I don't. If a religion's holy book says I'm to die, I'm at war with that religion. Any member of that religion that doesn't want to kill me can be shown the error of their ways by pointing out scripture. 
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."
I understand why President Bush is taking this stance, but the barriers to reason are getting higher and higher all the time.
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
Bush is kicking the larger can down the road.
"an unjust world economy"
dominated by the fortune 100? china, our MFT partner? what is unjust about this. again?
I don't. If a religion's holy book says I'm to die, I'm at war with that religion. Any member of that religion that doesn't want to kill me can be shown the error of their ways by pointing out scripture.
bttt
Why?
You may not want to say it's a war against Islam but to them it's a war against us.
I do wish everyone would get of their PC POT and wake up to what this is.
So we can come up behind them and slap them up side the head.
I'm totally with you friend. That doesn't sound anything like the speech given standing on the rubble of the WTC. Which is it? With some of his own party in open opposition to his policies or proposed policies he seems to be sort of fumbling around stiring the pot and losing resolve. Scares me.
I agree. They want a war with us, and the sooner we admit it, the faster we can win it.
We may not want a war with Islam, but that is what we have. They declared war on the world, we did not declare war on them. It is time to set aside all of the PC hogwash we've been swimming in and fight this fight.
Amen, my brother across the sea!
I think GW was speaking in royal sense, as I sure don't respect Islam!
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?
What Bush did was a smart move in the way that he spoke directly to the people of those countries. His message was that their regimes won't last forever. I especially liked the way he pointed out how their governments were holding them back from personal progress and freedom. In that regard it was classic Bush.
Yay! "Peace in our time!"
McArthur and Patton knew how to do it.
'Course, Islamists are less reasonable than Nazis, Fascists or Japanese militarists...
unjust whould be e.g. that china is exporting shoes worth billions and not letting anybody import any.
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.
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.