Presidential poll

Constructive dialogue on issues is healthy, and that is a good thing for democracy. However, with the exception of scarface, any type of discussion concerning the issues quickly turns into personal attacks on President Bush, anyone holding views different than their own, and or Catholic/Christian values. I don’t think everyone can distinguish discussing the issues versus discussing the person holding those issues. It always seems to be an all or nothing deal.

For example, I agree with some democratic positions on health care and to some extent social security. Unfortunately I would not be able to discuss those points respectfully with some because I would be to busy fighting off personal attacks and deal with the “Catholic/Christian fundamentalist” label. I would have to read endless post about how President Bush lied, is stupid, etc. etc.

These types of comments and continued personal attacks will not forward your cause to people who are sitting on the fence regarding politics. To discuss a different point of view, you first need to understand that point of view, and then you can debate the merits of it. Calling someone “stupid” because they hold that point of view or speaking in a demeaning way immediately ends any type of respectful, intelligent dialogue regarding it (if that’s what you are after).

A friend and I disagree on every social issue and many economic issues; fortunately we are adult enough to discuss them while respecting each other. We find points of agreement, respect our differences and we both end up learning (but not always changing our minds). Concerning myself, I don’t have the time or patience to get dragged into a debate where I have to constantly defend personal attacks against myself for the positions I hold or against the politicians I admire. I would enjoy discussing the issues, but that seems to be wishful thinking on my part.

when you plan to start a war that will (and did) cause hundreds of thousands of casualties, the question should never be: “Why Not?!!” The question must by: “Why?!!” Regime change is just the latest face the administration has put on taking Billions out of the American taxpayers pockets and putting it in their own (Via Kellog, Brown and Root)
The claim was WMD and that was the only possible reason for how the fall of Saddam could reduce international risk. Otherwise he was just one more bastard in a world filled with bastards.
The Afganistanization of Iraq has taken a basically secular nation and turned it into a battleground for religious fanatics, provided reachable American targets, weakened the response capacity of a downsized military, and created such ill-will among military personnel that re-enlistment is sure to drop, raising the spectre of the draft when action starts in Iran. Is this your idea of success?

Well said Chris_p and thanks for the kind words. I try to be somewhat objective and look at things on merit without letting my emotion take over. But, I sometimes fall short…

Well, almost anything is possible. But is it probable? I think not…

Yes, we already used a nuclear weapon and saw what it can do… The world recognizes that nuclear weapons are doomsday devices. Nuclear weapons are currently being used as a deterrent. However, any country that would attempt to use nuclear weapons risks total annihilation. No one country is that foolish…

However, a nuclear weapon in the hand of a terrorist with no direct affiliation to a country is a BIG problem…

Furthermore, necessity is the mother of invention. Before the oil reserves run out, we will have other viable means of energy. Things like Hydrogen fuel are somewhat feasible. No telling what type of developments will occur in a few decades from now.

I think you are confusing the war on terrorism with a World War. Terrorism has been around for many years. As long as there are people with fundamental differences and the will to promote their agenda by any means (on both sides) we will have terrorism in some form. You can disagree with how Bush is handling the “war” on terrorism; however, you can’t blame him for terrorism. It was around long before he got into office.

Look, let’s not go from one extreme to the other; another World War equals total annihilation. All the big nuclear powers realize this… The former Soviet Union realized this, China realizes this… Like I said before more terrorism, yes. World War 3 (AKA. total annihilation), no…

IMO what you are saying has merit. However, after 9/11 something more aggressive needed to be done. Al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole and our embassies around the world during the Clinton administration. And Clinton had a LIMITED retaliation. This obviously did not deter Al Qaeda, because they implemented one of the worst attacks on the U.S. mainland. Even worse than Pearl Harbor. So the Bush administration decided to go after Al Qaeda directly and the country and regime that harbored them -the Taliban. Obviously, most of the world seemed to agree with us up to that point.

As for Iraq, the case for war was a lot less coherent. Faulty intelligence aside…

Patriots were terrorists and after winning you are a hero! I love my country but you must look at who wins and history. Boston Tea Party (beating the NY Yankees). Terrorism is communication…

I agree! It’s sometimes a matter of perspective…

Saddam HAS NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION his only lethal weapons were destroyed after the first Gulf War even his petrol scud missiles. He was shunned by most of the Arab countries since the Kuwait war. His ties with militant groups has never been that tight. Please remember that the CIA FUNDED this man from his beginnings as a Barth party activist until the early 1990s. He was very westernised much like the late King Hussain of Jordan. He never was a “fanatic” and certainly there has never been concrete evidence of his links with groups like Hamas or Al Qaeda. Remember that the US supported this man with Billions of dollars worth of weaponry during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam is a sunni whilst most “fanatics” are shiaites they generally do not get along and its unlikely that he would directly fund such groups.

Now tell me where is the threat? No WMDs,sequested funds, an outcast amongst militant groups that he may have funded directly, no air force a rumshackle army of constripts, a navy consisting of a few dinghys. Where is the threat? The only threat being that he stood in the way of oil fields being developed because of embargoes and sunctions in place that blocked the US from getting this quality light crude that Iraq possesses. How the hell was he a threat? The ultra-neo conservatives in America like Mcvey who blew up the Oklahoma building were a bigger threat.
His country would have ended up much like Castro’s Cuba, relying on antiquated cars and old technology. The only thing that would have occured is Saddam’s capitulation much like Gaddhafi’s earlier this year.

Co-incidently American’s are the mightiest hypocrites of all time. Until 9/11 they funded the IRA to the tune of $2 million a year. Jerry Adams and Martin McGuiness were treated like prom queens everywhere they went in America, films have been made by hollywood idolising these people who would be considered terrorists by many British people, and to be honest by definition they were because they murdered many innocent people. The Brits themselves have a short memory, they forgot that many US Presidents did not condemn fund raising by IRA activists in their country.

Go on tell me how Saddam was a major threat.

If America wanted to save Iraq from Saddam, they could have done so before. The World and the place is NOT A SAFER place because Saddam is gone. You have now created a nation that will bear many angry young men wanting revenge. That to me indicates that the world is not a safer place.

Clemson,

Yes, Patriots could’ve been termed terrorists and terrorism is communication, however it is my understanding that the Patriots terrorism was due to unfair treatment towards them, at least largely, and the fact that they wanted to be independence.

Islamic Jihad Terrorism is ideology based. We are not oppressing them and forcing our ideas on them. Yes, we expose our democratic and secular ideas to them but it is up to them whether they accept it and live by our standards. Lets be honest many of the top terror leaders do live secularly, Osama and Khalid drove Benzes, had extremely fine houses even in A-stan, it’s not like they were living in caves until we invaded.

Al-Queda tries to force Islamic views on all who are not believers. If you are not a believer you are an infidel and shall be forced into submission or death. That is the bottom line of their hatred, they want to spread their thoughts forcefully onto others.

The CIA supported Bin Laden during the Soviet A-stan War. Big Deal support people when they can be useful. Bin LAden did this with Saddam. They had a common enemy - USA.

The Clinton administration listed Iraq as one of the top two state sponsors of terror. 2 down who else wants some.

Where has the USA GOVERNMENT supported the IRA? Just because a movie was made about them does not mean that there is support for them. If individuals who live in the USA support them that is one thing, in fact thank God that it’s there right to support them as individuals as horrible as I think the IRA is at least they have that right. It’s called a Democratic Republic which I am very glad to be able to enjoy.

All these people hate the U.S. call all our allies puppets, etc. Well I got an idea. Leave! If you don’t like it, Leave. Well take back all the money and support we give to countries throughout the world and see how quick the ungratefuls either kill each other or shrivel up.

And so do the Neo-conservatives who want to force their idealogy onto the world, anyone who is not a christian will burn in hell (Bush is a member). If you are not a christian you are a heathen. This is why it is a shame and a missed oppurtunity that Kerry a moderate and middle ground politician in comparison lost the election.

They are not forcing their ideas onto you they are not running around middle America trying to convert your schools or churches, they are trying to create Islamic states NOT in the US but in their own countries unlike in the past when US and European missionaries took it upon themselves to convert other peoples abroad. They are a reactionary group who have arisen due to the ruthless actions of the CIA and the US government post-cold war in the middle east. Christians FORCED their ideas onto all who were non-believers and now those descendants of those who did so in the past believe in nothing.

Where is the evidence that Saddam and Bin Laden were in this together?
Thank you, you have proven many people right about their opinion that Americans’ are users and trigger happy. Jerry Adams was invited to the White House by Clinton. An endorsement I think. Your reasoning is clouded your examples and dismissals are incredible. The Clinton administration wanted to justify its case for sunctions being passed by the UN. After the CIA reports being dismissed as untruthful concerning WMDs, how can you argue so arrogantly and site a fact sourced by an organsiation that failed its biggest test of usefulness post-cold war? The CIA lied about WMDs when weapons inspectors clearly stated that they did not exist.

The point I was trying to make about the films being that until 9/11 America and American governments and culture were happy to entertain and celebrate those who were considered terrorists in other countries as freedom fighters, even though their own allies were the target.

Did those Americans who gave their dollar to the IRA stop to think that it would aid in killing innocent British people? Obviously not. The answer can be gleened from the fact that the IRA decided to embrace peace post 9/11 because THEY did not want to be associated with Al-Qaeda because the US government reasoned that its relationship with the IRA and Sinn Fein was inconsistent with its new stance on terrorism. Where was the funds going to come from, besides the game was up.
Would you be so blaze’ if it was the other way around? So would you be happy if people openly supported Al-qaeda in your country? Would you say its their democratic right? That bull suits you when its in your favour but I doubt if you would be so philosophical.

The US can’t survive without the world and the world can’t survive without the US its called market dynamics. If the world did pull out its investments, c (HIGHLY unlikely and you obviously over estimate your ability to survive on your own) due to your deficit you would see a depression 2-3X worse than the graet depression of the 1930s. You only support with money because you get it back and some more anyway, so that is a moot point.

WOW! What refreshing honesty not found in the US Media.

After the election I can only draw one conclusion-

There are more stupid people in America than I ever imagined.

The problem is stupid people don’t know they are stupid.

The sad fact is over half of the registered voters have truly shown their ignorance.

“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” --Albert Einstein

The truth is no one country or peoples corner the market on stupidity…

This is quite good. Some of you still won’t get it but others will.

Apathy or Freedom?
>
>At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in
>the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say about “The Fall of The Athenian Republic” some 2,000 years prior: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”
>
The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of
>history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always
>progressed through the followig seque nce:
>From Bondage to spiritual faith;
>From spiritual faith to great courage;
>From courage to liberty;
>From liberty to abundance;
>From abundance to complacency;
>From complacency to apathy;
>From apathy to dependence;
>From dependence back into bondage." [/b]
>
>
>Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul,
>Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent Presidential (2000)
>election:
>
>Population of counties won by:
>Gore=127 million
>Bush=143 million
>
>Square miles of land won by:
>Gore=580,000
>Bush=2,2427,000
>
>States won by:
>Gore=19
>Bush=29
>
>Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
>Gore=13.2
>Bush=2.1
>
>Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore’s territory, (and those solid for Kerry), mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare…”
Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "complacency and
“apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.
>
>
>Our future is up to us.

I found this interesting.

THE GREAT CALIPHATE
By
Larry Abraham

I urge all of my readers to make copies of this report and send them to your friends and relatives. The information is too critical to be overlooked in the madness of this election year.

Part I of this essay was written in January [2004] before the Democrat Party primaries settled anything and before the occupation of Iraq took a turn for the worse. However, it is now more obvious that what I wrote about the nature of the Third Great Jihad is all too true. The political picture has deteriorated in Europe and the U.S .to a great degree since then so Part II takes these developments into consideration. Again, I urge all of you to distribute this essay as far and wide as possible without any concern for copyright violation. Our fellow citizens need to know the true nature of what we all face. LHA

As we watch and listen to all the Democrat Party candidates running for the nomination of their party, it is tantamount to enduring the Chinese water torture. The blah, blah, blah goes on and nothing of value comes out except the pain of listening to the same nothingness over and over again. I won’t take the time or space to repeat what you have heard so many, mind numbing times over the past months but what you have not heard is crucial.

I must also fault President Bush and the administration spokesmen for not telling the American people what they really need to know about this “war”. If they don’t do that sometime between now and November it may cost them the election.

It Did Not Start on 9/11

The war we are now facing did not begin on September 11, 2001, nor will it end with the peaceful transition to civilian authorities in Iraq, whenever that may be. In fact, Iraq is but a footnote in the bigger context of this encounter, but an important one none the less.

This war is what the Jihadists themselves are calling the “ Third Great Jihad” and are doing so within the framework of a time line which reaches back to the very creation of Islam in the Seventh century and their attempts to recreate the dynamics which gave rise to the religion in the first two hundred years of its existence.

No religion in history grew as fast, in its infancy, than did Islam and the reasons for this growth are not hard to explain when you understand what the world was like at the time of Muhammad’s death in 632 AD. The Western Roman Empire was in ruins and the Eastern Empire was based in Constantinople and trying desperately to keep the power of its early grandeur while transitioning to Christianity as a de facto state religion. The costs to the average person were unbearable as he was being required to meet the constantly rising taxes levied from the state along with the tithes coerced by the Church. What Islam offered was the “carrot or the sword”.

If you became a convert, your taxes were immediately eliminated, as was your tithe. If you didn’t, you faced death. The choice was not hard for most to make, unless you were a very devoted martyr in the making. At the beginning, even the theology was not too hard for most to swallow, considering that both Jewry and Christianity were given their due by the Prophet. There is but one God-Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet, as was Jesus, and the pre-Christian Jewish prophets of the Torah (old testament). Both were called “children of the book”, the book being the Koran, which replaced both the Old and New testaments for Christians and Jews.

With this practical approach to spreading the “word” Islam grew like wild fire, reaching out from the Saudi Arabian Peninsula in all directions. This early growth is what the Muslims call the “first” great Jihad and it met with little resistance until Charles Martel of France, the father of Charlemagne, stopped them in the battle of Tours in France, after they had firmly established the religion on the Iberian peninsula. This first onslaught against the West continued in various forms and at various times until Islam was finally driven out of Spain in 1492 at the battle of Granada.

The “second great jihad” came with the Ottoman Turks. This empire succeeded in bringing about the downfall of Constantinople as a Christian stronghold and an end to Roman hegemony in all of its forms. The Ottoman Empire was Islam’s most successful expansion of territory even though the religion itself had fractured into warring sects and bitter rivalries with each claiming the ultimate truths in “the ways of the Prophet”. By 1683 the Ottomans had suffered a series of defeats on both land and sea and the final and failed attempt to capture Vienna set the stage for the collapse of any further territorial ambitions and Islam shrunk into various sheikhdoms, emir dominated principalities, and roving tribes of nomads. However, by this time a growing anti-western sentiment, blaming its internal failures on anyone but themselves, was taking hold and setting the stage for a new revival know has Wahhabism which came into full bloom under the House of Saud on the Arabian peninsula shortly before the onset of WWI. It is this Wahhabi version of Islam which has infected the religion itself, now finding adherents in almost all branches and sects, especially the Shiites. What this sect calls for is the complete and total rejection of anything and everything which is not based in the original teachings of The Prophet and it finds its most glaring practice in the policies of the Afgani Taliban or the Shiite practices of the late Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Its Ali Pasha (Field Marshall) is now known as Osama bin Laden, the leader of the “third Jihad”.

Jimmy Carter sets the stage

The strategy for this “holy war” did not begin with the planning of the destruction of the World Trade Center. It began with the plans for toppling the Shah of Iran back in the early 1970’s and culminated with his exile in 1979. With his plans and programs to “westernize” his country, along with his close ties to the U.S. and subdued acceptance of the State of Israel, the Shah was the soft target.

Thanks, in large part to the hypocritical and disastrous policies of the Jimmy Carter State Department the revolution was set into motion, the Shah was deposed, his arm forces scattered or murdered and stage one was complete. The Third Jihad now had a base of operations and the oil wealth to support its grand design or what they call the “Great Caliphate”.

The Great Caliphate

What this design calls for is the replacement of all secular leadership in any country with Muslim majorities. This would include, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, all the Emirates, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and finally what they call the “occupied territory” Israel.

As a part of this strategy, forces of the jihad will infiltrate governments and the military as a prelude to taking control, once the secular leadership is ousted or assassinated. Such was the case in Lebanon leading to the Syrian occupation and what was attempted in Egypt with the murder of Anwar Sadat, along with the multiple attempts on the lives of Hussein in Jordan, Mubarak of Egypt and Musharraf in Pakistan. Pakistan is a particular prize because of its nuclear weapons.

The long-range strategy of the Third Jihad counts on three strategic goals. 1. The U.S. withdrawing from the region just as it did in Southeast Asia, following Vietnam. 2. Taking control of the oil wealth in the Muslim countries, which would be upwards to 75% of known reserves, and 3. Using nuclear weapons or other WMDs to annihilate Israel. A further outcome of successfully achieving these objectives would be to place the United Nations as the sole arbiter in East/West negotiations.

Evidence of the Bush Administration awareness of this plan is found in the facts that immediately following the 9/11 attack, their first move was to shore up Pakistan and Egypt, believing that these two would be the next targets for al Qaeda while Americans focused on the disaster in New York. The administration also knew that the most important objective was to send a loud and clear message that the U.S. was in the region to stay, not only to shore up our allies but to send a message to the Jihadists. The attack on Afghanistan was necessary to break-up a secure al Qaeda base of operations and put their leadership on the run or in prison.
Why Iraq?

The war on Iraq also met a very strategic necessity in that no one knew how much collaboration existed between Saddam Hussein and the master planners of the Third Jihad or his willingness to hand off WMDs to terrorist groups including the PLO in Israel. What was known, were serious indications of on-going collaboration, as Saddam funneled money to families of suicide bombers attacking the Israelis and others in Kuwait.

What the U.S. needed to establish was a significant base of operations smack dab in the middle of the Islamic world, in a location which effectively cut it in half. Iraq was the ideal target for this and a host of other strategic reasons.

Leadership of various anti-American groups both here and abroad understood the vital nature of the Bush initiative and thus launched their demonstrations, world-wide, to “Stop The War”. Failing this, they also laid plans to build a political campaign inside the country, with the War in Iraq as a plebiscite, using a little know politician as the thrust point; Howard Dean. This helps to explain how quickly the Radical Left moved into the Dean campaign with both people and money, creating what the clueless media called the “Dean Phenomenon”.

By building on the left-wing base in the Democrat party and the “Hate Bush” liberals, the campaign has already resulted in a consensus among the aspirants, minus Joe Lieberman, to withdraw the U.S. from Iraq and turn the operation over to the U.N. And, if past is prologue, i.e. Vietnam, once the U.S. leaves it will not go back under any circumstances, possibly even the destruction of Israel.

Should George W. Bush be defeated in November and a new administration come to power we could expect to see the dominoes start to fall in the secular Islamic countries and The Clash of Civilizations would then become a life changing event in all of our lives.

What surprised the Jihadists following the 9/11 attack was how American sentiment mobilized around the president and a profound sense of patriotism spread across the country They were not expecting this reaction, based on what had happened in the past, nor were they expecting the determined resolve of the President himself. I believe that this is one of the reasons we have not had any further attacks within our borders. They are content to wait, just as one of their tactical mentors, V.I. Lenin admonished…”two steps forward, one step back”.

A couple of additional events serve as valuable footnotes to the current circumstances we face: the destruction of the human assets factor of the CIA during the Carter presidency, presided over by the late Senator Frank Church and Carter’s CIA Director, Admiral Stansfield Turner. This fact has plagued our intelligence agencies right up to this very day with consequences which are now obvious. Jimmy Carter is the one man who must bear the bulk of the responsibility for setting the stage of the Third Jihad. Americans should find little comfort in how the Democrat contenders constantly seek the “advice and counsel” of this despicable little hypocrite who now prances around with his Nobel Prize, while attacking President Bush with almost as much venom as his fellow Nobel Laureate, Yassir Arafat.

Lastly, we should not expect to see any meaningful cooperation from Western Europe, especially the French.

Since failing to protect their own interests in Algeria by turning the country over to the first of the Arab terrorists, Amid Ben Bella, the country itself is now occupied by Islamic immigrants totally twenty percent of the population.
We are in the battle of our lives which will go on for many years possibly even generations. If we fail to understand what we are facing or falter in the challenge of “knowing our enemy” the results will be catastrophic.

PART II (May 1, 2004)

Since writing the above, we have witnessed some frightening evidence in support of our hypothesis both internally and in other parts of the world.

The al Qaeda bombing in Madrid has emboldened our enemy into believing it can use terror as an instrument for democratic regime change. Based on what happened there, they may be right.

Kerry and bin Laden on the same page

John Kerry and other leaders of his party constantly refer to the United States as “acting unilaterally.” They give no credit whatsoever to countries like Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Australia or even tiny Honduras for putting their limited armed forces in harm’s way to support the U.S. led coalition in Iraq. It is little wonder that some are considering doing what Spain has done—pulling out. The leaders in these countries have spent considerable political capital in this effort, and have little to show for it as it relates to fostering good will with the American public. Couple that fact with Osama bin Ladin’s latest offer of withholding attacks on those who “quit” the coalition and you have all the elements for a Democrat party fostered “self-fulfilling prophecy” where the U.S. will be totally alone in the pacification of Iraq. John Kerry and the Bush critics persist in the “lie” of the U.S. going it “alone” in Iraq but Osama bin Laden knows differently and will use the Kerry rhetoric to help isolate the U.S. The terrorists now see themselves as political “king-makers”. They may be right.

Another aspect of the “anti-Bush” political axis is how both his political enemies and the main stream media take ghoulish delight in “the body count,” just as they did in the later days of Vietnam. Oh sure, they pay incidental homage to the memory of the young Americans who gave their lives in the greatest threat this country has ever faced, but they do so with all the sincerity of Madonna making a vow of chastity. As the body bags grow in number, they believe, so grows their political prospects. They may be right.

If the Bush administration is further weakened in the months leading up to the November elections, we will witness a heightened al Qaeda offensive in all parts of the world, including our own country, and especially in Iraq and nations surrounding it ,i.e., Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Events within the past few days in Jordan not only make this argument but also point to the possibility of “what happened to the WMDs.”
Iran and Syria are daily growing more overt and bold in their support of insurgents within Iraq, believing that Bush has been so hurt by internal politics that he is powerless to act against them in any meaningful way. They may be right.

The Leftwing initiative, Political Correctness and Our Will to Win

Within our own country we are witnessing and almost insane application of “political correctness.” As the barbarism of radical Islam grows more apparent in the streets of the Middle East from Gaza to Basra, we see a cultural suicide taking place within our own schools and communities.

Our children are being taught from the Koran, our professors are preaching intifadah in their class rooms, and Muslim “call to prayer” loud speakers are blaring out from city halls. The more precarious our very existence becomes, the more our liberal brethren embrace their enemies. It is a Stockholm Syndrome which can only lead to the recruitment of young Muslims who will be willing to duplicate in the West what their co-religionists are doing in the streets of Israel and the market places of Baghdad. The liberal P.C. crowd say nothing about the silence of the Muslim religious leadership as it relates to the carnage of innocents but couldn’t speak out fast enough against the inspiration supplied to tens of millions of Christians by Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. They were put off by the movie’s “violence” and its alleged “fostering of anti-Semitism”. Movies must represent their “reality” as the real thing moves them not at all. Among liberal Jews in America, hatred of George W. Bush is only surpassed by their contempt for Ariel Sharon…Let them explain it, I am at a total loss to do so. Maybe they just miss seeing Bill Clinton smooching Yassir Arafat in the White House Rose Garden.

The “Reverend” Jesse Jackson is now calling the U.S. “guilty of crimes against humanity” as he sets out to mobilize the non-Islamic Left. None of the Democrat leadership says a word in opposition to Jackson’s treason or Hillary’s attacks on the President and U.S. policy in an Arabic newspaper, while in London. You can bet that al Jezeera didn’t miss a beat in their reporting of both events.

The campaign takes its toll

The campaign is seriously hurting Mr. Bush’s leadership role in the War on Terror. While ducking every new book critical of his initiative or trying to counter the partisan nitpicking of the 9/11 Commission, he has persisted in the misbegotten insistence of “installing democracy” in Iraq. Our purpose for being in that beleaguered country should be restricted to one purpose and one purpose only, to stop the expansion of The Third Jihad and provide a base for doing same in the neighboring areas. This can be done by sealing the borders, attacking anything that moves in violation of same and by making it clear to Syria and Iran that any participation on their part will be considered an “act of war”. Let the country be governed by the local tribes, Shiite in the south, Sunni in the central and Kurds in the north with a U.S. pro consul overseeing the military. Oil revenues could be spilt by population allocation. How about installing a Republic…it worked pretty well here with diverse populations.

The very idea that we should spend our sons and daughters blood or our tax dollars on trying to building a “democracy” in the region which has neither a history nor a desire for such, is sheer nonsense. The very essence of Islamic teaching speaks directly against this principle. Continuing on the current path can only result in fostering greater hatred for the “Great Satan”. Force is the only thing which is respected in that part of the world and this force need not be tied to “reform”. I suggest Mr. Rumsfled acquaint himself with a copy of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars and Sun Tsu’s Art of War. All the tactics and strategies necessary to subdue the Iraqi insurgents can be found in those two military gems.

Please not the UN

Bringing the U.N. to the party will only compound the problem without adding any accountability. The U.N. has been accused of many things over the years, but being a “democratic” institution has never been one of them. Just the latest scandal of the “Oil for Food” program should provide any thinking person with all the evidence they need to keep the U.N. at bay. But this doesn’t seem to bother the likes of the John Kerry’s of the world who prattle on as if the scam doesn’t even exist.

Just one example will make my case; the UN mandate in Israel, which has been in place since 1948. One more salient point needs to be made on this subject. There is no such thing as “The International Community.” There are only individual countries, each with its own agenda which is always self serving. The myth of a higher level of “moral authority” coming out of the UN as been one of the greater lies of the past half century, but it is a lie which persists in spite of a bloody record of hypocrisy, graft, genocide and “perpetual war for perpetual peace.” I have a suggestion for the 9/11 Commission:.Why don’t they look into what the UN was doing before the attack on the World Trade Center? If they do, they will find that exactly one week before, the UN was holding a Conference on Racism in Durbin, South Africa where the delegates voted overwhelmingly to condemn Israel, as “racist and terrorist.” The U.S., Canadian and Israeli delegates walked out in disgust. Nary a word was uttered about Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda, or the Taliban, to say nothing of what was happening in Rwanda while they crunched caviar on toast and washed it down with vintage Champagne. Genocide does not qualify as “racism” according to the UN “morality.” Neither we nor the world needs the UN to muck up what is already a very delicate situation. If given proper leadership every Middle Eastern country named above will throw in with the Coalition, for if they don’t they will be the next targets of the Third Great Jihad and the Great Caliphate. Pakistan is already showing the leadership which others will follow. What do you think moved Kadahaffi to cozy up to the U.S. and Great Britain? He fears the Jihadist more than he hates us.

Evil Does Exist

Our current crises, in meeting the threat of the Third Jihad, is one more example of how most Americans simply refuse to believe there is evil in this world and are willing to grant moral equivalence on any human action. Unless the crime is personalized such as in the case of Lacy Peterson, we lose interest quickly and become bored or at least not involved.

To try and understand what we are facing, look into the eyes of your son or grandson and try to fathom a mind which would take pride in strapping a bomb to his body and sending him out to kill himself and countless innocent people. Or in the case of your daughter or grand daughter, try to imagine a religion which commands you to mutilate her vagina to destroy her sex drive or demands you to stone her to death if she has sexual relations with a man other than of your choosing.

If you can comprehend these facts both intellectually and emotionally, then you will start to understand what we are facing in the months and years ahead, both at home and abroad.

The radicals of Islam will stop at nothing to destroy us and all we stand for. They see this war as their “entry to paradise” and a release from the miserable existence they have built for themselves within the confines of an evil and perverse religion. The Jihadist are NOT like us, nor most of their fellow Muslims. But, like terrorists everywhere they have silenced any criticisms from fellow Muslims through threat and intimidation and have, with the help of the ‘useful idiots” in the West, “created the appearance of popular support”.

If we are incapable of understanding these realities and acting accordingly, within the life time of everyone who reads these words, we will see our cherished way of life cease to exist and chaos become our lot. The Clash of Civilizations is now reaching out and touching all of us. May God grant us the wisdom and the courage to meet the challenge.

I respectfully dedicate the above to the memory of Pat Tillman and his 872 comrades who by their courage and willing sacrifice set an example for every American. May we be worthy of their “greatest love…”

Larry Abraham

The article was somewhat interesting and would have a lot more merit if not for the obvious anti-liberal bias. For example, the author goes from around 1683 then glances over to the Carter administration in the 1970’s to make it seems like that was America’s first interaction with the Islamic world. And goes on to state that Jimmy Carter set the stage for America’s relation and conflicts with the Islamic world.

I would recommend reading more about the Barbary Wars (1801-1805, 1815) and Thomas Jefferson administration’s handling of what some considers the first act of terrorism against the USA. Also read more on what was done after WWI, and WWII in the Islamic world. Especially in regards to the formation of modern day Israel…

Just a slightly right wing article there. I did find it quite interesting. One thing that I thinkis BS is the fact about the spies and Jimmy Carter. Clinton spoke about this in an interview. He was mentioning that most of their informants were all Russian speaking and were in the Eastern Bloc as a result of the Cold War. I guess with the fall of the Soviets they didn’t need as many informants because they were allies now. If they had a crystal ball they could have known to get more spies that spoke Arabic and hooked them up in the Middle East.

I’m not trying to make an opinion here just an observation, but doesn’t it seem like one of the biggest problems in the world is the fact that there are Jewish people in Israel? This seems to create so much conflict and I understand the history.

I’m not taking any sides just making a observation.

There’s plenty of blame to go around and Carter was a total incompetent, but in Iran, it was the Republicans under Eisenhower that overthrew the middle east’s first and only stab at democracy on behalf of Big Oil.
As for the Nobel “Peace” Prize, there’ve been some beauties, with Arafat a match for Begin, the Stern Gang Bomber who blew up a hotel, killing a couple of hundred British soldiers, but for pure murderous evil on a megadeath scale, no one compares to the Republican’s own Henry Kissinger.

At least the propaganda is working on some one …

Don’t get mixed up. The US patriots were TERRORISTS and were for IDEOLOGICAL reasons. That ideology included self government, freedom of religion, the right to be treated fairly etc. Similarly the situation in the middle east. Various western countries from Britain in the 1920’s-50’s America from the 50’s-today, have screwed the region royaly. Both powers have installed puppet totallitarian governments, and played nations off against eachother for their own short term benefit.

Religion is being used as a vessel - a point to rally around. When the onlything countries like Saudi Arabia, Palastine, Iran and Afghanistan have in common are religion, of course they are going to rally around a common point. BTW I’m sure you’d be surprised to know that the first terrorist attacks against Israel were perpetrated by Christians …

Not sure where you are getting you’re info from, but most of it is myth and propaganda …

[QUOTE=Uncle Mick]I found this interesting.

THE GREAT CALIPHATE
By
Larry Abraham

AMONG THE PEARLS HERE

“Why Iraq?
What the U.S. needed to establish was a significant base of operations smack dab in the middle of the Islamic world, in a location which effectively cut it in half. Iraq was the ideal target for this and a host of other strategic reasons.”

WHAT? AFGANISTAN’S RIGHT NEXT DOOR! CHECK THE MAP DICKBRAIN!

“Our children are being taught from the Koran, our professors are preaching intifadah in their class rooms, and Muslim “call to prayer” loud speakers are blaring out from city halls. The more precarious our very existence becomes, the more our liberal brethren embrace their enemies.”

THE RUBES WHO ACCEPT THIS WOULD ASSUME THE CALLS TO PRAYERS ARE COMMING FROM BOSTON CITY HALL, AND, SINCE, BY DEFINITION, THEY MUST BE IGNORANT OF EVENTS AND UNEDUCATED, THEY WOULDN’T KNOW WHAT PROFESSORS ARE UP TO ANYWAY.

“Our purpose for being in (Iraq) should be restricted to one purpose and one purpose only, to stop the expansion of The Third Jihad and provide a base for doing same in the neighboring areas. This can be done by sealing the borders, attacking anything that moves in violation of same and by making it clear to Syria and Iran that any participation on their part will be considered an “act of war”. Let the country be governed by the local tribes, Shiite in the south, Sunni in the central and Kurds in the north with a U.S. pro consul overseeing the military. Oil revenues could be spilt by population allocation. How about installing a Republic…it worked pretty well here with diverse populations.”

I’LL LEAVE THE ESTIMATE OF THE TROOPS REQUIRED FOR THAT PLAN TO SOMEONE WITH A GRIP ON REALITY!

“Oil revenues could be split.”
SELF EXPLANATORY.

“How about installing a Republic… it worked pretty well here…”
SO AMERICA IS A REPUBLIC WITHOUT THE NEED FOR DEMOCRACY AND IS RUN BY A FOREIGN PRO-CONSUL?

“The radicals of Islam will stop at nothing to destroy us and all we stand for. They see this war as their “entry to paradise” and a release from the miserable existence they have built for themselves within the confines of an evil and perverse religion. The Jihadist are NOT like us, nor most of their fellow Muslims.”

HE CALLS THE RELIGION “EVIL AND PERVERSE” AND THEN TRIES TO COZY UP TO “most of their fellow Muslims” (HEY! NOTHING PERSONAL BRO!)

“May God grant us the wisdom and the courage to meet the challenge.”

HOW DARE HE BRING THE NAME OF GOD INTO HIS RASCIST, MURDEROUS RANT!