Please read the following from "Flopping Aces" weblog and comment. Unless you're a newly minted Catholic pacifist (your profile indicates you may be one, but your church used to believe in just wars and actually coined the phrase) that wants to be overrun by the Islamic faith, please actually debate what the article says:
Deputy Assistant to the President Peter Wehner has penned a primer on the basics concerning radical Islam. Not only should you read it, you should forward it to every family member, friend, and colleague who doesn't get the nature of the enemy we face.
This is a welcome, though long overdue, effort on the information front in the war. Many more like it would be welcome. Wehner's conclusion:
It is the fate of the West, and in particular the United States, to have to deal with the combined threat of Shia and Sunni extremists. And for all the differences that exist between them -- and they are significant -- they share some common features.
Their brand of radicalism is theocratic, totalitarian, illiberal, expansionist, violent, and deeply anti-Semitic and anti-American. As President Bush has said, both Shia and Sunni militants want to impose their dark vision on the Middle East. And as we have seen with Shia-dominated Iran's support of the Sunni terrorist group Hamas, they can find common ground when they confront what they believe is a common enemy.
The war against global jihadism will be long, and we will experience success and setbacks along the way. The temptation of the West will be to grow impatient and, in the face of this long struggle, to grow weary. Some will demand a quick victory and, absent that, they will want to withdraw from the battle. But this is a war from which we cannot withdraw. As we saw on September 11th, there are no safe harbors in which to hide. Our enemies have declared war on us, and their hatreds cannot be sated. We will either defeat them, or they will come after us with the unsheathed sword.
All of us would prefer years of repose to years of conflict. But history will not allow it. And so it once again rests with this remarkable republic to do what we have done in the past: our duty.
In addition, all of the comments you -- and anyone else -- have made about the dangers of being "overrun by the Islamic faith" should be held up in the proper context to sum up the mess in Iraq perfectly. Allow me to cite a couple of direct quotes from a document that some people might recognize as the new Iraqi Constitution -- which was adopted in October 2005 and now stands as the law of the land as a result of our idiotic nation-building exercise.
Section I (Fundamental Principles)
Article 2
Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation . . . No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
Section II (Rights and Liberties)
Article 22
Work is a right for all Iraqis so as to guarantee them a decent living.
Article 30
The state guarantee to the individual and the family -- especially children and women -- social and health security and the basic requirements for leading a free and dignified life. The state also ensures the above a suitable income and appropriate housing . . . The State guarantees the social and health security to Iraqis in cases of old age, sickness, employment disability, homelessness, orphanage or unemployment, and shall work to protect them from ignorance, fear and poverty. The State shall provide them housing and special programs of care and rehabilitation. This will be organized by law.
. . .
So there you have it. If having the United States send several hundred thousand troops halfway around the world in 1990 to restore a royal family to one throne (Kuwait) and protect a second royal family on another one (Saudi Arabia) didn't make you cynical, then I would hope that having 3,000+ Americans lose their lives for the express purpose of establishing an Islamic state -- and a Marxist one at that -- in the Middle East would do the trick for you.