Islam:
I have read the Koran. I have studied it. I went to a school where general ed requirements included lots of history and the major religions were a part of that. Also, religion and religious history are a hobby of mine. However, if you are suggesting that I am religious, you are mistaken. I profess no belief in the supernatural.
Attributing actions to people whom you have not met based upon which church they attend fits the technical definition of bigotry. I do not assert that you are a necessarily a bigot(or that you are not) but lets be clear about what we are saying.
However, lets get past that and address your points. You suggest that killing non-muslims is a widely agreed upon tenet of the religion. Lets take an example (based on what is arguably the most politically and economically advanced country with widespread Islam). India has more Muslims than Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia combined. They have about as many muslims as Pakistan. They occasionally have nuts blow things up, however, they and their colossal number of Muslims are not in any danger of actually trying to take over India or enforce sharia in the call center and engineering school of the world. Neither has this been the case in more-muslim and less-developed Indonesia. A few nuts and vigilante squads but not actual facism. Nor has this been the case in Bangladesh. The only truly high-population example to the contrary is Pakistan where the problems seem to be more focused on political failures.
Also, when we look at the actual death toll of warfare throughout history, there are only 2 major (major referring to high death tolls) conflicts that had Muslim powers as a major component. Those were WWI (the soon-to-be-defunct Ottoman Empire) and the Iraq War. All the other high-death-toll conflicts had Christians, Jews, and (weirdly) Buddhist powers as primary players.
Short version: while there are a lot of nuts around at the moment, there is not a strong historical case to claim Islam as truly dangerous.
Gaffes:
Still not interested. Pointing out verbal errors does not make the point that he is uninformed. It says he make verbal errors. Disagreeing with his policies would start to get to that “substance argument” (sic) that you want. See there I pointed out your error but it did not weaken your argument.
Kruschev:
I am not aware of widespread acknowledgement that Kennedy was “schooled”. I am aware that tough diplomacy resolved the issue of USSR nukes in Cuba. The placing of the nukes in Cuba was prompted by a fear of regime change. It was resolved by talking. Again thanks for the earlier citation. I was not aware of the article.
You have a point though, there is always the danger of coming off as wimpy. The status quo toward Iran has not born fruit in almost 30 years. I think suggesting changing course is within the realm of reason. Thats part of the reason we are setting up an American interests office in Tehran (under Bush).
Bolton:
What Bolton said is a lot more complex than an addition equation. I think an IR extremist making statements about IR makes the issue relevant. However, I tried to make a point of addressing the assertions he made and tried not to rely on impeaching his reputation. My point now is the same as it was then. Speak your own mind or find a better person to do it for you. Also, your section impeaching Obama and his gaffes, and not his actual policies and proposals, kind of undermines your complaints of ad hominem attacks. Also its wasteful. There is so much more vulnerable game with his policies.
Opportunities:
The Europeans are in a different relationship with Iran. Their example does not apply. At what point after 29 years can we call our approach ineffective?
Blaming America:
I don’t blame America. I am not the kind of whiner that old Jean was complaining about. I do think it is important to put sentiment in context. We undermined democracy there. We need to keep their memory of this in mind when dealing with them. That is true even if we never negotiate. We need to keep a current assessment of their aims and issues so as to better look after our own interests. That true even if our communication with them is just us telling them to mellow out or we will nuke them. You have to know your adversary whichever direction you go with them.
Regarding ancient Islam:
Your assertions to not square with most history courses. If you are going to say that you know more than the generally accepted experts then you are in Cheneyland.
Spencer is not a widely credited expert. I have read some of his stuff (though not the one that you mention) and his song seems (in what I have read) to only have one note. He hates islam and intellectualizes religious bigotry. I don’t think handing me arguments from every other fringe author is actually beneficial to your arguments.
Please raise the level of discussion. In this post, you made exactly one good (if obvious) point (the danger of looking weak in negotiations is real). This is just turning into why you think muslims/islam is dangerous or why I am naive for not also thinking that. Thats boring.
