Posted on 11/29/2006 7:56:05 AM PST by Spiff
Sadly, I think that the non-Islamic world is probably doomed to endless on-again, off-again warfare with the Islamic world, as has been the case for the last 1300 years or so.
"Well, I certainly hope not. Without democracy, you only have tyrants running countries. Only the most bloodthirsty, crazed, and ruthless leaders will survive in a country run by tryants. And eventually, given enough time, all countries will have nuclear weapons. And when you have several countries or even dozens of countries run by jihadist and they all have multiple nuclear weapons, who do you blame when you get hit with one? I think democracy is worth a shot"
You don't blame anyone. It's just something that will eventually happen. We can only try to delay the event. That is why I try to make sure that I am okay with God. The Middle East will probably never be stable or have the stability we would like. From the Sumerians vs the Elamites. Then the Sumerian vs the Akkadians. The Babylonians vs the Kassites, Mitanni vs Assyrians and you could go on and on. The only thing I ask of this administration from this point is to protect our borders.
"Sadly, I think that the non-Islamic world is probably doomed to endless on-again, off-again warfare with the Islamic world, as has been the case for the last 1300 years or so."
My sentiments exactly and if this world survives another 200 years ( which right now due to nuclear proliferation seems unlikely ) it will not end.
I don't know that it would work either. That's the problem with war.
But what's happening right now isn't working either, for whatever reason, too many troops, not enough troops, too much force, not enough force. I'm just fed up seeing us trying to fight against these people with one hand tied behind our backs because our "Leaders" (and I use that term loosely), are too freakin worried about offending the sensibilities of those maggots in the world who want to kill us.
No Nation will survive that does not deal with it's enemies quickly and decisively.
Not even ours.
Grin.
But seriously, what other way to control terrorism, than spreading liberal democracy?
I guess we could just go around breaking things and killing people, but that might not work for long.
Good article. I supported Dubya's plan to bring sense to the ME, but now I don't think those illogical crazy Arabs there can handle it. I'm not so sure about Persians, though -- we'll see, if and when they get the chance.
Maybe the "average" American is waiting to see the mushroom cloud on the horizon before taking the Muslim lunatic fringe seriously?
The premise is patently NOT TRUE.. Democracy is MOB Rule..
Islam is Tribal Rule which is a version of Mob Rule..
Islam is perfect for democracy.. A consortium of Mobs with mobsters jockeying for terrrority is what Islam "IS"..
Islam is Not a religion it is a GANG.. Always was always will be.. Europe could see that if Europe was not ruled by democracy also.. All of Europe is ruled by Mob Rule that is to say Tribal Rule.. The only difference between Europe and the Mid East is the kind and species of the GANGS in charge.. Democracy IS Mob Rule..
Thats exactly WHY America is NOT a democracy.. but a Free Republic..
Exactly why.. Islam is just as compatible with Mob Rule as Europe is.. maybe moreso.. Sharia Law IS Democratic..
islam should have been immediately outlawed in all western countries, All the mosques should have been bull dozed. islam cannot exist with anything but islam.
As far as Iraq we should never have gone in to Iraq unless we did what I suggest above first. The fact that Bush has done little to protect the border makes the WOT something he does not really appear to be serious about. which means that he should have just said the reason we are in Iraq was to keep the oil flow stabilized.
In war you kill the enemy. The moslems understand this so I ask, "who is smarter?"
"But what's happening right now isn't working either, for whatever reason, too many troops, not enough troops, too much force, not enough force. I'm just fed up seeing us trying to fight against these people with one hand tied behind our backs because our "Leaders" (and I use that term loosely), are too freakin worried about offending the sensibilities of those maggots in the world who want to kill us"
I am equally fed up. I know I don't have any idea on how to resolve the situation. But I would have hoped our elected leaders whom are paid to lead us would have come up with a better plan. Half of me is starting to wonder if Bush going to Iraq was simply a strategy to make sure he was elected again to finish the job he started. What happened to his other initiatives like SS reform. Who can we look forward to in 08 ?
Unless it's Gingrich or Tancredo, I don't see anything out there on the Republican side of the house worth the effort it would take to poke the hole.
I hope there are more, but if all I have to choose from is either Mclaim or Guiliani, that option stays blank that day. Or I'll do a write in for Thomas Jefferson.
Hey.. if dead people can vote, why can't we vote for Dead Presidents? :P
Boy, McCarthy's come a long way since Weekend at Bernies'.
There have been plenty of terrorists even in liberal democracies (e.g., IRA in Ireland, ETA in Spain, FALN right here in the U.S., etc.). At some point you have to "break things and kill people" in order to put an end to it.
The fact that al-Sadr is still alive and his strongholds still exist tells me all I need to know about Bush's new Iraq strategy as well as his overall strategy in fighting against the jihad declared against us. The talks this week reinforce this.
Don't think so? Look at all the islamic people calling for sharia law and wanting to live under islam. No one is forcing islam on them. There are a bunch of imams on their side that are the counterparts to those on our side that study the bible, the Constitution, the American State Papers, to keep our heritage alive. This is our heritage, and islam is theirs. The most insignificant humble muslim freely wants rule under islam. That is democracy at its best. To say we want to bring them democracy is surreal in its error.
Muslims wanting islam is not unlike our ancestors wanting to set up democratic societies based on the bible, reference Plymouth and the Pilgrims. They went ahead and did it. And they converted some indians (tried to anyway) to Christianity, but note the indians didn't convert us. Our ancestors considered them savages and ourselves superior: we converted them, it was a one-way street. There was no tolerance.
For us it worked, and we were happy as Christians having the Rights of Englishmen under the Magna Carta until George became an abusive king to the colonies. We got independence, had the Articles, the Constitution and here we are. Democracy implemented as a Constitutional Republic with Federalism.
The problem is not that muslims need democracy. They democratically want islam. The problem is they view us the way we viewed the American Indians in the colonial days: as savages and heathens to be converted. They consider themselves the superiors.
The basis of all our traditions, customs, and law, is the old testament, the old prophets, Noah, Moses, Jesus, and others, with modern ideas of John Locke and Enlightenment thinkers that do not contradict the foundations of the Old and New Testaments but are supported therefrom. Does that make us a theocracy? Sure, to some degree. Separation of church and state is an illusion that appears after the religious causes behind our laws are hidden behind a curtain. At the root, our state is based in Jewish and Christian religious principles and traditions no matter how much we pretend it isn't. And the fact that the would-be islamic state would be based on koranic sources makes it no more of a theocracy than ours is, or not much. It seems they are much more theocratic about it because they don't bother to hide it like we do.
It is really these old and new testament traditions that we want the East and muslims to accept as their basis. But this we tend to offer and then wonder why our offer is not accepted.
The basis of the Arabic traditions, customs, and law, is Islam which started as an effort to assimilate Arab pagans into monotheism, and unify some tribes. Christians and Jews not being part of islam are separate from it and muslims dealt with them as we dealt with the indians, move them aside if they can't blend in. What muslims want is for us to adopt Arab culture, customs, law, and the general feel of islam. Muslims pay lip service to the prophethood of Noah, Moses, Jesus, but basically dismiss them in favor of their greatest prophet, mohammed. This the muslims offer and don't wonder why we don't accept, they don't care, they are happy to dispose of us the way we disposed of the indians. If we are not careful, one day, we will have a modern equivalant of what we know as the "trail of tears," where Jews and Christians are marched off to "reservations," while muslims dominate the land.
Forget the foolish talk about bringing democracy to them. All we want is to keep our Noah, Moses, Jesus, Locke, Common Law, Magna Carta, Constituitonal Republic tradition secure, and not have it supplanted by mohammed the arab.
Can we resist their aggressive expansion? Hope so! Better get started! Can we get them to accept our tradition and let all their mohammedian culture go? Fat chance.
In the final analysis we have a clash of two democratic cultures, one rooted in the old and new testament to the exclusion of the koran, and the other rooted in the koran to the exclusion of the old and new testaments. The democratic aspect of ours is what made ours so dangerous to the way of the indian inhabitants. And it is what will make the islamic way a formidable adversary to our way.
The sooner we stop trying to democratize them or sell them the old and new testaments to the exclusion of the koran, the sooner we can begin building the walls, and arming to protect ourselves from the expansionist competing democratic muslim ideology---the way the indians would have if they had had the means. We have the means. Do we have the will?
Bush said something once about not making expedient alliances with dictators anymore, which sounded very idealistic. Very Wilsonian and Neo-conservative.
But he didn't follow through.
So we just wreak destruction? Was the post-WWII "nation building" in Japan a mistake?
We'd have a transition period til they "get it". Like MacArthur in Japan.
Probably take longer though.
But do we really have the means to build a wall? ICBMs and nukes smuggled in, etc.
At some point do we just have to exterminate Islam?
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.