Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler Paul M. Johnson

I don't have much to add here.
At risk of being called simple-minded... it is simply US vs THEM. And that is of their determination.

It does not matter that some (many, most, whatever) of the people in those countries intend us no harm - and would probably even embrace many aspects of Western culture if given a chance - those people are powerless and fearful in their own countries. Fanatic Shiites are the people who are gaining power. Those are the people who most definitely intend us harm. They do not share your modern, cultural-relativist view. They do not share your vision of a peaceful, prosperous world where all human life is respected. They are dangerous folks and there are lots of them.

Remember back to 9-11: the "Arab street" was celebrating en masse the killing of innocent civilians. America "needed" that to happen, they said. We are not talking about an isolated, small group of terrorists who wish us ill, but whole populations who would rejoice in the destruction of the United States.

They use brutal tactics, defy military convention, commit atrocity after atrocity, and then cry to the liberal int'l media that they are the poor victims.

I've seen enough.

I agree with you BigWill. I'm not sure whether the Shi'ites are more dangerous than the Wahabis or other fanatical Sunni sects. In any case, the 9/11 celebrations all over that part of the world were marked by wild eyed joy, similar to those celebrants we saw in Faluja dancing around the charred and mutilated bodies of the 4 murdered non-Muslims hanging from a bridge. We saw it in Mogadishu in Somalia.

We can call it anything we like, but the fact is, the war being fought against us is a religious war.

BigWill, as long as you qualify the THEM, which you have somewhat, I can almost agree with you. The use of too many vague pronouns vexes me.

Now I leave you with a nice quote.


"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.


"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918

Perhaps I'm naive but if *we* stay the coarse in Iraq I see great things ahead for both sides. Terrorism will not suite those evil indivisuals for much longer because they are now targeting other Arabs (Iraqis). I truely would be surprised if this eventually doesn't turn some Arabs towards the westerner's side as OVER TIME they will see we are trying to actually help them rebuild their country (Afganistan, Iraq).

I don't know about that, Inane. Although the "street" seems upset with the idea of Muslims missing non-Muslims and accidentally killing Muslims, until it reacts the same way to the idea of the purposeful killing of non-Muslims, I don't see a lot to be hopeful about.

pmb, I am anything but mindlessly servile. Truth is: most people don't know their ass from their elbow in this country and every other country on the planet. They know the truths that are told to them. What you choose to believe is your own business.
In times of crises we should be united as one, whether it is an election year or not. I would put the lives of myself and my family in the hands of W, flawed though he may be, before I would trust one word an Arab leader or the media has to say.

BigWill, though I don't agree with you, I admire your conviction. I know you're not an automaton. I also don't try to label you (even though you've slapped some doozies on me) because I don't really know a whole heck of a lot about you.

Can you imagine what Bush et al could get away with if no "lefty" civilians scrutinized his every move and decision? We're just trying to keep him honest, war or no.

In reply to:

---

Muslims missing non-Muslims and accidentally killing Muslims

---

There is no *missing* involved here, they ARE targeting anyone that doesn't 100% agree with them. That includes other Muslims.

This will have to be my last post for a few days - I'm heading off to Vegas to participate in some good old fashioned Western depravity.

The things I've heard said about Bush, and his administration's motivation for going to war in Iraq, are bizarre. War for oil, revenge for his dad, white American males needed a war to make themselves feel good even though blacks are dominating professional sports, etc... It appears to me that Bush is trying to do what he thinks is right, as did Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, and Carter before him. All different guys, all deserving of the respect the office of President requires.
A large body of politicians, such as Congress, is incapable of making swift, informed foreign policy decisions. In this area we now have to trust the executive - there is no alternative. To suggest that any President would callously send the men and women of our armed forces overseas to die for trivial purposes is a heavy, heavy accusation. I don't see that in him.
Sorry if I've labeled you in the past. You're obviously a thinking, caring, intelligent guy (who has been led astray ).

ALL DIFFERENT GUYS, ALL DESERVING OF THE RESPECT THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT REQUIRES.
Well said and AMEN!!