Posted on 06/23/2006 1:29:57 PM PDT by Frank T
My own guess the Pershing story (bury them in pigskins) is a myth or 70% myth
I read this a couple of times because after the first reading I thought I was missing something.
He starts out by wring that there was a wise man who saw Islam as a future problem for the West. Ok.
The he writes, notwithstanding with some admiration ("The idea for which our many of our adversaries fight is a compelling one"), that Islam is belligerent and on a bloody trail.
Then as usual he inserts to blame Israel- ignoring that just above he had written that Islam was predicted to resurrect and spread its "(admirable") aims.
Then he says we should change course in how we face Islam because we in the West are doomed to defeat.
And then he stops.
So presumably the change that is needed is that we no longer stand up to Islam -I would argue we haven't even begun to stand up to Islam- - but get down on bent knee.
It leaves me with one question. When is Buchanan converting to Islam?
I said foreign policy -- not just the Iraq war! The whole paleo movement is nothing but clowns full of frustrated power lust and anti-Semitism, using the new [k word] neo con as their substitute for Jews.
"Better to be wanted by the police than not wanted at all."
Anonymous
In this article, Buchanan only poses a problem and no apparent solutions; his tone is cynical and rather defeatist. Yes, fanatical Islam is a threat, and yes, we need to combat it. But the proper attitude ought to be one of *glorifying the accomplishments and liberty present in the West*, rather than acknowledging the strengths of the enemy. Furthermore, Buchanan fails to mention the outstanding gains made against Islamist fanaticism by the War-on-Terror-related initiatives in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the elimination of the murderous thug al-Zarqawi.
I am
G. Stolyarov II
http://www.thebizofknowledge.com
http://www.panasianbiz.com
http://www.zhonghuarising.com
http://www.risingsunofnihon.com
http://rationalargumentator.com
http://rationalbusinessjournal.rationalargumentator.com
You are raving and you are very insulting too.
Not everyone is as smart as you.
BTW, I like your photo.
Tsk tsk tsk.... I must've struck a nerve. Anti-Semites so hate it when Jews fight back.
Thank you!
You did not. You are just a bully who tries to intimidate your opponents. And as a bully you are a coward who is afraid of honest rational discourse.
Good Morning!
How true.
The problem is not with "being dogmatic". If you stick to the rules of logic or common sense or if you stick to the principles justice or dogmas of TRUE Faith it is good.
Good Christians have to stick to the dogmas like the one of Holy Trinity for example. Good patriots stick to the rule that you do not sell your country for a profit, etc ....
The real problem is what is CONTENT of your beliefs. For example if your belief is that you should love your enemies and forgive those who offend you the outcome is very different if you follow the rule "eye for eye".
If you are flexible on every point then you do not have spine and you are a base wretched human being.
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.