Of course they imagine the Islamists imposing Sharia because that's what they'd do if the shoe was on the other foot. And of course they know that the best way to bring someone around to your point of view is to kill their family. Works every time.

Of course, leave it to our resident troll to actually FEAR Democracy.

What is far more likely to occur under this mode is the freedoms enjoyed by western cultures would undermine the authoritarian regime of Muslim cultures than the other way around.

I always like it when someone says clearly what I was trying to say.

What I find fascinating though is the mirror effect. The same people who hate freedom and crave order in America are the ones who are most inclined to attribute the same worst attributes to their Muslim counterparts.

All the discussion we've had so far assumes that people become aware of something in the outside world and then react to it emotionally. This is unfortunately backwards. What I think is really happening is that people have an emotional framework which they then shape their world into fitting.

People who are particularly fearful or suspicious are going to be the ones who a: crave the certainty and comfort that comes from splitting the world into good and evil and demanding protection from the latter B: overgeneralize to the point that an appropriate fear of a small group of people who actually wish us harm grows to be a blanket condemnation of a sizable fraction of the world's population.

These fears and worldviews although ostensibly directed at outside the U.S. are really directed at their fellow Americans who don’t share their views – who need to “wake up” and embrace the fear and adopt their delusional conspiracy theories

This is why I find it valuable to remind people that our loyalty, as Americans, is to the Constitution of the United States. While Malkinites and others like to talk about loyalty and go on and on about our enemies, insofar as such people are willing to ignore or downplay the protections provided in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the separation of powers built into the document, then they are the ones who can be called treasonous.

You're absolutely right. We should declare war on Saudi Arabia and Indonesia immediately!

Certain people on these threads are so filled with hatred that they literally obsess over a religion practiced (with varying degrees of fidelity) by 1.565 billion people. So the question becomes, "what is the best way to deal with all these Muslims?" The people who seem MOST concerned with the problem are usually the ones most likely to advocate warfare as an appropriate response to the problem. I personally consider that prospect insane but I have difficulty with killing small animals let alone a large fraction of all humanity.

Others are less troubled by the prospect.

I personally like the idea expressed upthread, that if you are living well in a free and open society, you might find that people would care to emulate your example. If further you refrain from indiscrimanently killing the coreligionists of the people you are trying to impress, you might have better results with the assimilation effort.

If that means that I've thrown my lot in with the Salonistas then so be it. It beats genocide.

It seems the very same people here that insist on subdividing Islam into peaceful democratic types, and radical lunatics, would never do the same for Republicans or the Religious Right.

I know plenty of Republicans who are perfectly nice reasonable people and I know plenty of Religious people I get along quite well with as well.

But reasonable people don't start wars of aggression, dismantle the Constitution, disparage entire classes of people due to the circumstances of their birth or attempt to legislate on the subject of private behavior that is none of their business.

Its really quite simple.

(But then again anytime shooter says "it seems" you know he's just making $^it up.)

The current situation is pretty much an outgrowth of our involvement in WWII. As the extent of Nazi atrocities became more widely realized the moral superiority of the US became easily visible. Subsequent events cemented the assumption that we were a force for good in the world. The sad part, is that now the assumption is firmly in place, it isn't being dislodged by all the evidence to the contrary that has been collecting in the meantime. In fact, the more the US acts as a rogue state, the more energy is required to deny of our actual nature.

This is of course why our freinds at Powerline, Michelle Malkin and Amino Acid Idiocy - uh I mean Protein Wisdom need to get so shrill and over the top. They are busy defending the indefensible with nothing but now ancient history to back their position.

In sum, I think your characterization of the "foreign policy community" as a homogenous pro-war body is wildly inaccurate.

It's also widely inaccurate to state that the USA is unanimous in wanting to occupy Iraq. But that doesn't mean squat to the Iraqis because it's the subset who do who are getting their way. Insofar as both parties are advocating the same misguided approach based on the same misguided assumptions about the US role in the world and are only disagreeing on the proper ratio between threats and actual killing, then it's certainly fair to speak of the "foreign policy community" as a homogenous entity.

I'd suggest that the American people like being imperialist and there is going to be a problem in getting it out of our blood.

Considering that the continent was already populated before anyone who eventually came to be called Americans arrived, it stands to reason that imperialism would come naturally to those now occupy the USA. Self-selection in action once again.