"when you face the Almighty ...", says BOAZ.

What a load of childish nonsense. The one you call "the Almighty" is a character from a book. Quite a good book, as it happens, but a book nonetheless. There is no more likelihood of meeting him than there is of meeting Hamlet or Harry Potter.

David, yes, true - But the reason was to hold Iran in check, not because RR and Saddam were bossom buddies. After the first year of the Iran-Iraque war, it became clear that Saddam had bitten off more than he could chew. Reagan played both sides, and as I said, that was probably the best thing for a politician to do, and the decade long stalemate that followed maybe served US interests (and the world). The fact that hundreds of thousands died (particularly young Iranians sent on suicide charges) because it was in the "interests" of Saddam, the Ayatollahs, RR and other governments in the region shows the sorry state of mankind and how imoral they all were.

On the other hand, there is the concept of 'greater evil'. Would it had been better not to aid Saddam? or Stalin in WW2? What if Iran had conquered Iraque and then taken over other Gulf Countries (Including Arabia, a country who rulers I despise so much I refuse to use their name!). Or what if Saddam had won? I really don't know.

I hate to tell you this, but governments are by nature immoral enterprises - they favor people and groups, take monies from one group and give to another, selectively make and enforce laws, promote their 'pet' projects irrespective of the general good and so on. The primary mission of all governments is to ensure that they continue - and they do what it takes to that end. That phrase about "providing for general wellfare" is way down on the list. The older I get, the more I believe that good people cannot be part of government, or at least be honest and remain be part of government - they will either quit or get kicked out.

I am getting old, and very cynical.

David, it is enough to drive one to drink.... almost...

John Kactu

John, I'm in general agreement with you there. Although I will say that we should hold democratic governments to greater account and expect more of them than dictatorships. And I don't just mean the US (some people the US believe they are often unfairly targeted). I also mean our own government and the governments of Western Europe.

Softic says: "These intellectuals [Chomsky, Pilger et al] would want us to believe the war in Iraq is the continuation of that 'neo-imperial' strategy."

But policymakers behind Project for an American Century and some of Bush's cabinet (the so-called Vulcans) are quite open about such a strategy. And this is partly why I object to Softic's inference that those in charge in the US are idealists compared with European cynics.

"More interestingly, what will become of the faithless secularists?"
Well almost everyone with a open mind becomes Agnostic or Atheist. So our numbers will grow in all areas while as the big three go the way of the pagan religions. You just have to look at the only branch of Christian that is growing, hillsong and the like and what brand of mumbo jumbo they peddle. Once again DB demonstrates his precarious grip on reality. The Pope thought that Luther fellow was smashing.

Reality Check,

You raised a good point and here are some thoughts:

Will a change in demography, in the long term, change a democracy based government from secular to theological? I don’t think it will. The reason why is taking Australian Muslims for instance: immigrants and aussies who chose Islam, over the years they developed a balanced system where their religious beliefs and democratic values are not in conflict. They have their own views on out of marriage children and gay marriage but they don’t go out and force it on others.

Now compare that to a Muslim, Christian or even a Jew living in some parts of the middle east / Africa. The practice of religion is a lot more literal. Homosexuals are likely to beaten by a Christian, Muslim or a jew.

My point is Islam in the West is likely to have a lot less literalism than that of the East. Just like precendents in Christianity and Judaism: west Europe Christianity is vastly different in literalism and so is Judaism.

BD,

There are four emotional steps a person needs to go through to accept a reality: denial, anger, depression and acceptance. As far as Islam is concerned, you are still at step one. See you when you get to step 4.

Glad you are enjoying your beliefs and not trying to force them on others..(or are you?) :)

All the best

Fellow Human

your confidence in Western Culture is based on...

Islamists becoming entrapped by secularism / materialism?
Islamists accepting Westminster traditions and freedoms?
The west reclaiming its cultural foundations or becoming so liberal that no one cares if it is lost?

You note "but they don’t go out and force it on others."

I think this is the big 'if' based on a 'not yet.'

The success of your optimism is based on the concept of 'moderate Islam' being developed and its ability to resist radical elements that will purge Islam of such moderate "apostates."

Here's hoping, but, after those apostates are sorted, people of the book are 'generously' catered for (dimmitude) who is next in the line of fire for 'conversion'?