No issue you saying this. But painting the whole picture suggest the World is extremely hypocritical. Everybody does what's best for themselves. And when they feel they are at there best, they want to share, as you would share your best with people around you.
Geez, Mathloon, I thought you were smart enough not to run around crying "fascist" and using one part of an inherently nebulous ideology to slander your opponent.
Agreed, I wasn't judging the US here. I was stating a fact. I have no problem with people/countries looking at their own best interest (altough some go a bit overboard), but the thing I find hypocritical is that they claim they do certain things to spread freedom.
You're right. What I meant to say is that DaDakota's views seem to show a striking resemblance to the views of fascists in accordance with our historical knowledge, a nebulous ideology which is discussed in great detail if you click on the wikipedia link I provided earlier. Furthermore, his views regarding religion and secularism also share a striking resemblance to the partially-predictable and meticulously-recorded views of fascists in these subject matters. Therefore I suggest that if DaDakota's views are similar to the views of historical fascists and/or neofascists, then his views have already been discredited, and if put into practice they will result in similar destruction and despair that fascism has brought to its victims. This outcome is undesirable to me, and I would imagine it's undesirable to the majority of people. Furthermore, I am concerned that such views are already widespread in America, especially within the military itself, based on several articles from news sources that we all routinely consider to be acceptable sources of information. The coupling of money, power and this type of ideology has historically has yielded extremely poor economic, political and social results. There is plenty of evidence that such an ideology is counter-productive to the long-term well-being of a nation. I wonder whether DaDakota sees that this particular part of his ideology is similar to the similarly nebulous Islamofascism, a topic which he feels very strongly about (against). There is nothing wrong with being Agnostic of course, but since DaDakota tends to base his arguments on (by his own admission) hatred of mass religion and his own disbelief in it, I would remind readers that it is irresponsible for us to ever look at Agnosticism as a shield against ideological critique, as may or may not be the case here. I will also point out a core element of fascism is the fascists' inability to accept that a world dominated by any one single ideology is likely to be more peaceful than a multi-ideology world. However, this type of peace holds little value, as its constituents are merely subjects of the most artificially and temporarily powerful leaders of ideologies, which will inevitably face non-peaceful resistance from their least obedient and most freedom-seeking sujects, and this further extends war and violence. How was that?
Very interesting turn of events here. So DaDakota, are you admitting that the U.S. is not interested in spreading freedom, but instead only pursuing their own interest? Is there anyone else who is willing to admit this? I'd like to think it was the opposite, and that the U.S. is willing to advocate for freedom.
I think the US is interested in spreading freedom, but if freedom is not realistic right now, they are interested in doing what is best for our country. And if Freedom leads to folks making an uneducated selection it comes into play. DD
Hogwash. From Day 1, our interventions have been about securing our own interests. That's what foreign policy is all about. To suggest otherwise is naive and ignorant.
Isn't Egypt's main source of money from tourism...which has been been completely marginalized by the unrest. If they don't get back to putting forth an image of a calm, secure country where tourists feel safe coming to, then they are going to have problems getting their economy back on track. An Islamist state wannabe is not going to top my tourist destinations. And, it seems that there are incidents where a dispute breaks out between locals and police so what do the locals do? They nab American tourists off the street and hold them prisoner until they get their way. They have a lot of work to do in restoring their tourism industry to what it was imo. When foreigners hear about this Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist president elect, I think many from the West at least will be raising the red flag and not go there.
It's sad to think there is a possibility that we will never be able to see the pyramids and all the country's ancient history. Very sad.
They need to sort out their issues, and get religion out of their government. If all people and their beliefs are respected, you have a better country - and one that people want to see. If it becomes radicalized, no one will go there, and their own people will suffer because of it. Egypt is not a natural resource haven - they need outside help for their economy. DD
I hear you. A hundred times I've heard you. But there is no way in valhalla will that region of the world would ever do this. They want their religion in every aspect of their lives to different degrees. And I can appreciate their desires. If they choose to go down this path and lose the tourism trade, the only people that loses are people with a little money to travel. The rest of the world won't give a crap if they never see the pyramids.
They want it in their lives because that is all they have ever known, most of the people over there are poor and uneducated, and all they ever hear is how Islam is the only way to live. What a bunch of pure propaganda....and it is no great secret that the leaders of those countries get away and drink alcohol and have fun in the Western world while denying their own citizens the chance to better themselves. Until those people get to experience the same freedoms and everyone is safe, I am fine with the USA pressing it's dogma. DD
These two statements are inherently contradictory- in IR theory, realism is in direct conflict with the notion that state actors operate occording to ideological pretexts, in this case your belief that the US should seek to spread its political/national ideology to the rest of the world. Realists understand history, and that world history has shown empire after empire that believed their own political/national ideology to be supreme, representative of a transcendent truth moreso than a political construct that has accommodated and worked within a very specific context. Monarchies have had success, as have dictatorships, religious empires, and the like. Any true realist would look at the world and objectively assess what the 'greater good' actually constitutes for the United States. Sometimes, this greater good may require advocating secular reforms, and in others, taking agnostic stances in the face of theocratically leaning states. The real question is- what threat does Egypt pose to the United States and what are the ways in which MB could threaten US interests? In order for the US to ensure those interests are maintained and protected, it will have to learn to exercise soft power, which, to Obama's credit he's already begun doing.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/profile/173 The Muslim Brotherhood Updated May 15, 2012 The Muslim Brotherhood is a global Sunni revivalist movement founded in Egypt in 1928. It seeks to establish an Islamic Caliphate governed by Shari'ah, or Islamic law. This is a long-term objective to be realized through a methodical plan that includes preaching, charitable work and a commitment to jihad. Most major U.S. Muslim organizations have roots in, or links to, the Muslim Brotherhood, including the Muslim Students Association, the Muslim American Society, the Islamic Society of North America and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. According to al-Banna, the Caliphate must govern all lands that were at one time under the control of Muslims. He stated: Once that is accomplished, the Caliphate is to be expanded to cover the entire globe, erasing national boundaries under the flag of Islam. This concept was elucidated by the Brotherhood luminary, Sayyid Qutb, who wrote in his seminal work, Milestones (1964), that Muslims are not merely obliged to wage jihad in defense of Islamic lands, but must wage offensive jihad in order to liberate the world from the servitude of man-made law and governance. Ideology: The Muslim Brotherhood seeks to restore the historical Caliphate and then expand its authority over the entire world, dismantling all non-Islamic governments. The Brotherhood aims to accomplish this through a combination of warfare – both violent and political. The Muslim Brotherhood has provided the ideological model for almost all modern Sunni Islamic terrorist groups. When discussing Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Richard Clarke – the chief counterterrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council under Presidents Clinton and Bush – told a Senate committee in 2003 that “The common link here is the extremist Muslim Brotherhood – all of these organizations are descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers.” The leadership of Al Qaeda, from Osama bin Laden to his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed all were influenced by Muslim Brotherhood ideology. (...) Jihad, death, and martyrdom have been lauded throughout the history of the Brotherhood, not only as a means to achieve the above goals, but as an end unto itself. Al-Banna quotes a Hanafi scholar: The Brotherhood Today: While many Muslim Brotherhood branches around the world claim to have embraced democracy, the philosophies developed by Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb still carry great influence within the organization. The Brotherhood continues to be driven by al- Banna’s belief that Islam is destined to eventually dominate the world. The Brotherhood’s declared principles remain steadfast even today. According to their website, the Brotherhood seeks, “the introduction of the Islamic Shari’ah as the basis controlling the affairs of state and society” and “unification among the Islamic countries and states...liberating them from foreign imperialism.” However, in an interview on May 23, 2008 with the online Arabic news service Elaph, Akef seemed to change his approach. He was asked: “Regarding resistance and jihad, do you consider Osama Bin Laden a terrorist or an Islamic Mujahid?” In response, Akef said, “In all certainty, a mujahid, and I have no doubt in his sincerity in resisting the occupation, close to Allah on high.” He was then asked about his previous denial about the existence of al Qaeda, and said, “The name is an American invention, but al Qaeda as a concept and organization comes from tyranny and corruption.” The interviewer followed with this question: “So, do you support the activities of al Qaeda, and to what extent?” Akef said, “Yes, I support its activities against the occupiers, and not against the people.” The Brotherhood in the West In the United States, the Brotherhood has had an active presence since the 1960s. They have been represented by various organizations such as the Muslim Students’ Association (MSA) founded in 1963, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) 1971, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) 1981, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) 1981, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) 1981, the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR) 1989, the American Muslim Council (AMC) 1990, the Muslim American Society (MAS) 1992, the Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) 1994, and others. In fact, nearly all prominent Islamic organizations in the United States are rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood. An internal Brotherhood memorandum, released during the terror-support trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) trial in July 2007 shows that the Brotherhood’s jihad can take more subtle and long range approaches. Dated to May 22, 1991, the memo states: The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. --------------------------- This is like reading freaking "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler. Expansionist, aggressive, just plain horrible ideological fanatism. And I am quite sure that some of the fanatical posters here are affiliated with some of the organizations mentioned. Anyone who reads this and denies that the Muslim Brotherhood threatens the interests of the free world is either in complete denial, incredibly naive, or supports their goals.
It is crap like that that shows it is a cultural war, and folks are sick and tired of the bull****tedness of it. DD
Thank goodness, I've already been there and seen that. To call it remarkable is a wild understatement.
