LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Oren: Realists Misunderstand America's History

Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 8:23:58 am PST

Michael Oren says the foreign policy “realists” arguing for negotiations with Syria and Iran are ignorant of American history in the Middle East: Apple pie and the Middle East. (Skip the LA Times registration by following the link from this page: ‘Apple pie and the Middle East’ - Google News.)

THE STALLED U.S. mission in Iraq has prompted calls for a return to “realism” in American foreign policy. Instead of striving for freedom and national cohesion in the Middle East, realists argue that the U.S. should negotiate with Syria and Iran and abandon the dream of remaking the region on a democratic, federated model. Realists claim that replacing a faith-based policy with an agenda based solely on economic and strategic interests will return the United States to its traditional posture in the Middle East.

In fact, long before the rise of radical Islam and even the discovery of oil, Americans worked to bring liberty and human rights to the Middle East. For well over 200 years, U.S. citizens have sought to endow Middle Eastern peoples with the same inalienable liberties Americans enjoy at home.

The absence of basic freedoms in the Middle East was well known to the founding fathers. In contrast to the young republic, observed John Adams, the ancient dynasties of the Middle East were rife with “avarice and fear,” ruled by despots who treated their subjects like “so many caterpillars upon an apple tree.” Thomas Jefferson believed the U.S. could never rely on a peace treaty with any Middle Eastern state, whose word was only as good as the life of its ruler. The prevalence of tyranny in the region was noted by Jefferson’s friend, John Ledyard, who in 1788 became the first American to explore the Middle East. “It is singular,” he wrote, “the Arab language has no word for ‘liberty.’ ”

But merely lamenting the lack of liberty in the Middle East was insufficient for some early Americans, who dedicated their lives to emancipating its inhabitants. Starting in the 1820s, New England missionaries began building schools throughout the region and introducing their pupils to American-style ideas of patriotism and civic virtues. The missionaries also established the area’s first modern institutions of higher learning, the American University of Beirut (originally named the Syrian Protestant College) and Turkey’s Roberts College, to further disseminate their views. “A man white, black or yellow, Christian, Jew, Mohammedan or heathen, may enter and enjoy all the advantages of this institution,” declared AUB’s first president, Daniel Bliss, in 1866. “[He may] go out believing in one God, or in many Gods, or in no God.”

A similar open-mindedness was imparted by the Civil War veterans, Union as well as Confederate, who in the late 1860s joined in creating the first modern school system in Egypt.

Advertisement

97 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 Ed Mahmoud abu al Qahool Martyr Brigades  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:26:34am

I'm not sure what the American UNiversity in Beirut actually teaches. I just know back in the '80s Hezb'Allah liked to bomb it occasionally, and kidnap staff.

2 Spenser (with an S)  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:26:47am

But, Thomas Jefferson owned a Koran!

3 Spenser (with an S)  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:27:25am

He would never have said those things!

4 Ed Mahmoud abu al Qahool Martyr Brigades  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:28:05am

Who says the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Surrender Groups are 'relaists'. Anyone who states that Iran and Syria are not interested in chaos in Iraq clearly are not being realistic.

5 Ed Mahmoud abu al Qahool Martyr Brigades  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:28:22am

relaists= realists

6 Van Impe  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:29:19am
“It is singular,” he wrote, “the Arab language has no word for ‘liberty.’ ”

I thought Islam means liberty!

7 Yank in the EU  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:29:55am

Ooo, looks like a great read, Charles.

8 WriterMom  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:29:56am

Just got a flash of the Iran-Chavez whacky anti-American fund thing...weird.

9 somaking  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:30:35am

OT: Flying Pig Sited

Arab leaders blame someone besides Israel for blocking the 'peace process': Iran !
[Link: www.nypost.com...]

10 storagemanager  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:31:23am

They just wanted the camals.

11 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:31:26am

Hey, while we're at it, we can reinstall Marcos in the Phillippines.

/what? he's dead? never mind.

12 JustAVoter  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:31:38am

As a student of political science, I think a definition of "Realism" is in order.

Generally speaking, realists believe:

1) States are the primary actors in international affairs (not non-state actors, such as terrorist groups, the UN, etc.)

2) States act as unitary actors (they come to a decision and go for it as one)

3) States exhibit value maximizing behavior (i.e. they pursue what they perceive to be in their best interest, period)

Generally speaking, realism is about obtaining the best outcome for the state with varying (generally minimal, occasionally no) concerns about morality involved - "states have no allies (or enemies), only interests."

Henry Kissinger is a noted realist, for example, but there are many realist schools of thought and I don't know if he would go along with these recommendations.

13 loppyd  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:31:51am

Very much ON topic - from yesterday's Boston Globe Democrat:

Exiting via Iran


by ROBERT I. ROTBERG

FOR THE United States, the road out of Iraq runs through Tehran. The only way to promote sustainable peace, stability, and order in Iraq is to forge an unholy alliance with Iran -- and accept Iran's dominant influence in the Middle East. Only by accepting Iranian hegemonic pretensions, odious as they are, can the United States extricate itself somewhat honorably from Iraq.

14 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:32:51am

Hey Ed, I had a nice slow drive in today. Icy roads here in Dallas.

15 Silhouette  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:33:35am

Dern evil Americans. With their concern for the enslaved subjects of dictators, dedicating their lives to emancipate and educate people and stuff. Who do they think they are?

No blood for freedom and education!

/

16 Hucbald  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:34:31am

And, of course, Jefferson kicked the crap out of the RoP pirates exacting tribute on the sea trade routes throughout the greater ME. I mean, like, it was one of the first things his administration put a priority on.

I don't think negotiations were on his strategic agenda, either. More like kicking ass and taking no prisoners.

Now, THAT is realism!

17 realwest  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:35:06am

Mr. Oren is certainly correct when noting "In fact, long before the rise of radical Islam and even the discovery of oil, Americans worked to bring liberty and human rights to the Middle East. For well over 200 years, U.S. citizens have sought to endow Middle Eastern peoples with the same inalienable liberties Americans enjoy at home."
Nonetheless, European powers (who were in fact POWERS in those days) sought to merely exploit most of the ME. Ideas and principles got lost in the fight for colonies.
I think the "realists" may have been right at some point in time, but not now. Not in the age of Nuclear warfare. America's best interest's lie in the hope for democracy throughout the Middle East. And for all those who wish to point to the "civil war" in Iraq as showing how democracy can't work in an Islamic nation, I remind them all of the glorious day when millions of Iraqi's made sometime dangerous pilgrimages to vote (remember the "purple fingers?). IIRC, it was only subsequent to that historic episode that thousands and thousands of "foreign fighters" made their presence felt in Iraq and they CHOSE to do it by killing their fellow Muslims. Make no doubt about it: terrorists fear democracy like the Plague.

18 ibmkeyboard  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:35:43am

6 VI

I thought Islam means liberty!
Give me Islam or give me death!

UH...........

I don't know,
Its missing something?

19 T.H. Suburbia  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:36:03am

Civil War Veterans working on the Egyptian School System is one thing - Preznit Mc Bring-'Em-On pouring bucket after bucket of shit into the fan is quite another.

New England Missionaries knocking on doors and building schools is one thing - Cheneys why-do-we-keep-on-giving-a-fuck-brigade cakewalking over dead american soldiers is quite another.

20 Dustoff-507  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:36:53am

#11 Ward

/

what? he's dead? never mind.

No he's not dead, just staying with Elvis. (-:

21 Sponge  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:37:05am
14 Ward Cleaver 1/15/2007 08:32AM PST

Hey Ed, I had a nice slow drive in today. Icy roads here in Dallas.


Fun, wasn't it? Took me 45 minutes to go 12 miles in NO traffic.

22 grayp  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:37:15am

This is based on Oren's new book Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present

It was reviewed in WSJ on Saturday, I believe. The review emphasized that Oren basically castrates Jim Baker - so of course I ordered it.

heh.

23 Yank in the EU  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:37:27am

#12 JustAVoter

Many of the realists, including Kissinger, openly state one of the key principles of their worldview: that the actions of a state with regard to others are "amoral." That's not "immoral", of course, but looking at WWII and our relations with the KSA for example, we are not led by morality but interest.

You would also have to include the principle of "stability" for the sake of economic interest as one of the ideals.

24 loppyd  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:38:09am

grayp

The review emphasized that Oren basically castrates Jim Baker - so of course I ordered it.

LOL!

25 traveler  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:38:57am

Michael Oren wrote Six Days of War, too.

26 ronaldusmagnus  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:39:34am

Is it fair to say that a definition for "realist" as used above might be:

One who compromises principle for expediency, pragmatism or the easier, softer way?

27 Enraged_Badger  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:39:45am

Tsk, tsk..see what happens when people read the Koran! They get all 'intolerant'.

In other news, here in the UK the trial for six carbon-based bipeds for trying to blow up London transport (their bombs didn't go off, poor babies)
[Link: www.telegraph.co.uk...]

Spot a novel use for chapatti flour and the ol'burka escape ruse (why have the cops not cottoned on to this one yet? So bloody obvious but no, one must be 'sensitive')

28 Ed Mahmoud abu al Qahool Martyr Brigades  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:40:31am

I guess TH of Suburbia, who, like his hero Lawrence, enjoys being sodomized by Turks, has not been banned as I was starting to think.

29 grayp  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:40:40am

#19 T.H. Suburbia

Cheneys why-do-we-keep-on-giving-a-fuck-brigade cakewalking over dead american soldiers is quite another.

T.H. Suburbia's why-do-we-keep-on-giving-a-fuck-brigade cakewalking over dead american civilians is quite repugnant.

30 Roger  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:42:25am

I had a long talk with a devout Muslim over the weekend; he says there will never be an agreement where Israel will be recognized by people, such as himself who unequivocally believe the koran. He says the koran says the Jews have failed allah by not becoming Muslim and not recognizing their latest non-Jewish prophet. He says in 100 years Israel will not exist.

Why attempt to make agreements with state powers which this Muslim says all Muslims like himself under their rule will never recognize the existence of Israel?

31 Jape  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:42:52am

Interesting read.

It reminds that every time I hear a translation from Arabic, I hear in the background: "yibbiddy, yibbida, achh ma yibbiddy DEMOCRACY yibbiddy achh ma yibbiddy".

If they lack they words for liberty and democracy after all these millennia, just how easy is it going to be for them to grasp the concept (let alone put it into practice)?

#2 Spenser
Spelling correction: "Thomas Jefferson pwned a Koran."

(Th0ma5 J3ff3r50n r0xx0r5!11one)

32 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:44:22am
33 realwest  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:44:23am

#9 somaking -Flying pig or not that was one hell of an interesting read. Thanks a lot for that link!

34 traveler  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:44:29am

T.H. Suburbia merely wrote to insult -- the topic is irrelevant. He's also quite the idiot who thinks the White House is in Baltimore -- one of his more memorable quotes gave the longitude and latitude of what he thought was the White House. A quick thinking Lizard looked it up and called him on it.

He also defended Dan Rather as merely a "Newspresenter". (pronounced "news-presentah")

Just scrollover. He's an idiot.

35 Kenneth  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:45:28am

Official Rejects Rumors about Iran-US Clash in Persian Gulf

Fars News Agency reported that Iranian officials strongly rejected rumors about eruption of clashes between Iranian and US battleships in the Persian Gulf. An excerpt:

Since the early hours of Sunday morning, many Iranian subscribers have received an SMS which spoke of a clash between Iranian and American battleships in the Persian Gulf waters.
The full text:
Deputy Governor General of Iran's southern province of Hormuzgan strongly rejected rumors about eruption of clashes between Iranian and US battleships in the Persian Gulf.
Speaking to FNA, the official viewed the rumor as a part of the enemies' psychological war on Iran, and added, "Such efforts are made to break the Iranians' resolve after West's efforts in the form of the UN Security Council Resolution 1737 to influence Iran's decision through downgrading public morale failed."
An informed source in the security department of the Iranian interior ministry also denied such reports as baseless.

The only operation on the coastal provinces in southern Iran in the last two days pertained to a clash between Iran's Law Enforcement Police and a gang of smugglers in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf port city of Jask.

Since the early hours of Sunday morning, many Iranian subscribers have received an SMS which spoke of a clash between Iranian and American battleships in the Persian Gulf waters.

A texted message about a US-Iranian naval clash: just a wild rumour or US psy-ops against the mullahs? Interesting...

36 traveler  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:46:24am

Morning, Kenneth!

37 ibmkeyboard  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:46:59am
The only way to promote sustainable peace, stability, and order in Iraq is to forge an unholy alliance with Iran -- and accept Iran's dominant influence in the Middle East. Only by accepting Iranian hegemonic pretensions, odious as they are, can the United States extricate itself somewhat honorably from Iraq.


Great idea.
I am reminded of Pol Pot and the millions of Cambodians that had plastic bags put over their heads to shut them up.

Is that peace of mind,
or no more talking in line?

38 realwest  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:47:57am

#22 grayp - Morning to you - what better recommendation could you ask for?!

39 JustAVoter  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:49:17am

#23

You would also have to include the principle of "stability" for the sake of economic interest as one of the ideals.

While many realists would agree with this principle, it's not necessarily a part of "realist" political thought. Political science - a discipline journalists attempt to decipher at their own risk - has a lot of theories, but "realism" is a "grand" theory - like liberalism (which has nothing to do with the word "liberal" in the sense that one is on the left - George W. Bush could be considered a "liberal" in international relations, for example, due to his focus on the composition of foreign governments rather than viewing states as simply unitary actors that will act on their own best interest, whether they are democratic or autocratic) or constructivism.

Hegemonic stability theory is a smaller, but certainly an important theory.

40 grayp  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:49:22am

Roger, PSU guy?

Kenneth - Iran has 'battleships'?

41 traveler  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:49:30am

Thanks to Islam, the Middle East will never be stable -- but we must beat back the evil forces (fanned by zealots of Islam) who would spring from it to destroy us. Kind of like a chronic illness.

42 m  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:49:55am

#18 ibmkeyboardz

I don't know,
Its missing something?

Truth.

Doesn't seem to stop 'em, but still.

43 kepler2007  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:50:50am

The realist like Baker are wrong of course. There is nothing to negotiate with Iran and Syria about. The trouble with Mr. Oren's article is the idea of freedom. Is it the freedom we in the west understand or is freedom in terms of what and Islamic ummah understand. Turkery is the closet example of a semi-democratic muslim state in the middle east we have. The reason they have any freedoms at all is the military oppress the clerics and for that matter political Islam with an iron fist. When Islamic parties are elected the military in the past has simply taken power and arrested all the elected leaders. So as long as the idea of a Islamic government and Islamic law are tenants of the faith of Islam then this will always be a reality where ever there is a majority of muslims. Even in a semi-secular and semi-democratic place like Turkey things like honor killings still occur on a regular bases so the faith still is strong.

The problem Mr. Oren proves is the American mind set cannot grasp religion and faith like these people do. The good chrisitan views his faith as a individual pursuit not as a group and all powerful governmental pursuit. Most muslims however do view it this way. The ummah is a community of believers that must follow those laws. Thus any democracy you create without first oppressing the idea of Islamic law will just elect leaders who want and install Islamic law. See Palestine and Hamas as a good example. Now some of the really stupid will say: "Let the people decide and its their own doing" but what those people do not understand is one of the tenants of that kind of government is jihad and thus a mortal enemy to America. Is our goal to produce anti-american democracies hell bent on Islamic law? That is the fate of Iraq.

Our war should be againt Islamic tenants like Jihad, Islamic law and Sharia, and Islam the politcal system and ONLY after we have defeated those ideas can we hope for democracy. If you let the people chose in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq you will get Islamic governments all united against us. Do you really want the muslim brotherhood running Egypt?

44 Silhouette  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:51:30am

#17 realwest

Nonetheless, European powers (who were in fact POWERS in those days) sought to merely exploit most of the ME. Ideas and principles got lost in the fight for colonies.

As odd as it feels for me to defend Europe, I'm not sure they were the worst colonial exploiters ever.

If you watch this flash video that shows the empires of the mid-east and the mediterranian over the past 5000 years, one sees that rather than centuries of independance ruined by evil western imperialism, the mid-east was ruled by empire after empire after empire.

UNTIL european colonialism, who's rule didn't end by being overthrown by yet another empire, but instead ended with them setting up the "independance period" we see today. In other words, the western nations were the only empire to just hand over control of their colonies to the people they colonized, and try to set up freedom.

Did they make mistakes? Were they less than perfect? DId they have their own selfish interests in mind much of the time?

Yes to all of those, but still I hold that no other civilization just gave away territory out of an idea of doing what was right like the western ones did.

45 Yank in the EU  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:51:34am

#32 NJD

John Conyers (Moonbat - MI), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wants something similar: [Link: www.conyersblog.us...]

/to post that yet again

46 grayp  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:52:22am

hello realwest! It was a busy weekend for us - take the tree down, buy a new mattress, figure out how to get a passport - all normal stuff and no crisis on the horizon.

And I watched 24 last night for the first time ever and have added a new entry in my 'addictions' column.

Life is good!

47 realwest  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:53:39am

#37 ibmkeyboard - Morning my friend - great post, and absolutely spot on.

48 lawhawk  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:55:27am

I'm sorry but Oren falls into the same trap as many in the media and pundits alike. The so called realists are nothing of the sort. The realist school of political theory would not recognize what the likes of the ISG and those who think that negotiating with Syria and Iran are realists.

Realists would not accept a short term panacea to a long term solution, noting that the jihadis are not assuaged by such talk. Realists would not confuse short term hudnas for long term elimination of threats to US national security and hegemony. Realists would know that jihadis and insurgents are simply proxy forces for various nations and entities in the Middle East to counterbalance the US and Western influences in the region - influences that bring democracy and freedom socially, economically, and politically.

Pseudorealists like Baker and the ISG don't care about such complexities, instead hoping that if they gain a few days of peace from Syria or Iran, that is sufficient or that people will think that the problems have been eliminated or papered over.

Meanwhile, the realists in Iran and Syria will take advantage of the psuedorealists and buy time to build up their weapons programs (Iran apparently had a setback in their nuke program) and to train their proxies for the next conflict - which will be inevitable.

49 storagemanager  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:56:48am

"The sword of Muhammad and the Quran are the most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty,
and the truth which the world has yet known."
The eminent orientalist Sir William Muir (1819-1905)
50 Silhouette  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 6:58:22am

#30 Roger

never be an agreement where Israel will be recognized by people, such as himself who unequivocally believe the koran. He says the koran says the Jews have failed allah by not becoming Muslim

And he clearly admitted it wasn't over occupation or olive groves, but because they are Jews.

51 traveler  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:01:14am

#46 grayp

It appears you've fallen, too. I'm afraid I'm going to have to check out what all the fuss is about over "24".....There's quite the buzz over that show. And I've always thought Keifer Sutherland had a deep, almost hypnotic voice.

(Confession: My current guilty pleasure is "Desperate Housewives of Orange County".....new season starts Tuesday.....)

52 Roger  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:01:44am

#40 grayp

The guy I was talking to? Not PSU. A Baalistinian who is now a US citizen. Lives in Texas but flies into the area to talk about software; he knows me from another company years ago.

The conversation covered a lot more; and I was my usual plodding self;-) I left him completely puzzled on a number of things. I hit hard on people partnering with allah and judging other people rather than looking at themselves. Much more than I can write right now. I made no equivocation that he and I have the same Jesus; he knows exactly where I stand. And he never bothered with the usual race all over the place; he was talking with a plodder.

53 grayp  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:02:06am

#32 NJD

There's a bit more going on behind the scenes in Germany than you may realize. The NPD is a neo-Nazi party that is making electoral inroads in rural areas of the former East Germany at the local level, e.g. mayor. While that has not yet directly impacted the numbers in the Bundestag, the local support of these people will eventually be required to win national elections if the current trend continues.

And don't forget - in some respects this is already in place. Orianna Falacci was prosecuted in Italy via Switzerland due to that lovely totalitarian Common European Arrest Warrant.

And Yank in the EU - what Conyers is proposing is a resolution - it is completely without legal force.

54 Kenneth  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:02:59am

#36 traveler

Good morning to you too!

340 grayp

Kenneth - Iran has 'battleships'?

Surely you have heard of the awesome and terrifying Super-Top-Secret-Islamic-Stealth-Fying-Boat?

But seriously, the interesting part of the story, not even mentioned actually, is the possibilty that the text message rumour going around Iran may be part of a US psy-ops. Watch for more stuff like this.

55 Roger  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:04:51am

#50 Silhouette

Yes. Absolutely no doubt he and others believe it is because Jews are Jewish. Duh:-)

56 realwest  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:06:22am

#44 Silhouette - I didn't say the Europeans were the worst exploiters in ME history - as you pointed out, far from it.
I was merely pointing out that for the longest period America wasn't angling for colonies but trying to convert muslims to Christianity. That the Europeans finally "gave up" on the exploitation of the ME was not so much because "...[they] gave away territory out of an idea of doing what was right." but because after WWII, they lacked the genuine capacity to hold onto those colonies (see, e.g., France and Northern Africa and of course Britain, Joradan, Israel and "palestine".) It didn't matter much then, but I hold that it matters a great deal today why Western Nations act as they do in the ME. And I still maintain that a democratic (even if modeled after the Turks) Middle East is the Islamic Terrorist's greatest fear.

57 Yank in the EU  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:06:46am

#53 grayp,

I realize that, but if the resolution gets passed by both houses of congress and then is signed by the president, does it not gain the force of law?

58 grayp  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:08:06am

traveler

Desperate Housewives?! blech. Not until they get the clothes Dynasty had.

:D

Roger, I could smack you. I would have shredded the guy. But let me ask you this, and I don't mean this as a personal slam - would you have been such a plodder if you had been dealing with a Nazi? Is/was it the religion thing?

Back later - gotta walk the dog.

59 Mike C.  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:13:37am

"Realism." Another perfectly good word of the English language shot to hell by the left. "Liberal" is the best example. Madison, Monroe and Jefferson were liberals. Today they would be rabid, neo-con, right wing Nazis.

60 grayp  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:14:18am

#57 Yank in the EU

I realize that, but if the resolution gets passed by both houses of congress and then is signed by the president, does it not gain the force of law?

nope.

I'll explain later - gotta hop. Or someone can do it while I'm gone.

61 Roger  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:15:06am

#58 grayp

Would you have left him puzzled and thinking maybe he doesn't have all information because his claim the Christian Bible is distorted because of Jewish scribes leaves him wide open to be ignorant of many things because he hasn't bothered to read them?

Your Nazi; would he be wearing a revolver? Or would he be an unarmed US citizen?

62 realwest  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:15:21am

#59 Mike C. - if you leave out the "Nazi's" part of it your post was spot on.

63 wanumba  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:16:32am

Refreshing commentary.
More background:
1785 President Washington, with no navy or budget with which to use, tasked Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams while in Europe to BEG the Europeans for money in order to get cash to pay the Barbary kings in order to pay for the release of American sailors and passsengers. To say it was a humiliating experience for the men puts it mildly as they were turned down by the Europeans.
An irate Jefferson became one of the strongest proponents of building a navy. Washington managed to push through approval for the budgeting and building of ships that would form the core of the new navy. He did not live long enough to see the fruits of these efforts. Upon news of Washington's death, in 1799, Tripoli demanded $10,000 for the occasion, on the basis that America was a tributary state to Tripoli.
When Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as president, he discovered that a large chunk of the United States budget was earmarked to payments to Barbary Coast despots for the release of Americans held hostage, plus the annual tribute payments - protection money to be allowed to sail unmolested. The Barbary kings saw an opportunity, Jefferson's predecessor, Adams had been occupied with French aggression, while continuing the tribute payments, so they expected more of the same. Morocco demanded an increase in tribute, Jefferson refused, and Morocco declared war on the United States. To their shock, Jefferson was only too happy to have at it - he'd spent years fuming about it, and he had the ships and men eager to take the fight to the Mediterranean. Jefferson was up against 300 years of appeasement, with an untested navy, and the battle thousands of miles away from home in hostile waters. No one thought the Americans could pull it off.

This is so relevent to our times, it seems a national catastrophe that our schools do not teach our children about this period in American History!

64 realwest  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:18:19am

#63 wanumba - Spot on post. Thanks.

65 wyattstorch  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:21:29am

Make Iraq the 51st state now!

Manifest Destiny.

66 Yank in the EU  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:22:49am

#60 grayp

Alright, it appears to me that what I am referring to would be a "Joint Resolution" which would have the same legal force as a bill...

67 THX-42  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:24:24am

Allow me to distill the real definition of the so-called "realists" down to its essentials. In effect, "realists" like Henry Kissinger and James Baker (not to mention most of the State Department and the entire Democrat Party) believe that long-term goals (like "peace in the Middle East") can be achieved better by a long series of small, tactical compromises rather than a sudden, large strategic action (like "war"). They believe that by negotiating directly with your enemies, you forestall violent actions by both sides, and the longer you forestall it the more likely that "good things" will happen (dictators might be overthrown from within, the economic improvement of our enemies will make them less interested in violence, etc.).

The problem with this theory is that it was developed in an era when our enemies lacked either the means or the suicidal will to inflict a fatal blow on our country. That is patently not true today. The Pakistani distribution of nuclear technology to a whole cluster of our enemies (North Korea, Iran, etc.), most of whom have dictators and ideologies based on suicide attacks have irrevocably changed the formula.

Now, time (i.e., the serial deferral of meaningful action) accrues to the distinct advantage of the aggressor.

Sorry, but "realism" is no longer a realistic option if we want to survive.

68 Yank in the EU  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:24:44am

#65 wyattstorch

Your post is idiotic.

Let me guess, hard left moby?

69 pelayo  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:31:24am

Realism is a somewhat catch all term for a variety of political theories having in common an emphasis on the notions of power and interests, and a pessimistic view of the prospects for eradicating political conflict.

Structural realists like Kenneth Waltz emphasize the structures of the international system as the source of conflict. They view the international system as essentially one of anarchy, in which there is no overarching world government or superstate capable of adjudicating disputes. Thus states are forced to rely on self-help to maintain security. States try to increae their power in order to achieve security, but this in turn renders other states less securre.

Some forms of realism emphasize human nature as the source of conflict. Some forms of secular realism with roots in Hobbes and Machiavelli and Carl Schmitt veer toward amoralism. At the same time there was an immensely influential movement of Christian realism started by Reinhold Niebuhr. Niebuhr's realism began as a reaction to Christian pacifism in the lead up to World War II. Niebuhr argued that

"...the modern forms of Christian pacifism are heretical. Presumably inspired by the Christian gospel, they have really absorbed the Renaisance faith in the goodness of man, have rejected the Christian doctrine of original sin as an outmoded bit of pessimism, have reiniterpreted the Cross so that it is made to stand for the absurd idea that perfect love is guaranteed a simple victory over the world..."(R.N. "Why the Church is not pacifist").

Niebuhr basing himself on Augustine argued that the
1)That the perennial source of political conflict is original sin manifesting itself in the human tendency toward pride and self-glorification

2) that nations restrain their pride even less than inviduals and their collective egotism manifests itself in the lust for domination

3)that this flaw is ineradicable and universal and cannot be eliminated by any utopian political project. Optimism about human nature is the source of most errors in political life. He refers to those "children of light" who seeing only the good in others are able to be easily manipulated by the "children of darkness".

4) That a measure of justice is possible only where there is a balance of power. Whenever power is concentrated injustice will invariably result.

5) That the Cross stands for complete self-renunciation - what he calls an "impossible possiiblity". This Christian ideal renders all worldly achievements of justice relative, but it is not meant as a practical guide to political actions in world living under the regime of sin.

Niebuhr had a significant impact on the first generation of Cold War policy makers like Hans Morgenthau and Goerge Kennan.

70 Kenneth  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:34:09am

More detail on the big Afghanistan operation last week,

U.S. reconnaissance units spotted a couple of hundred Taliban fighters massing in the neighbouring North Waziristan area of Pakistan, where power has been virtually ceded to Taliban and Al Qaeda forces. UAV's watched as a fleet of lorries drove the men to the border and into Paktika, Afghanistan, in two columns, accompanied by several pick-up trucks later found to be full of ammunition. Pakistani forces helped monitor the fighters.

Coalition forces waited until the columns had gone just over a mile into Afghanistan. Then they pounced. Apache helicopters decimated the columns with their missiles and machine guns (645 rounds per minute) and attack aircraft dropped 500 and 1000-pound bombs on the surprised Taliban fighters. The fighting, if you can call it that, lasted over 9 hours as helicopters tracked survivors of the ambush through the mountains as they tried to escape.

Pakistani forces had been alerted to the convoys and rained artillery and mortar fire on the trucks at the Afghanistan border. The estimate of the dead ranged from 150 (the initial estimate), to 130 (revised estimate) to 80 (Afghani defence ministry).

"We think that we killed at least 130 fighters from what we have been able to ascertain through visual recognition," said Lt Col Paul Fitzpatrick, a spokesman for US forces in Kabul, said in the usual convoluted military jargon. He said military officials lowered the estimate during the day after reports made at night under combat conditions were further evaluated.

The BBC reports that the bodies of 25 Pakistani guerillas killed in the ambush were brought back to North Waziristan for burial in their respective villages. Another 50 wounded men were in local hospitals.

Interrogation of the few prisoners taken will decide the debate over whether the insurgents were headed to attack a target or to stash the ammunition in preparation for the annual spring offensive which should start in about six weeks.

...and still the media pundits blather on about the resurgent Taliban, the lost war, the Afghan quagmire.

71 Yank in the EU  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:40:20am

#60 grayp,

Well, I'll check back in later for the skinny on that. I'm thinking, depending on how Conyers intends (if so) to submit his resolution, it could amount to ban on criticism of Islam if carried to the right extent. Do I think that is 'realistic' in America? No. Back to work now.

72 kepler2007  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:41:03am

# 48 lawhawk 1/15/2007 08:55AM PST

Thus we have three groups with three solutions to our problem...

(1) Democracy Realist: support the democracy program in the middle east with the hope freedom will be an answer to the problem. Examples are G.W. Bush, Cheney, Pearl, Condi and others.

Problem: As long as Islam with its tenants of Islamic law and jihad still strong in the hearts of men then Islamic parties will win the election and produce Islamic governments. Not a good result for the U.S.

(2) Pseudorealists: Use the pay off the bad guy approach. We have used this with the Saudis and they hope to use it with Iran and Syria as well. Its the Saudi plan. Examples: Baker, Hamilton, Scowcroft and others.

Problem: Might give short term peace but will in long run weaken us even more. It is clear it has not worked with the Saudis who were behind 9-11 and other arabian states are no different. We ignore Islamic law and jihad which are the driving forces behind our problems thus we put off a war that will be faught anyway.

(3) Islamic Realist: Have accepted that Islam is dangerously flawed and with major tenants of the faith going counter the western civilization. The Islamic Realist have stated that the goal is to defeat Jihad and Islamic Law which means politcal Islam. That also means reforming or defeating the Islamic politcal system (the faith) itself before you have any hope of building democracies. Examples: Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald, sometimes Newt when he is not in PC mode, Tancredo, and handful of Republicans and even a few liberials (Hirsi Ali).

Problem: It scares the hell out people. That means we are in a religious war and its going to be long. Also we will have to get off the middle east oil habit. Not an easy task.

I am a Islamic Realist becuase in my view the other two plans will lead us to years of wasted chances. The only hope is to confront the problem in a direct manner. Our first goal is to save western civilization which we are losing right now and then and only then try to reform the Islamic ummah. In the interval we should contain the ummah within their own areas and attack when we see a threat such as the Iranian nuclear program. It was the strategy Europe used during the 16th- early 19th centuries and it worked well. It saved europe and opened the seas to trade. The Barbery Wars were not a democracy project but were a freedom of the seas project. In short we just kicked ass and left with a warning if it happens again the Dey of Algiers gets a dirt (or sand) nap.

73 mjazzguitar  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:42:25am

Quoting John Adams: "Our constitution was made only for a religious and moral people and is unsuitable for any other."

74 chemicalcorpse  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 7:50:14am

All this talk about getting along and subsisting with the Muslim population is delusional...

These people actually believe to their core they are superior human beings to the rest of us... this explains their obnoxiously rude, arrogant, self-rightous attitude.

We are all just so much cannon-fodder and useful only as slaves; this isn't the 'old-school' thought process; this IS THE PREVELANT THOUGHT PROCESS.

75 grayp  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 8:49:48am

yank in the EU, sorry to take so long to get back.

There are 3 kinds of resolutions

simple - which simply represents the opinion of one chamber, usually about public policy and limited in scope to that chamber. If such originates on the house side, its designation will be H.Res.

concurrent - the scope applies to both chambers. If originating on the House side, the designation is H. Con. Res.

joint - this is the one that has the force of a bill and must be signed by the President in order to become law. Designation would be H.J.Res.

Conyers' resolution is designated H.Res. It's a simple resolution - scope limited to the House and basically just giving Conyers a forum to posture from.

76 Yank in the EU  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 8:57:13am

#75 grayp

Yes, those points I get.

Because the old resolution is not up now, I am just speculating on what form of resolution Conyers or some other Democrat might use to resubmit.

Even the presence of that symbolic, simple resolution would be a troubling precedent IMO, if it had been passed.

77 Yank in the EU  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 9:08:10am

#75 grayp

I do have a question about how these Congressional bills and resolutions work, if you are experienced in that kind of thing. It is it typical for there to be a progression among the levels of the resolutions. For example, the House passes a simple resolution and they send it to the Senate to 'upgrade' it... does that happen? Or is there generally just a direct movement to create a Joint Resolution, etc and that's it?

78 Right Side  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 9:37:53am

Michael Oren's article is illogical on at least two major points:

First of all, Mr. Oren cites numerous examples where the U.S. tried to spread the ideas of freedom and democracy. We did, and we should still try to do that. But up till the Iraq War, America didn't try to create democratic states in the Middle East with American military force. We liberated Kuwait from Saddam, but we did not attempt to turn Kuwait into a parliamentary democracy (it is still a hereditary emirate).

Armed American infidels walking around on Muslim territory is guaranteed to provoke even "moderate" Muslims, no matter how generous and tolerant our occupation troops are. Muslims have been taught since birth that the Dar al-Islam is for them to control, and infidels there must either submit to their rule--or else get the hell out. Americans drew the wrong lesson from the occupations of Japan and Germany after World War II. Those occupations were successful because those nations had formally surrendered and peace had returned. That didn't happen in Iraq, where Saddam went to the hangman still defiant.

Secondly, the examples Mr. Oren describes of spreading democratic ideas were things like protecting religious minorities. What Mr. Oren does not discuss is whether, and at what point, spreading democracy among fundamentalist Muslims will require them to rethink parts of Islam, something America has never confronted before.

When America speaks of "freedom," we mean political freedom--free from coercion by a tyrannical government. But fundamentalist Muslims don't make that distinction. To them, it's not the degree of government power over the individual, but whether the government is operating according to Islamic law or some other law, that they care about. Many would prefer a dictatorship organized according to sharia than a democracy that does not follow Islamic law.

I doubt that even Henry Kissinger or Jim Baker want the United States to stop advocating freedom in this world. Heck, even the Left doesn't want that. The question remains whether advocating Western-style political freedom per se is going to be an effective counter to the Islamic jihad we face today. And also whether we can spread Western-style ideas of freedom by a military occupation of a people who have been brainwashed to resist any control by infidels. Bush thought so. But I don't think so, myself.

79 dentate  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 9:43:28am

Little known fact outside the world of genealogy: Thomas Jefferson's paternal lineage was ultimately from the Mediterranean world, possibly Spanish, but if Spanish, very likely Middle Eastern before that.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

It is very unlikely that he was aware of this, but of course anything is possible. Note that his K2 lineage is especially common in Iraq. Weird coincidence.

80 traveler  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 9:44:51am
#58 grayp 1/15/2007 09:08AM PST

traveler

Desperate Housewives?! blech. Not until they get the clothes Dynasty had.

:D

Just to clarify: I was referring to the reality show on Bravo that follows some California housewives around -- they all drive gas-guzzling SUVs (easier to get to the global warming awareness rallies) and they all have enormous fake boobs and taut Botox-injected faces.

Can't stand it, yet I cannot turn away!

It still qualifies for a "blech", though!

81 Right Side  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 9:47:50am

#72 kepler2007:

I am a Islamic Realist because in my view the other two plans will lead us to years of wasted chances. The only hope is to confront the problem in a direct manner. Our first goal is to save western civilization which we are losing right now and then and only then try to reform the Islamic ummah. In the interval we should contain the ummah within their own areas and attack when we see a threat such as the Iranian nuclear program.


I agree with you.

And the good news is that there are even more strategic options open to us than the ones you listed.

First and foremost is "divide and conquer": We used this to effect in the Cold War. Instead of stupidly trying to get the USSR and Red China to make peace with each other in the name of "stability," we did everything we could to divide them, thus weakening the global ambitions of both. We have been handed a centuries-old schism between Shiites and Sunnis on a silver platter. Which is better for us: Having Saudi Arabia staunchly opposed to Iran--or signing a nonaggression pact with them?

And we can weaken the Middle East Muslims economically. We can refuse to do business with them. Western companies that do business there should be shunned, and ordinary Americans should not invest in their stocks. Congress can launch a thousand investigations of these companies to harass them out of doing business in the Middle East. Shun, denounce and insult any average Americans who have taken jobs in the Middle East. And, as I keep saying, we need to work with all Western nations to drastically reduce our use of Middle East Muslim oil.

But now for the bad news: To be a true "Islamic realist," you have to be open and honest about what Islam is all about. You have to be willing to discuss the issue using real words like "jihad," "Sharia," etc. You have to be willing to point to Sura 9 in the Quran and explain just how the radicals have interpreted it to rationalize their terrorism--and what other interpretations exist.

Up till now, that has been the major stumbling block. It's like Roosevelt or Churchill being prevented from mentioning the word "Nazism," or Ronald Reagan being prevented from mentioning the word "Communism," because it might offend somebody.

82 NavyBrat  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 9:49:49am

Well now:

Mubarak: Muslim Brotherhood poses threat on Egypt security

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said the Muslim Brotherhood poses a threat to the country's security and Egypt would face isolation in the world if the Islamist movement became more powerful.

[Link: www.albawaba.com...]

83 Right Side  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 10:02:00am

#72 kepler2007:

Democracy Realist: support the democracy program in the middle east with the hope freedom will be an answer to the problem. Examples are G.W. Bush, Cheney, Pearl, Condi and others.


The appealing aspect of what you call "Democracy Realism" was that it enabled Bush to talk about the War on Terror without ever having to mention sensitive words like Jihad, Sharia, Sura 9, or anything else specific about the radical Islamist ideology.

Talking openly about such matters can get a politician labeled as "Islamophobic" or "racist" these days.

This has always struck me as one of those "Only Nixon could go to China" scenarios: Only someone with impeccable ideological credentials can safely adopt a contrarian position without suffering political fallout for it. Nixon, a staunch anti-Communist, could open the door to dealing with Red China without being labeled "soft on Communism."

And in this case, only a liberal, or at least a lifelong Democrat, is going to get away with being an "Islamic realist" (of the type you and I are talking about) without being slammed as Islamophobic or racist. A conservative or Republican has no chance to survive politically.

It doesn't mean that we conservatives and Republicans can't talk about such matters--but I am convinced that a liberal or Democrat somewhere is going to have to take the lead first, to make the subject politically respectable here in the U.S. Even Lieberman would do.

Gingrich was able to ram welfare reform through Congress only after the Democrat, Clinton, won election in 1992 promising to reform welfare.

If it's perceived as a Republican/conservative dissection of Islam, it will flop on the grounds of alleged bigotry.

84 kepler2007  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 10:44:15am

81, 83 Right Side 1/15/2007 11:47AM PST

I agree

The exploitation of divisons within Islam is the best way to keep them contained. If they are at war with each other it takes valuable resources off the western playing field and keeps them within their own lands. The Shia vs. Sunni is one example but there are many more.

And we can weaken the Middle East Muslims economically. We can refuse to do business with them. Western companies that do business there should be shunned, and ordinary Americans should not invest in their stocks. Congress can launch a thousand investigations of these companies to harass them out of doing business in the Middle East. Shun, denounce and insult any average Americans who have taken jobs in the Middle East. And, as I keep saying, we need to work with all Western nations to drastically reduce our use of Middle East Muslim oil.

This is another good example of what we most do at home. We need to get off the Middle East oil kick. This can be done with a little hard work. It is worth it in the long run.

We must stop trading with Islamic nations who wage terror wars on us. Saudi Arabia being no. 1 in my book. Remember the abolitionist movement in America used the same tactic with great success against banks in the north who dealt in slavery.

And in this case, only a liberal, or at least a lifelong Democrat, is going to get away with being an "Islamic realist" (of the type you and I are talking about) without being slammed as Islamophobic or racist. A conservative or Republican has no chance to survive politically.

I agree the racist/islamophobic attacks will be a big hurdle. The liberals however don't stand for things anymore. They should be screaming about the lack of womens rights under Islam or the lack of freedom and even the return of the slave trade but they don't. I hope you are right and someone does come to their senses and starts to defend things. Liberials don't want to admit it but Western Civilization is their child too. They better start to defend it but appears the multi-cultural, self hatred and pacifism wings have taken over.

Perhaps another option is a new party. I know many people laugh when I say this but remember how the Republican Party was formed. It was becuase free soilers and others in the North felt neither party was address the "big problem" of the day which was "slave power". Their fears were justified becuase there is no doubt the southern slave holders were using their power to overturn state laws in the north that prevented slavery through payoffs and other tactics. A average person in the north felt that both parties were polluted and thus formed a new party which of course was the Republican Party.

Perhaps the time has come for a new "Republican party". Its time to learn a lesson from Lincoln and the roots of the party. It is time to speak the truth a be damed the consequences.

85 kepler2007  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 11:03:00am

#81 Right Side 1/15/2007 11:47AM PST

Up till now, that has been the major stumbling block. It's like Roosevelt or Churchill being prevented from mentioning the word "Nazism," or Ronald Reagan being prevented from mentioning the word "Communism," because it might offend somebody.

This is why I do feel that even though racism and Islamophobic attacks and charges are a big hurdle the average American is ready to listen and follow someone who just speaks the truth. In fact I think the peole are craving it. Just look at the polls in which neither party scores high. People just want some truth from the politicians. They want someone who will take charge and explain what we are fighting. Most people feel this is a war between Western Civilization and Islaimic Civilization but they do not see either party making that argument. The Republicans have been bitten by the pc bug and don't want truth. You cannot treat a problem unless you get to its roots. That is the 9th Sura and a little more :). I really do feel the politcal leader that does a Winston Churchill will win in the end. The truth always wins.

Also I am tired of people blaming the media. The media blamed Ronald Reagan for everything under the sun and it did not stop him from winning. Trust the truth and the American people will follow despite what some talking head on TV says or what the NY times writes. Bush does not speak the truth and thus people lost faith in him and his leadership. His own actions did him in. Stop worrying about what the media is going to do....start worrying about what you are going to do with the enemy. The votes will follow.

86 Asher Abrams  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 11:18:25am

Great article by Michael Oren.

87 grayp  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 11:22:52am

Yank in the EU

I think you get that the 3 kinds of resolutions differ in scope. 'Simple' confined to the originating chamber, 'concurrent' confined to both chambers, 'joint' if signed by the President encompassing both chambers and the executive.

But resolutions do not result in statutes or regulations or anything that can be adjudicated. They do not result in law. A joint resolution could be signed by the President that specified grayp has to stop smoking. It's pissing up a rope. It's all talk.

There is one point that people may find confusing because of terminology - "continuing resolution" - this is specific to the budget - when Congress can't agree on funding for the next fiscal period they pass a 'continuing resolution' which says we're going to keep on doing what we've been doing until we get this figured out.

88 ggt  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 11:34:17am

#13 loppy

FOR THE United States, the road out of Iraq runs through Tehran

I thought that first sentence would be followed by different thoughts . . . . one's I thought more accurate.

Technically, isn't the fact that we now know Iran has been supplying the insurgents --an act of war?

89 ggt  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 11:43:50am

#45 Yank

thanks for that link to conyer's blog!

90 mn_marine_mp  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 11:54:54am

I think a lot of people are pretty cloudy on the whole ISG/realist thing. This has been an extremely informative thread for me.

realwest
lawhawk
wanumba
THX-42
pelayo
kepler2007
RightSide

thank you for sharing your knowledge and opinions.

Silhouette, great link to that Flash movie.

--mn_marine_mp

91 undhimmicratic  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 12:04:23pm

Michael Oren's new book Power, Faith and Fantasy is one of the most imformative I've read in a long time--plus it's a great read. I strongly recommend it--it's kind of a missing piece in understanding today's global dangers and dilemmas. Plus the characters he introduces are amazing. Fascinating stuff.

92 kepler2007  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 12:22:16pm

# 78 Right side

When America speaks of "freedom," we mean political freedom--free from coercion by a tyrannical government. But fundamentalist Muslims don't make that distinction. To them, it's not the degree of government power over the individual, but whether the government is operating according to Islamic law or some other law, that they care about. Many would prefer a dictatorship organized according to sharia than a democracy that does not follow Islamic law.

You sir should run for elected office. I could not have said it better (or even equal) plus better grammer. See this is what I am talking about. Say it like it is. This is about the nature of god. These people are not playing for the now...they are playing for the afterlife. You get into heaven by being a good muslim and making other muslims be good. The best way is Islamic law/government and with it the keys to heaven.

93 Yank in the EU  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 12:29:16pm

#87 grayp,

Well, thanks for the information grayp! Hope all is well, btw. I think I'll be seeking out these books by Oren pretty soon.

What I did (after reading Conyers' blog) was I looked up the meaning of "Resolution" insofar as it applies to Congress. The definition the gov't provides is that the third kind, "Joint Resolutions," have no real distinction whatsoever from a "Bills." It said that exactly like bills, joint resolutions are passed by both Houses of Congress and are signed by the president; once this occurs they bear the "force of law." I guess my question now is: what exactly does that last phrase mean?

I also recalled this example: Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

It's almost clear what role beyond the merely symbolic joint resolutions play in the legislative branch but not yet entirely. I'll look into when I have more time (which is not right now).

94 grayp  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 12:41:29pm

I know what I mean, but I need a lawyer - which I most certainly am not - articulate it.

I'm off to hunt for OR

95 gymnast  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 1:40:28pm

AUB was the cradle of American Arabism. When the missionary's realized that the Orthodox Christians were never going to acceptive of Protestantism, they switched gears and introduced "American Arabism" and the concepts of American Democracy and Liberty. That didn't work out to well either. See Kaplan, Robert D. "The Arabists-The Romance of an American Elite" and understand where the American State Department gets some of it's goofy ideas and idealism.

96 carridine  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 4:47:17pm
Starting in the 1820s, New England missionaries began building schools throughout the region and introducing their pupils to American-style ideas of patriotism and civic virtues.

They were ALSO taking the Holy Gospel out to every nation as a witness, that their Spirit-filled sacrifice would enable 'one like unto the Son of Man' to return at the time that the "Abomination of Desolation" had run out its 2,300 years of prophecy in 1844...

So the "realism" that is worth recalling and investing today is the realism brought by the Holy One 'like unto the Son of Man', Whose coming May 23 1844 began an outpouring of Divine Love and Knowledge which is transforming our world today.

It isn't only moonbats who yearn for some more comfortable past which is NEVER to return! Conservatives, too, long for the time when they KNEW Jesus was Christ, but didn't know 'the righteousness that is Christ' had returned in His New Name (Rev 2:17, 3:12)

97 Roger  Mon, Jan 15, 2007 5:02:29pm

#96 carridine

(691 + 1335) + 7 - 2000 = 2026 + 7 - 2000 = 2033 - 2000 = 33 [Ascension of Christ]


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

Blockbuster_TotalAccess 50% off
More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

The brand new and bruising power.


Holiday Gift Guide - Save up to 45% on the seasons best!
Discover the World's largest E-Book Store! Save big on bestsellers!