyone can freely believe what they want and no one can force them to believe otherwise. 300 years ago, you had to belong to the Church of England or you could be discriminated against, arrested or even executed. Tithes to the Church were required by law. There was one church and one church only and that church was tied to the monarchy. The same was true in the rest of Europe. Because the churches were so closely tied to the state, as the monarchies faded away so allegiance to the churches. In the case of the USA, people have always been able to worship freely and we literally have 100s of different Christian churches flourishing. While less widely practiced other religions (Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc) are able to worship freely as well. Because of the separation of church and state we have been able to avoid the toxic effect they have on one another making both stronger. Religion is an important influence on an individual's personal beliefs and psychology but that influence and its effects vary strongly from person to person, president to president so we do see some influence in politics but it is not a direct influence but rather an indirect one.

On the other hand if you look at the influence religion has currently has in Muslim countries, it much more closely resembles that of Europe 300 years ago with Islam being the state religion. Try being a Sunni in a Shiite country (or vice versa) and you'll find out what it was like to be a Protestant in Catholic Spain during the inquisition. Don't even think about being a Christian or worse a Jew. Depending on which part of India you are in you could be in the same situation regarding Hinduism. Israel is relatively tolerant considering that everyone around it wants to kill them. Religion has a strong influence but other than the ultra-orthodox, the effect is similar to the US in that it is indirect.

I personally don't buy the muslim taking over western civilisation bit, as from what I can see the opposite is happening with the muslim youth assimilating rapidly behind their parent's backs. The western media delights in sensationalising news, and there is always an obliging ratbag self appointed sheik available to make inflammatory statements. Over the years I've shared many a beer and meal including pork with lapsed muslim friends. On a long haul flight I sat next to a young muslim lady who was in a full black burqua, and her iPad played Eminem at full volume for the flight

I'm not worried about 99% of the Muslims. I'm worried about the very small minority of Muslims that resemble Hitler's brown shirts. Looking at how Hitler rose to power, most German's weren't like him. But it only took a few true believers combined with a devastating economic environment to lead to the rise of the Third Reich. Look at how the Islamofascists behave. They are acting a lot like Hitler's Brown shirts and in areas where they are gaining influence people, Muslim people live in fear of them. Women who previously wore western dress, wear Burkas not because they want to but because they fear the Islamofascists. Men are afraid to talk freely for fear of offending them etc. All in all the areas in which there is a strong Islamofascist influence look an awful lot like Germany in the 1930s. And that concerns me greatly because it only took a tiny % of the population to become brown shirts and allow Hitler to rise to power.

Excellent points Biochem. I do understand what you are saying about how the US constitution enshrines religious freedom, however looking from a distance the bible belt Christians do seem to have a lot of political influence that is based on their particular beliefs. Having particular beliefs is not a problem, imposing them on everyone else is.
While I was part of our military we came across this in a number of ways, in that if we posted a couple to the US for an exchange program we had to check if they were married as "living in sin" couples weren't acceptable on US bases (whereas discriminating on marital status here is illegal). Apparently adultery is illegal in the US military also, and gay members are only now gaining their rights so we couldn't send them at all at the time. Visiting US military personnel often made social gaffes by wanting to say grace at meals, or assuming it was ok to publically espouse their beliefs. I do agree that I would loathe living in a sharia law country even more though. Just passing through airports in that part of the world makes my skin crawl.

[quote]

Because the USA has religious freedom enshrined in the constitution and was founded by refugees from Europe's religious tyrannies our experience with religion and politics has been very different from Europe's. It is unconstitutional for the state to impose religion on it's citizens. Everyone can freely believe what they want and no one can force them to believe otherwise.

[end quote]

That may be what is taught to all of us in the classroom, but is is not and has not been true in US history. Missouri had a law to "exterminate all Mormons" for 150 years. Tar and feathering and even hanging of those whose religion didn't match the locals was common well into the last century. It is true that as a nation we welcomed a variety of Judeo-Christian groups, but in many states and localities you were liable to be shot for being Catholic or Jewish or any other group that didn't match that local community.

Hitler effectively had nazism set up as a state religion.

Stalins were political, and he had set up an effective religion around himself, as well as having communism as an effective religion.

Maos religion was socialism/communism.

Pol pot was also a believer in communism.

They were athiest in as much as they disbelieved in god, they beleived in the power of communism. wfrom wikipedia

The sociologist Durkheim, in his seminal book The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, defined religion as a "unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things".[28] By sacred things he meant things "set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them". Sacred things are not, however, limited to gods or spirits.[note 2] On the contrary, a sacred thing can be "a rock, a tree, a spring, a pebble, a piece of wood, a house, in a word, anything can be sacred".[29]

So to be religious does not require belief in a god, only belief in a system, which in these cases was the religion of communism and nazism.

biochem wrote:

The biggest reason i reject religion from having a leading role in any political arena is the religion angle in almost all cases where certain ones are concerned do their utmost to impose their religion on other people. History is my witness on this where religion is concerned. Usually when this happens more people tend to get butchered in the name of a religion than anything else and i find it revolting and disgusting.

This has to be the biggest falsehood put forth by militant atheists there is. People kill people for all kinds of reasons. Yes people do kill in the name of religion but the biggest slaughters of the last century were perpetrated by atheists.

Mao - atheist
Hitler - atheist
Stalin - atheist
Pol Pot - atheist
Idi Amin - ethnic cleansing not religious

And regarding the native Americans, I actually agree with Namelessfly this time. The vast majority of forceable conversions took place in Latin America not North America. The conquest was about land not religion. i.e. you have the land, we want it, we are going to take it (not our finest moment).

You are obviously confused on chronology.

The US was invading Afghanistan within weeks after 9-11. The fact that President Bush was able to bitch slap Pakistan into submission to enable such a prompt invasion was almost as impressive as the US ability to conduct the invasion with such minimal preparation.

The nature of the 9-11 attacks also had a profound effect on US and global attitudes regarding WMD. The initial fatality estimates based on probable building occupancy were 30,000 to 50,000. These were only gradually reduced to 3,500 as it was confirmed that enormous numbers of people hadn't made it to work on time that day or had successfully evacuated. The attacks were sufficiently deadly to force anyone with a brain to consider the consequences of terrorists armed with WMD. I will not waste my time arguing with revisionist ignorance regarding the status of Iraq's WMD at the time of the first Iraq war but almost everyone agreed that Iraq's nuclear program had been so advanced that it could be rapidly reconstituted once sanctions were lifted. The cheating (mostly by Europeans) on the oil for food program convinced almost everyone that sanctions would eventually be lifted and that there was a severe risk that Saddam would have nukes.

My support of neo-isolationism is motivated by my resignation to the inevitability that the global commitment to prevent terrorists States from acquiring WMD is ending. Perhaps it was never anything more than an illusion. The unrelenting hostility expressed towards the "religious right" in the US is merely an effort to rationalize appeasement of Islamic fundamentalism and eventual submission. It is not possible much less plausible that the US can persuade it's alleged allies to refrain from providing the technological infrastructure to make chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons to terrorist states who have oil. The European's idiotic support for the Arab Spring was nothing more than appeasement of radical, islamofascism. The Egyptians to their credit are rejecting Obama's Muslim Brotherhood, but they will never trust the US ever again. Even the Israelis are turning to Russia for support because they no longer trust the US after Obama's betrayal.

Rather than continue it's futile efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation, the United States should accept it as inevitable. US foreign policy should be predicated on the need to avoid conflict in a nuclear armed world and resignation to the reality that the ongoing demographic implosion in Europe makes our former "allies" (dependents) far less than useless. As former CIA analysts Michael Schueler has written, to avoid needless wars the US must be prepared to accept death on a massive scale in other countries with equalmity. This means not only refusing to intervene to prevent genocides in Africa or Asia, but refusing to intervene in genocides in
Europe as well. The historical experiences of Lebanon and the former Yugoslavia suggest that the demographic transition from a secularized, native European population to dominance by a radicalized Islamic minority will become intensely violent, even genocidal. It is probable that the nuclear armed Islamic states will intervene in Europe's transformation. The US must accept this transformation without yielding to the temptation to intervene. The US has already expended far to much blood and treasure to protect Europe from itself during the 20th century only to watch the pseudo sophisticated imbeciles commit cultural suicide in the 21st century.

Daryl wrote:Regarding the drone comment I deliberately used Belgium as an over the top example to illustrate the point that no nation should attack another unless in hot self defence or declared war. I fully agree that after 11th Sept the USA had every right to go after the perpetrators; thus Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan could legally and morally have been toast at the time. However they first attacked the most secular dictatorship in the whole region, Iraq. Who had nothing to do with the attack, but much oil. Then they attacked Afghanistan, but maintained the semblance of normal relations with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The whole point of "Iraq has WMD" was somewhat hypocritical, as we all know that the "USA has WMD", so do we others thus have the moral right to invade the USA? I know it would be stupid and suicidal, but apparently not wrong by the USA's own precedent.
Regarding the religious issue I don't think that many bible belt Americans realise that to the majority of the developed world the Christian religious right's influence on politics is very little different to the muslim, jewish, buddist, or hindu influence in other religious countries. As an immediate example my spell checker won't let me type Christian with a small c, as I can the other religion titles.
Sex, religion and politics are the most contentious topics known and it is admirable that so many strongly opinioned people here have been able to discuss these without flaming.
I personally don't buy the muslim taking over western civilisation bit, as from what I can see the opposite is happening with the muslim youth assimilating rapidly behind their parent's backs. The western media delights in sensationalising news, and there is always an obliging ratbag self appointed sheik available to make inflammatory statements. Over the years I've shared many a beer and meal including pork with lapsed muslim friends. On a long haul flight I sat next to a young muslim lady who was in a full black burqua, and her iPad played Eminem at full volume for the flight

Funny how different people can see the same facts and come to totally different conclusions. I agree that fundamentalist islam is not a good thing, and I too worry about them getting nuclear weapons. I don't see the likelihood "that the demographic transition from a secularized, native European population to dominance by a radicalized Islamic minority will become intensely violent, even genocidal. It is probable that the nuclear armed Islamic states will intervene in Europe's transformation" is remotely plausible. Travel around Europe and you will see that this Caliphate is only really in the minds of two groups; the relatively small number of fundamentalist muslims, and the Christian right conspiracy theorists. In Australia only 2.2% of people identify as muslims, with most being excellent citizens, yet our right wing shock jocks would have us believe that sharia law is imminent. In the continent of Europe the percentage is 6%, while in the European Union it is 3.8%. Of those I'm sure that the very much greater percentage are normal decent people who just want to get through life without hassle as we all do. Impossible to know what the percentage of hard line muslims in the EU is, but it has to be miniscule. A miniscule percentage of that many people could still be thousands, who could well commit significant terrorism atrocities, but a long way from making an impact at the ballot box.

Daryl wrote:<<SNIP>>
A miniscule percentage of that many people could still be thousands, who could well commit significant terrorism atrocities, but a long way from making an impact at the ballot box.

One of the reasons for terrorism. People who believe that deeply, but who can't affect the change they want politically will sometimes turn to violence to get their point across. The more marginalized they feel, the more violent the protest. Unfortunately, their targets are not always the group that caused their marginalization in the first place. It is the targets that their leaders point them at. Usually because the leaders are the cause of that exclusion, they are pointed at outside sources, right or wrong. Often without thought as to the consequences of their attacks on their followers. Sometimes it is an attempt to provoke a responce that they think they will benifit from in the end.

KNick wrote:
One of the reasons for terrorism. People who believe that deeply, but who can't affect the change they want politically will sometimes turn to violence to get their point across. The more marginalized they feel, the more violent the protest. Unfortunately, their targets are not always the group that caused their marginalization in the first place. It is the targets that their leaders point them at. Usually because the leaders are the cause of that exclusion, they are pointed at outside sources, right or wrong. Often without thought as to the consequences of their attacks on their followers. Sometimes it is an attempt to provoke a responce that they think they will benifit from in the end.

I agree with your post, Knick, as far as it goes. I believe there are other factors. The most prominent factor is that terrorists do not have a common referent for non-violent resolution of their concerns.

For the Islamists, this is a rather obvious example: They believe everyone should be under Sharia law. That is hardly a position non-Muslims can accept and one the Islamists won't compromise on. Where is the possibility of non-violent resolution?

I would agree that some Christians are as statist as the most passionate Progressive. Those statists believe that a greater Christian influence over a powerful state is the best course for America. How this is different from Sharia in the long run is more a matter of which liberties are lost, not whether liberty will be lost.

The only comfort here for me is that Christian salvation requires a personal relationship with God. That means each person has to accept God or not individually. Forcing conversion destroys the relationship the Christ wants with his believers. Forcing compliance to God's will through secular laws destroys the moral quality of choosing to follow God's will. It is not following God's will as Islam asserts which is important, it is willingly doing his will as we believe that will to direct us that is important. So, while the forcible subjugation of non-believers is sufficient under Sharia, it is abhorrent to Christ. Although many Christians have forgotten this, I would assert most have not.

In the continent of Europe the percentage is 6%, while in the European Union it is 3.8%. Of those I'm sure that the very much greater percentage are normal decent people who just want to get through life without hassle as we all do. Impossible to know what the percentage of hard line muslims in the EU is, but it has to be miniscule. A miniscule percentage of that many people could still be thousands, who could well commit significant terrorism atrocities, but a long way from making an impact at the ballot box.

The problem with the Islamofacists is that they don't have any respect for the ballot box per se. They want to gain power and impose Sharia law on everyone and they don't care how they do it. If the ballot box works than they'll use it but they view it as one of many methods. If they can't make an impact via the ballot box, they will terrorize people until they agree to follow their rules. If part of a news story, how many mainstream news outlets are willing to publish reproductions of cartoons insulting Islam? Virtually none. How many would publish similar cartoons insulting Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism etc? Virtually all. Why the difference. Fear. They are afraid, not of the Muslim majority who would protest by boycotts and other accepted methods but of that tiny minority who would kill them. What would happen if this tiny minority started targeting other targets, nudist beaches for example? And after those disappear, the tiny minority moves on to targeting women in bikinis etc. etc. Given their lack of general support even among European Muslims, it is unlikely that Islamofacists would win at the ballot. But if they can achieve their objectives step by step through terror, than they don't really need to.