Posted on 06/12/2004 7:09:22 AM PDT by ovrtaxt
The analogies between Islam and the former Soviet Union are few and microscopic in comparison.
Iraq and the entire mid east, is small potatoes compared to the real, global threat that the former Soviet Union posed. At one point in our history, many if not all of our major cities were targeted with ICBMs. This was not a superman movie, it was *real*.
Not exactly. I would never say that the "only good Moslem is a dead Moslem." That would condemn my own father to death.
Rather, I would say it thus: "The Moslem who is good is not a good Moslem". Most Islamic leaders would agree with me, at least as long as I defined "Moslem who is good" as someone who did not seek to impose Islam and sharia law on mankind, by the sword if necessary, and as someone who respects EQUALLY (i.e., not as dhimmis) people of other faiths.
And walks silently while carrying a big stick!
I would wager that "gray" is not Dubya's favorite color. : )
Yes and no. The Soviet Union was always a far more formidible military threat than anything the Arab world could throw at us. Multiply the Arabs times 10 and the Soviets were still more dangerous. However, the Soviets always acted rationally in their rivalry with us. They wanted to take over the west with its people and industry more or less intact.
Muslim fundamentalists, by comparison, don't care too much about human life or western civilization. If you gave most Wahabbis the choice of 1 billion dead, but Islam wins the world, or the status quo, they would take the 1 billion dead. They would nuke New York or Chicago in a heartbeat if they could get their hands on a nuke. So they present a different threat, one that is militarily weak, but one which presents a more immediate and real threat of millions of dead Americans than the Soviets ever did.
This irrationality is what requires us to wipe them out entirely all over the globe, not just win battles, but destroy the movement. Because someday, somewhere, they will slip one past the goalie, and then, more people than died in the Civil War will be gone in an instant.
And the others are...?
One step at a time.
Arabs have *nothing* compared to what the former Soviets had.
The Soviet Union of *30* years ago could could eat the middle east of today for lunch if they desired.
However, the Soviets always acted rationally in their rivalry with us.
We didn't realize that at the time, no one had a crystal ball.
Muslim fundamentalists, by comparison, don't care too much about human life or western civilization.
Russian leaders of the old days made these muslims seem civilized. Enter Stalin.
If you gave most Wahabbis the choice of 1 billion dead, but Islam wins the world, or the status quo, they would take the 1 billion dead.
They have no means, nor choice.
They would nuke New York or Chicago in a heartbeat if they could get their hands on a nuke.
But they have to settle for flying borrowed airplanes into civilian buildings. If they were really considered a *big* threat, Bush would have stopped the million man conga-line of people entering our country illegally, and implemented strong immigration reform on midnight of 911. This did not happen.
So they present a different threat, one that is militarily weak, but one which presents a more immediate and real threat of millions of dead Americans than the Soviets ever did.
Millions of dead American's? If they have the means, why did they have to borrow *our* airplanes and fly them into business offices?
This irrationality is what requires us to wipe them out entirely all over the globe, not just win battles, but destroy the movement.
Didn't happen, wont happen, as your government is putting out the welcome mat and is granting visas to mid easterners as fast as they can print them. Does this make sense to you?
Because someday, somewhere, they will slip one past the goalie, and then, more people than died in the Civil War will be gone in an instant.
LOL, If that were true, can you tell me why, to this day, anyone can enter this country with little effort? If this was true, why did we not implement *real* immigration control and immigration reform on 9-12-01? Why are our borders a complete utter disgrace and the joke of this planet, if not the terrorist themselves?
While good party leaders tell us it's impossible to secure our *own* damn borders and implement real immigration control, yet we are 8000 miles away in backasswasds Iraq trying to make them pillars of Democracy?
This pictured is all distorted. Even Ray Charles could see this, God rest his soul.
Thank you for stating that. Lately, I have been hearing a smattering of criticism against President Reagan for "ignoring" the Islamic threat. But, let's get real; one President, even a President elected for a 2nd term, cannot do everything. He must prioritize, which is what President Reagan did and did correctly.
He did get our hostages back, and he did bomb Libya, sending the Middle Easterners a clear message that he was no Carter and that they'd better back off if they knew what was good for them. So then... he could roll up his shirtsleeves and address the greater threat: A patient, deviously calculating, and ever expanding "Evil Empire" that had the capacity to destroy every last one of us with the simple push of a button.
In the early 80's, communism was being exported from the USSR all over the globe. It popped up in Grenada, reared its head in Central America; It kept getting closer and closer to our shores. It had to be stopped before we were backed into a corner, and eventually ended up with the President of the USA and the President of the USSR both staring each other down, each one with his finger on "The Button".
I think President Reagan also understood the damage that was being wreaked by our domestic enemies as well (Lord knows, he took enough flack from them). Think about it. What if this ultimate showdown between the USA and the USSR had occurred during Clinton's watch?! It was Clinton who'd enacted the "madder than M.A.D." policy that we needed to be hit with nukes BEFORE we could retaliate. If the old Soviet Union had been alive and well during Clinton's term, it's very likely that the current "browbeaten yet still standing" America that we all know and love would definitely not exist ideologically (and possibly not even exist physically) today.
Fortunately, President Reagan was wise enough to see that the very thing that made the USSR such a great threat, its drive to expand and then strangle the life out of everything it engulfed, could also be exploited as a weakness. He was able to kneecap the Soviets, because the USSR had gotten too big to sustain its own britches.
I really believe it was the merciful hand of God, that placed President Reagan at the helm of America at a time when we stood at a most perilous crossroads. We will never know "The Fate That Could've Been" thanks to this bold and loyal man, who stood his ground even as a multitude of enemies surrounded, attacked, and ridiculed him without ceasing. God bless and keep him, and may Ronald Reagan spend all eternity in a shining city above the highest hill, where the streets are paved with gold.
Excellent points, well stated.
Absolutely false.
Yes, these are other weapons. The old 'carrot or the stick' routine may have been invented by these folks. Submit or be killed or at least treated like trash.
No two people are alike and no two Presidents are alike. President Bush can and will never be President Reagan; he can only give us the best that he has to offer. And, though President Bush is not without flaw, what he has to offer is in no way shabby. Most importantly, I do think that President Bush loves America as President Reagan loved America.
It's my impression that President Bush is a "rope-a-dope" master, maybe the upcoming election necessitates this. Perhaps, when President Bush is re-elected, he will then feel free to take off the gloves and throw any punches he wants. But until then, he must bob and weave and keep his opponents off-balance and guessing. I'm just a little too young to remember President Reagan's 1st term. Did his boldness increase after he became a "lame duck"?
President Bush also has to deal with a Clinton controlled 'Rat party. Granted, we gave him a Republican majority in Congress, but I often wonder how many of them have been marginalized due to the Clintons' wielding of the FBI files. President Bush faces a different uphill battle than the one President Reagan fought. But, I do believe that like President Reagan, President Bush is the best hope we have of surviving the threat we now face.
Thus my point in posting this article. The approach to the War on 'Terror' is PC to the max. We will not win with this limpwristed, worried attitude. Good post.
Joe, one nutcase with a vial of smallpox is far more dangerous than an arsenal of missiles in the inventory of non-suicidal dictators.
But hopefully, a strong victory will provide him with a mandate to put his foot down. The trouble is, nobody knows just how conservative he really is. For example, without any political reason to do so, he let Ted Kennedy dictate education policy. Also, he decided to spray hundreds of millions of our tax dollars all over Africa, when private funds would be much more effective. His China policy is a continuation of a thirty year disaster started by Nixon, when they should be conquered like the Soviets. He had the likes of Sami Al Arian at the white house prior to 911 in an effort to reach out to Islamists. I could go on.
It's evidence like this that makes me wonder how many Souters we will end up with, and how much PC inspired decisions will be made with regard to our security.
The crappy part is that he's our best choice. There is no Reagan or Goldwater around.
Joe, sounds like you are with the Lindbergh/Kennedy wing of the US (circa 1939). I agree with you that immigration policy is a joke, everything else you say makes you out to be a crank.
Please show me anywhere in history since its conception, where any part or offshoot as you call, where Islam has been peaceful.
We aren't fighting a "War on Terror", nor a "War on Jihadists", nor a "War on Islamics". We could kill every terrorist in existence and end terrorism for good and all. But in 20 years, we'd have another million who are doing the same thing.
Why?
When the Koran urges its adherents to "Kill the infidel, and plunder his wealth!" it explains all of islam in 7 little words. It provides both the mission and the reward.
The roots of terrorism are buried in the Koran. "We have prepared for the unbeliever, whips and chains and blazing fires!" Koran 76:4. This is the kind of thing thats being stuffed into those empty heads at all the madrassahs.
It's the koran that splits the world into Dar-al-Islam and Dar-al-Harb and commands muslims to bring all of the Infidel world under the sway of Islam.
Since Islam is the "perfect book" it's forbidden to change it according to Islam. Hence, there will be no reformation of Islam EVER.
The problem with Islam will not end until EVERY copy of the koran has been destroyed unto the 5th generation.
I don't have a solution any more than the rest of us do. But without considering the poisons held in the koran and dealing with them, everything else is treating the symptoms, not the disease.
I agree with President Bush on most things, but I have 3 major disagreements with his policies. He's done nothing about immigration, he's enlarged the welfare state with his prescription drug plan and in defiance of history and current events, he declares Islam a religion of peace.
I'm staunchly loyal, but I have no intention of allowing my loyalty to blind me to realities.
Maybe he meant "religion of pieces" (as when things get blown up).
(sarcasm off)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.