myata

I'm not sure I want to go deep into the lexical analysis of the piece. The logic seems to be limited to the eternal "because I think that I can and because I think that I'm better". Along with traditional bashing of Islamist as cause of this world's misery. Just using simple and unequivocal terminology (and facts ) usually makes the fallacy of such statements pretty obvious.

And once again, using obscure terminology doesn't help (or was it the intent?) to keep arguments clear. One can argue forever about the meaning of "messianism". If instead we used "conversion" (that's what is really meant, and acted as, after all), the matters would seem a lot clearer. As another poster pointed out, "democratic conversion" is an oxymoron. And no, Germany and Japan aren't the same thing (shouldn't take an extended study to see that). More interesting example, in my view, would be India. It's interesting that they adopted to a significant extent the government model of the late colonial power, although only after colonisation has ended. This gives the "messiahs" of the world a good lesson, if they would listen: conversion by force and violence would probably fail. Sharing ideas and leading by example may bring positive results for all.

Democratic messianism is no different from all other messianisms attempted before - religious, ideological or plain power dominance. No wonder that as in all earlier instances it's bound to fail - in the sense of achieving its proclaimed goals completely and in permanency. I'll see it as the true second coming when we will learn to coexist according to our fashions without trying to impose our own way of life upon each other. BTW, it's also my deeply held opinion that the only way to prevent the well-meaning "messiahs" from causing severe harm to innocent people will be to make this (and any) kind of international messianism criminally punishable. Who knows, maybe it'll make the messiahs to have a second thought - something as you rigthfully mentioned, everybody needs.

Why argue? You're both right. According to this recent poll by respectable Economist, US ranks virtually on the same level with Iran on the "Global Peace Index" scale. US: #96, Iran: #97. At issue is not that Iran irks the US (and some others). In the recent history we've seen equally, and more extreme regimes which successfully acquired and maintained nuclear weapons (Soviet Union, N.Korea closely followed by Pakistan and Israel). It's that from any practical perspective, US approach to the international politics, which is based on self-assumed exclusiveness, dominance and contempt of any opinion that isn't in line with their own, is very obviously bound to fail. There're powers in the world that will never submit to foreign dominance, no matter how benevolent it may be (or wanted to appear). They include, without limitation, China, India, probably Russia and very likely muslim world, if it ever start speaking with more or less one voice. I.e. by far more than a half of this planet's population. Yet US administrations continue in the same direction totally oblivious to that simple fact. No surprise that pretty much all global issues where they tried to apply its influence, Middle East conflict, global warming, or international security, show very little progress.

What about suicide murders then? You know, those much closer to home, of which we hear any week in any year? Are they Islamists too? Now compare suicide bombing deaths in war zone countries with gun violence deaths closer to home. If they're death cult when who are "us"??

Oh my. What a spread (or spray?) of thought. Can't we keep on to the topic though - i.e. death cult and Iran? OK. What cause? How does this understanding of their mission line up with the history of the last say century? Or maybe you're attempting to describe some alternative universe? Are "they" all like suicide bombers?

I'm not sure what kind of homework you've done to connect this death cult religion stuff with Iran. Anyways how do you know if / when someone is or is not afraid of dying? Because they're fundamentally different in their nature from us? And for that reason aren't entitled to the same privileges as ourselves (and our friends or proxies)?

And I believe you seriously overstretch credibility of these statements whatever remains of it (or existed in the first place). How would such massive supply operations be possible with coalitions' commanding position on land, sea and in the air? And why the best evidence we've got of it are some unsubstantiated statements of unknown US officials? Surely they would be able to show satellite pics of suppy vehicles and columns of foreign mercenaries marching into Iraq? Without very strong evidence of massive foreign involvement all attempts to blame others for coalitions' failures sound plain and simple - lame. It's much easier to believe that they simply stumbled on their own rakes, again as many times before.

Let's get it right: on one side we have 150,000 (or what is the latest count?) of most advanced and heavilty armed forces that can be found on this planet. One the other - possibility (not proven in any credible way just yet) of some low level smuggling operations on the level of handguns and carry-on explosives. Do you seriously believe that if that overpowering zeal for democracy actually existed, #2 would have been any meaningful match for #1? To the extent that the whole democracy mission being on the brink of failure?

Yeah right. They "used" it and US used it (for strictly defence purposes of course). Those are just two different semantics of the same word.

Soviets had extremely authoritarian ideology and lots of nukes and they didn"t use them once. Iran will at best have a handful and not anytime soon.

After Iraq debacle all claims of imminent threats by US / UK (e.g. the infamous 45 min ballistic missile attack? WMD? Al-Qaeda in Iraq ...) will be taken with a big grain of salt. Until there's iron clad evidence (way stronger than that unassuming "US officials say", that Iran is involved in Iraq, I wouldn't even bother noticing these reports. Who knows - maybe it's simply a propaganda round like the one before the Iraq war? Then, if such evidence does appear, one would have to analyse whether Iran would be justified in actively resisting a hostile armed power on its borders. --- oops

You associated "rising above the third world label..." with being an empire (yours or ours I'm less sure). That needs to be clarified. There're many countries (this included) which do not have imperial ambitions and are doing just fine. Uhm, no. I usually do not discuss comings and goings of miscellaneous US presidents et cetera. This particular topic is about that aspect of US policy that affects international order, perhaps it belongs in the world affairs section.

Wow, that's quite an ego you've got there. I.e. all good that exists in this world is due to US. Thank-you. With their families? Must be about an order of magnitude more. Sad if it's the other way around in your place. Unless of course, you remember all 200 of them. Or was it 200 years? Whatever.

And why is it better? Who said so? Another of god-forgotten presidents?

Yes right. One must be a traitor if not approved by "proper channels". Is that the ideals which this infamous war on terror is fought for?

All dogs are mortal even the biggest ones. Romans ruled the known world for 500 years, British - 200 or so. US had been the big kid for what, 60 years (after WWII), and the biggest one from 1990 (16). And already showing the strain, with massive debt and international credibility in tatters. The reign may not last anywhere as long. And there's no telling which unlucky bite will break the straw.

Yes, but that's why it's good to define (and keep to) exact meanings of terms, other than of course, in discussions round dinner table. Atheist is someone who does not have a belief in god(s), period. Agnostic is someone who does not reject either choice, whatever probability. Believer is someone who believes in (at least one) god, whether or not they accept or deny the existence of gods from other beliefs. Which by the way is another distinction, because "accepting existence" is not equivalent to "worship". E.g. ecumenical muslim will accept the existence of Hindy gods (as manifestation of divine which is different from her own), but it does not mean that she will worship them. In this way, she will be a believer who is not "atheistic" to other gods. Apart from terminology, the argument that non-believing in other gods somehow makes atheism a "default" worldview doesn't hold water, even from merely checking the history.

Also, the argument of multiple religions as disproof of all does not really work. In the ecumenical view of the world, multiple religions are explained as different but equally valid manifestations of the divine (if I'm not mistaken). Therefore, it can only refute the narrow definition of a belief as "my only to the wrong of all others".

How about clarifying terminology? Militant atheist = someone attempting to prove that god(s) does not exist (just or simply) Atheist = someone who personally does not believe in ANY god(s) Agnostic = someone who does not make a statement of belief or otherwise in ANY god(s) Believer = someone who believes in SOME god(s), to the exclusion of others or otherwise. I'm not sure that mixing #2 (atheist) and #4 (believer) can explain a lot. There're believers who accept existence of other gods and those who don't. An atheist rejects the believe in certain god because there's no place for any gods in their view of the world while believer in a different god does it simply because the place of the god in their world view is already taken. These are completely different positions. I also don't see why agnostics should be bundled together with atheists. In their worldview the question has not been decided either way.

Given that (unconfirmed reports / unknown degree of Irans govt participation / unknown extent - note the numbers of unknowns), to what extent can one (seriously) hold Iran responsible for the mess in Iraq? As opposed to US / UK who started the war and are currently occupying the country? Doesn't it sound, like, a clumsy excuse? Almost as clumsy (and as credible) as Blairs's last time chants of peace. But once again, I quite agree with a part of your statement. If US felt it was their right to sponsor a fighting faction in Afganistan half the globe away, I'd like to see them to come up with some strong arguments that Iran shouldn't be allowed to do the same next door (provided there's credible proof that they are actually doing it, of course).

Er... I'm not exactly following your logic, so here one more time: - US intelligence already proven to be wrong with WMD in Iraq, so these reports cannot be considered "proven" in a normal good sense of the word without independ confirmation; - even if Iranian weapons were to be found in Iraq, it does not prove yet it was officially sanctioned to support the insurgency; - even if it were proven that Iranian did support the insurgency, it is not something that they could / should be immediately sanctioned for because US themselves used the same strategy (i.e achieving their objectives by proxy) countless times. But in one respect you're right indeed. Iran is next door, while US half way across the globe away. Wonder who has the greater cause to be concerned?

By the same infallable strike of logic, should the US be accused of murdering people anywhere on this Earth their weapons can be found in? Not to mention that "US specialists found smoking gun evidence" sounds somewhat stale after Iraq if you know what I mean. That is, it could be as far from actually "proven" as could possibly be.

That is not that's being said. At issue is very specific dogma that for all I know (and can think of) serves no rational purpose in this age.

Now that's a fresh streak in the analysis (or maybe not so fresh, but who cares). If only it could be proven to any credible extent - I mean more credible than those (in)famous WMDs?