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."
”My hunch is that is the Islamic organization all western civilizations are being challenged by on every military, diplomatic, and cultural front.”
It will be a never ending challenge for hundreds years at best.
The pope referred to the king of Morroco. Noble in the sense of a good character, as in Saladin; noble as in the sense of Richard, his adversary. Saladin could allow St. Francis into his court and listen to him. He could also kill people without qualms. So could Richard, who, BTW, could actually do in battle what movie heros pretend to do: take on twenty men along and mow them down.
Too bad. They want one so war it shall be.
L
That has nothing to do with Democracy. What are you talking about? If i remember right it was about Turkey getting some of the oil for food money.
You are absolutely correct, and have said it as plainly, as starkly, and as presciently as it can be stated. And because the "answer" is plain, stark, and hard, this is precisely why Bush _cannot_ state it.
There really _aren't_ any other choices.
I _am not_ one of those "bomb them back into the stone age" advocates. There are plenty of quickgun posters in here who immediately pop into any "Islam thread" with "nuke 'em" or "kill them all". Yahoos.
Of course, we can't kill them all. And we can't destroy Islam with nukes alone.
We can't win this struggle by merely toppling regimes, either. We are in the process of "discovering this" right now in Iraq and Afghanistan. The old solutions won't work, when the "regime" that must be toppled is Allah's.
Since we can't, our only other realistic option is your second one, as stated above. That is: our only possible "victory" can be to "de-Islamicize" the Muslim world, in the same way we "de-Nazified" Germany after World War II.
Of course, that will take tens of millions of soldiers, and the forced occupation of EVERY Islamic state for at least 50-80 years, in order to purge Islam from the hearts of those who are now held in its thrall. And today's West is not up to the task. Not yet, anyway.
The future looks hard, indeed.
- John
I couldn't agree more. How is it that so many are totally blind to what is happening. In the very small town in Ohio I lived in up to a year ago, I was running errands on sunny afternoon and just enjoying the day when two totally black clad, head to toe, eyes barely visible women(? I presume), walked past me on the sidewalk and I literally shook. There is only one reason they are here and we just accept it or ignore it and make them welcome. LUDICROUS!
It wouldn't take Christ two seconds to purge hearts, so perhaps we need to be fasting and praying that He will do just that in miraculous ways. What we need here is a miracle, for we battle not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities in unseen places. Our weapons are not carnal weapons, but they are powerful for the tearing down of strongholds. We have to put on the whole armor of God, and the main offensive weapon we have is the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God. So, let's suit up and get our Gospel shoes on along with the rest of the armor!
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.