Skip to comments.
The Lunacy of Relations between the West and IslamoFascists
National Review ^
Posted on 02/03/2006 9:25:56 PM PST by quesney
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
Basic point -- the West has gone nuts.
1
posted on
02/03/2006 9:25:59 PM PST
by
quesney
To: Tolik
2
posted on
02/03/2006 9:26:42 PM PST
by
quesney
To: quesney
Yup. The lunatics are running the asylum now.
3
posted on
02/03/2006 9:30:13 PM PST
by
gogogodzilla
(Raaargh! Raaargh! Crush, Stomp!)
To: quesney
This piece is a MUST READ.
4
posted on
02/03/2006 9:37:13 PM PST
by
quesney
To: quesney
"Then there is "President" Ahmadinejad of Iran, who, a mere 60 years after the Holocaust, trumps Mein Kampf by not only promising, like Hitler, to wipe out the Jews, but, unlike the ascendant Fuhrer, going about the business of quite publicly obtaining the means to do it." That means the BOMB, people. Although Hitler did rearm under the nose of the Versailles. After breaking it, he was quite public in his intentions and discontent over the failures of the then day UN, the League of Nations.
Thanks UN and IAEA for being as incompetent has you predecessors that failed to prevent WW2!
5
posted on
02/03/2006 9:38:56 PM PST
by
endthematrix
(None dare call it ISLAMOFACISM!)
To: gogogodzilla
Watch out for Iraq after a few election cycles if you think this is tragic.
I'm afraid we've subsidized the rise of Hamas, and have set the stage for 35 million Muslims to vote themselves into Islamic Theocracies, specifically in Afghanistan and Iraq.
As the Palestinian vote implies, two thirds of the Muslim population hates the West's (and Israel's) guts.
6
posted on
02/03/2006 9:39:11 PM PST
by
308MBR
(After over 20 years of GOP only, I'm voting a split ticket in 'O6 and hoping for gridlock.)
To: quesney
Well put.
And very well posted.
Thank you as this is a keeper.
7
posted on
02/03/2006 9:41:53 PM PST
by
ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
(To those who believe the world was safer with Saddam, get treatment for that!)
To: 308MBR
"
I'm afraid we've subsidized the rise of Hamas, and have set the stage for 35 million Muslims to vote themselves into Islamic Theocracies, specifically in Afghanistan and Iraq. "
This worries me too. To be honest in a lot of ways having strongmen who can at least somewhat be controlled is better for our interests than the consequences of having free elections in the middle east. In things like the Hamas election, the rise of Iran's new leader, and cartoongate, Muslims have shown that they aren't ready for free institutions and that dangerous terrorists and fundamentalists do very well at the ballotbox. Creating free and open societies in the middle east is looking to be like a lot more of a task than anyone in the administration and anyone on here including myself could have possibly imagined. The amount of resources and the amount of time required to bring these people into the modern world will be tremendous.
To: quesney
9
posted on
02/03/2006 9:56:44 PM PST
by
Eagles6
(Dig deeper, more ammo.)
To: 308MBR
As the Palestinian vote implies, two thirds of the Muslim population hates the West's (and Israel's) guts.
As if we don't already know that... but when it happens, our press and government will be 'ever so surprised'.
Bah!
The Republican leadership is infected with the same madness as Democrats regarding the middle east.
And Condi 'Never met a terrorist I didn't like, just so long as they kill Jews' Rice will then immediately call for Israel to commit national suicide. Which, of course, Olmert will willingly do.
10
posted on
02/03/2006 10:06:57 PM PST
by
gogogodzilla
(Raaargh! Raaargh! Crush, Stomp!)
To: SmoothTalker
Yep.
Some dude called white envoy berated me on my private mail about my cartoon crack. Has that happened to anyone else?
11
posted on
02/03/2006 10:10:18 PM PST
by
308MBR
(After over 20 years of GOP only, I'm voting a split ticket in 'O6 and hoping for gridlock.)
To: quesney
12
posted on
02/03/2006 10:12:40 PM PST
by
Draco
To: SmoothTalker
To be honest in a lot of ways having strongmen who can at least somewhat be controlled is better for our interests than the consequences of having free elections in the middle east. The implications of that statement are quite mind-boggling, even if -- no, especially if -- you are correct. It's quite bizarre for the U.S. to make this case while the most effective secular Islamic "strongman" in recent decades sits in an Iraqi jail during his trial in a legal system that is part of a fledgling democratic government that we ourselves established.
13
posted on
02/03/2006 10:20:30 PM PST
by
Alberta's Child
(Leave a message with the rain . . . you can find me where the wind blows.)
To: quesney
Great read, thanks for posting it.
To: 308MBR
I'm afraid we've subsidized the rise of Hamas, and have set the stage for 35 million Muslims to vote themselves into Islamic Theocracies, specifically in Afghanistan and Iraq. My fear also. It is happening in Turkey.
15
posted on
02/03/2006 10:44:08 PM PST
by
Mind-numbed Robot
(Not all that needs to be done, needs to be done by the government.)
To: 308MBR
Yup. Medieval savages following a anachronistic violent religion aren't fit for democracy.
To: SmoothTalker
---Creating free and open societies in the middle east is looking to be like a lot more of a task than anyone in the administration and anyone on here including myself could have possibly imagined. ---
At least we tried.
That's what we'll be able to say if forced to deal with them with heavy weapons. This is not going to be a standoff.
17
posted on
02/03/2006 11:17:34 PM PST
by
claudiustg
(Delenda est Iran!)
To: quesney
The lesson from all this is that in order to free the United States from such blackmail and dependency, we must at least try to achieve energy independence and drive down oil prices and see that no Middle East autocracy gains nuclear weapons. Those principles, along with support for democratic reform, should be the three pillars of American foreign policy. bttt
To: quesney
To: quesney
The money quote:
Perhaps due to what might legitimately be called the lunacy principle ("these people are capable of doing anything at anytime"), the Muslim Middle East can insist on one standard of behavior for itself and quite another for others. It asks nothing of its own people and everything of everyone else's, while expecting no serious repercussions in the age of political correctness, in which affluent and leisured Westerners are frantic to avoid any disruption in their rather sheltered lives.
Explains much.
20
posted on
02/04/2006 1:57:36 AM PST
by
backhoe
(Sure, it's a Religion of Peace-- and They'll Kill You to Prove It...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson