Likewise. 
Posted on 09/19/2006 11:57:57 PM PDT by MadIvan
President George W Bush last night told Muslims across the world that America did not want a war with Islam as he sought international support for his policies in the Middle East.
In his annual address to the United Nations, Mr Bush was unapologetic about the invasion of Iraq, but overall the tone of his speech was conciliatory.
"My country desires peace," he told the gathering of world leaders at the UN's annual general assembly. "Extremists in your midst spread propaganda claiming that the West is engaged in a war against Islam. This propaganda is false and its purpose is to confuse you and justify acts of terror. We respect Islam."
Mr Bush's audience was packed with opponents of American policy. His most fiery adversary, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hard-line president of Iran, was not in the chamber but was due to deliver a riposte late last night.
Mr Bush, however, sought to appeal over the heads of Middle Eastern leaders with warm words in particular for the people of Iran and Syria, two of America's greatest foes. "The greatest obstacle to this future [of peace and freedom] is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons," he said in a message to Iranians.
He went on to stress that America was working towards a "diplomatic solution" to the crisis over the regime's nuclear ambitions and to insist that he had no objection to Iran having a peaceful nuclear fuel programme. His sharpest rhetoric was reserved for Damascus. He accused the regime of allowing Hamas and Hizbollah to use Syria as a base to destabilise the region, and also of becoming a "tool of Iran".
His speech covered many of the world's most pressing challenges. Announcing the appointment of a special envoy to end the violence in the Sudanese region of Darfur, he said the UN's credibility was at stake over the crisis there.
Andrew Natsios, the former head of the US Agency for International Development, is to try to help implement last month's UN resolution to send 20,000 peace-keepers to Darfur. A far smaller African force has been unable to stop the carnage and the Islamic government in Khartoum is refusing to accept a UN force. But the primary focus of the diplomacy on the sidelines of the assembly was Iran.
Jacques Chirac, the French president, irked US and British officials on Monday when he pre-empted yesterday's speeches by calling for the UN to suspend the threat of sanctions if Iran agreed to halt its uranium enrichment programme.
After meeting the French president, Mr Bush said America would only "come to the table" if Iran suspended the uranium enrichment.
"Should they [Iran's leaders] continue to stall," he said, "we will then discuss the consequences of their stalling." His speech followed a grim valedictory address by Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, who steps down after a decade in office at the end of the year.
"The events of the last 10 years have not resolved, but sharpened, the three great challenges I spoke of [when he took office], an unjust world economy, world disorder, and widespread contempt for human rights and the rule of law," he said. ''As a result, we face a world whose divisions threaten the very notion of an international community, upon which this institution stands."
Do you think that the powers that be of some of those countries allowed their people to even view the broadcast?
And they are apostates in the eyes of the enemy. And they will surely lose their heads as likely as it would happen to us. True Islam cannot have peace with the West, period.
If they help us defeat them, that is the final solution. VICTORY is the only solution that will create a safer world. My enemy's enemy is my friend.
LLS
We may not want a war but we will have one.
When the savages of the world are intent on killing our children, enslaving our wives and destroying civilization as we know it........we are at war.
Time for our leaders to get over the ROP crap and start to point out the dangers, as the Pope has done.
If war with these thugs is inevitable, why wait until they have the nuclear capabilities before we fight it?
How do you make war on an idea? How do you win a war against those with that idea? And if you do defeat them militarily how do you correct the idea?
Well our forefathers found out how to do it with Japan and Germany...........and you are saying we can't?
Better yet, who's we?
Likewise.
WE WILL NEVER WIN THIS WAR WITH THIS TYPE OF LEADERSHIP. This just pisses me off even more. Why does he do this?
Islam IS the problem.
In history, Muslims have invaded predominantly Christian countries and "converted" to Islam by the sword very quickly. I'm beginning to understand a bit more about who is referred to in the book of Revelation when it talks about the souls of those who have been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus Christ.
It looks like liberals are working (ignorantly) in tandem with militant Islam for so-called gun control here. My Daddy, who was an old WWII soldier, used to say that many of our enemies wouldn't invade over here because they knew at that time that there would be an American behind every tree with a gun if they did.
The same as a "Good German" back in WWII.
That's the policy. Today.
Unfortunatly, I think some of GWB's speech was primarly crafted around the fact that Little Hitler would be giving a speech later.
"Unjust is that we all have to buy away the dollars that you guys press to feed the consume in your country - just to keep them away from the market because otherwise the greenback wouldn't be worth a penny."
many of us are unhappy about this as well, but unfortunately the pebbles don't vote in macro-economic issues (both parties would do the same).
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.