“The guy was a Muslim, insulting our President..”
And insulting his fellow Muslims who welcomed President Bush. Your attempt to demonize all Muslims using this clown has failed.
“It was not an occasion for lighthearted levity..”
You have already admitted you couldn’t come up with a better way for Bush to handle it.
“The term “extreme” is a relative one..”
The extremists are the ones who embrace the al-Qaeda radicals and Shia radicals like al-Sadr.
“Hardly.”
The government didn’t sanction crimes against Christains. Those are al-Qaeda and Iranian backed militias. They are the same groups that are at war with the coalition and the Iraqi security forces. Your argument is fallicious.
“and its use in Islam, are totally incompatible.”
Try telling that to the Turks. Your interpretation of what constitutes true Islam is no different than al-Qaeda’s interpretation.
“Where I part ways with Bush is where the battle to remove a dangerous dictator became an American crusade to experiment in nation building...”
You show no understanding of history. The objective all along was to foster a democratic Iraq. You would know this if you bothered to study the congressional legislation that authorized Operation Iraqi Freedom. You disregard these facts so you can run around spouting your ignorant ant-war nonsense and complaining about ‘neo-cons’. You’re no less ignorant than the far left and the isolationists who crowned Ron Paul as father of ‘true’ conservatism.
“It was a failure brought on by the neo-cons..”
Still desperately clinging onto the idea that Iraq is a failure, you run around posting statements worthy of the DU.
“We are in a war and the war is with Islam...”
What, then, should we do with the millions of Muslims who are American citizens and reside in America? Also, if we are at war with Islam, why do we have military bases thoughout the Muslim world, like Turkey, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, ect...?
You lefties and Paulbots declare that spreading democracy is an agenda of the ‘neocons’. Yet it has been our objective since the Atlantic Charter.
I am going to use your post against you. Anytime I see someone taking you seriously, I will notify them that you consider Iraq to be a ‘failure of the neo-cons’. And I have your post here to back up my accusation. You are just another person who opposes our mission in Iraq, since our objective was to implement democratic reform (if you bothered to read the legislation you would already know this). Whenever you claim that another peoples culture means they prefer dictatorship over democracy, you demonstrate cultural condescension.
[While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change, we must not hesitate to declare our ultimate objectives and to take concrete actions to move toward them. We must be staunch in our conviction
that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings. So states the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, among other things, guarantees free elections. The objective I propose is quite simple to state: to foster the infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose
their own way to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means.
This is not cultural imperialism; it is providing the means for genuine self-determination and protection for diversity. Democracy already flourishes in countries with very different cultures and historical experiences. It would be cultural condescension, or worse, to say that any people prefer dictatorship to democracy. Who would voluntarily choose not to have the right to vote, decide to purchase government propaganda handouts instead of independent newspapers, prefer government to worker-controlled unions, opt for land to be owned by the state instead of those who till it, want government repression of religious liberty, a single political party
instead of a free choice, a rigid cultural orthodoxy instead of democratic tolerance and diversity.]- Ronald Reagan 1982
I didn't see any Muslims in the street protesting the REPORTER'S actions. The idea of “moderate” Muslims is simply a myth. Sure, there are probably a small handful of them - afraid to express themselves due to typical Islamic violence from the mainstream Islamists - but they are an insignificant number. I have never heard from them or seen them except for a few obscure Internet websites they have set up.
“You have already admitted you couldn’t come up with a better way for Bush to handle it.”
He shouldn't have trivialized the action. Bush is totally clueless about a whole host of issues.
“The extremists are the ones who embrace the al-Qaeda radicals and Shia radicals like al-Sadr.”
Oh, really? Just them? How about the ones who believe the entire world is divided into the House of Peace and the House of War, that Dhimmis should be suppressed, that the Umma has to stand together against all non-Muslims, that Islam is destined to take over the world, that Sharia Laaw should be imposed everywhere?? What about them?? My guess is they make up over 90% of all Muslims and are found everywhere - even if they don;t support the Taliban and Al Quaida openly. They infest and infect every nation in the west as well as many non-Islamic nations in the east and are trying to spread their madness throughout sub- Saharan Africa. But BUSH calls it a “peaceful” religion - CLUELESS!!!!
“The government didn’t sanction crimes against Christains. Those are al-Qaeda and Iranian backed militias. They are the same groups that are at war with the coalition and the Iraqi security forces. Your argument is fallicious.”
No its not. They have done NOTHING to stop it. Driving thousands of people from their homes isn't a random act of terrorism. It is a widespread phenomenon in Islamdom and the government in Baghdad, as in MOST Islamic Countries, gives it a wink and a nod.
“Try telling that to the Turks. Your interpretation of what constitutes true Islam is no different than al-Qaeda’s interpretation.”
Turkey is a non-Arab country. However, even our “friends” the Turks refused to allow us passage through their country to attack Iraq from the North which led to the Fallujah situation and the resultant rise of the Insurgency. The “democracy” in Turkey is only there because the Turkish military is ready to crush the extreme radicals there, but it is hardly a paragon of tolerance. Ask the Kurds - and THEY are Muslims.
“You show no understanding of history. The objective all along was to foster a democratic Iraq.”
I thought the objective was to remove a dangerous dictator who was threatening the world with weapons of mass destruction, destabilizing the area, exterminating his own people, firing on British and American aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone, conspiring with terrorists and violating the agreement after the first war. I think that is what MOST people thought it was about. If it was to “democratize” a geographic entity with no real sense of nationality and no history or tradition of democratic government, you can be very sure NOBODY would have supported it. Although in Bush's clueless mind, the objective you present was probably always simmering there.
People who think they can create a stable democracy in Iraq are the ones with no sense of history.
” You would know this if you bothered to study the congressional legislation that authorized Operation Iraqi Freedom. You disregard these facts so you can run around spouting your ignorant ant-war nonsense and complaining about ‘neo-cons’.”
If THAT was laid out in the Congressional legislation, Congress is made up of a bigger bunch of fools than even I thought they were - if they even BOTHERED to read it - which may have been asking too much.
“You’re no less ignorant than the far left and the isolationists who crowned Ron Paul as father of ‘true’ conservatism.”
Baloney. I'm not an isolationist but I am realistic to know you can't make a purse out of a sow’s ear.
“Still desperately clinging onto the idea that Iraq is a failure, you run around posting statements worthy of the DU.”
The military victory and removal of Saddam was a success. What we created in its place with so much money and bloodshed of our own has yet to prove itself in my mind.
Just last night the news - FOX news stated that U.S. troops remaining the Islamic paradise of Iraq will need warrants from now on to arrest insurgents. What kind of idiocy is this? I think its about time we just pulled out and let these villain kill each other.
“What, then, should we do with the millions of Muslims who are American citizens and reside in America?”
Islam in the west needs to be very closely monitored. We in the west have a tradition of universal religious tolerance - which is a good thing. But Islam is distinct from all other “religions” as it is more than a theological belief system. It is a political and social system. At the very least, I would allow no more Muslims into the west.
Optimally I would remove each and every one and return them to the Umma.
” Also, if we are at war with Islam, why do we have military bases throughout the Muslim world, like Turkey, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, ect...?”
Because Muslims are getting something out of the arrangement as well as us. Either jobs or money, or military support or protection against other predatory Islamic states. We are not there because they love us.
“You lefties and Paulbots declare that spreading democracy is an agenda of the ‘neocons’. Yet it has been our objective since the Atlantic Charter.”
I'm NOT a Paulbot or a lefty. I have no problem with “spreading democracy” as long we don't do it with the kind of massive financial and blood costs that have been expended on the miserable ingrates in the Islamic World. When they leave the 7th Century and start thinking like post 17th century people, it might be another story.
“I am going to use your post against you. Anytime I see someone taking you seriously, I will notify them that you consider Iraq to be a ‘failure of the neo-cons’. And I have your post here to back up my accusation. You are just another person who opposes our mission in Iraq, since our objective was to implement democratic reform (if you bothered to read the legislation you would already know this). “
???? Big deal. I repeat - the ONLY justification for expending American lives and money in Iraq was in American self interest and self defense. If you think otherwise, there are millions of other people, even people who support the democratization of Iraq despite the cost in lives and money, who would disagree with your premise. The government in Washington has no right to use American lives and American tax dollars in nation building unless the prospects are good and our own best interests are involved.
“Whenever you claim that another peoples culture means they prefer dictatorship over democracy, you demonstrate cultural condescension.”
Now YOU sound politically correct. If you think that you can ignore the impact that religion and culture have on politics, YOU are the one who does not understand history.
“While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change”
Bush was NOT cautious. Also, Reagan had limited exposure to Islam as his attention was directed elsewhere - to the major menace from Soviet expansionism and their nuclear capacity. One of the few areas Reagan erred in involved the Middle East and Islam. But then Islam was hardly a blimp on radar screen at the time and even I had neglected any in depth study of Islam and its threat to world peace.
9-11 changed all that. Prior to 9-11 America was more concerned with the West and not very focused on the menace thriving in our midst and the same could probably be said for other western nations which have been invaded by Muslims in recent days. Reagan's statements about democracy being suitable in many different cultures is true generally, but even general rules have exceptions and Islam, Muslims and the Umma is the exception which proves the rule.