Whose War? Patrick J. Buchanan - The American Conservative

Morton Davis wrote:
"Ken Smith" wrote in message ...
Asmodeus wrote:

All of Buchanan's "culture wars" bull****, his demands for enforced
and legislated "morality" and his protectionism.

Sounds like the mainstream Republican agenda here in Colorado --
which I'm trying to fight.

Actually, it is the demorats who are pushing the most "legislsated
morality". Folk like Joe Lieberman want to be Americas "moral compass".
They want to control everything we see, hear or read.

You wouldn't know that from perusing the resolutions voted upon at
the Jefferson County (CO) Republican Assembly [I'm a multi-assembly
delegate]. I'm no fan of Lieberman, but paternalism is not a sin of the
Left alone.

"Chas" wrote in message
...
"George Z. Bush" wrote
I gather that you think the world's 3 billion some odd Christians all
speak with
one voice, since you apparently expect the Moslem world to behave that
way.

If a basic tenet of Christianity commanded us to go conquer the world,
require everyone to Submit to our Religion and Recite an Oath to our god,
one might well worry about what voice was being heard.

You seem to be inferring that that is true of the Koran, and that each of its
1.6 billion adherants interprets every tenet identically. From what I have read
of how Muslims address that point, they claim it is not true. Now, if you think
they're all lying and trying to hoodwink you, you might want to consider how to
deal with your paranoia problem.

If
you really think the world is that way, I'm not going to bother taking
exception. I don't have enough time left in my life to fritter it away on
projects of that magnitude.

It doesn't even matter whether you are tolerant of them or not, because
they're not tolerant of you.
They *hope* you're 'fair'; just makes you that much more vulnerable.
They hope you're reticent to fight; makes conquering you that much easier.
They hope you're divided amongst yourselves; fragmenting makes you easier to
kill.
They hope you abide by your own Geneva Convention- they aren't bound by it
at all.
If you want to see the Muslims as they are, look at East Africa.

What they hope, as translated by you, is immaterial. Since you're not even
qualified to speak for us, you're hardly qualified to speak for them. Muslims
world-wide are no more of one voice regarding their religion than Christians
are.

George Z.

"Chas" wrote in message
...
"George Z. Bush" wrote
The concept of international isolationism in a world where oceans can be
crossed
in a matter of hours instead of days, weeks or months is truly mind
boggling.
It amounts to little more than sticking one's head in the sand thinking
that
one's backside will be protected by an ocean's vastness, and all within
the
confines of a global economy. Like I said, mind boggling!!!

Then get used to trying to fight wars on *their* soil instead of our own.
Islam is a warrior faith with the command to require everyone in the world
to Submit to their religion and Recite the Oath of Allegiance to their god
and their prophet. Submitting to the Peace of Conquest, they'd set a ruler
over you with the absolute right to treat you any way he cares to- the
Sultanate system is a bench-mark for despotism and decadence in government.
They have 160,000,000 fanatic warriors committed to destroying everything
about you. They don't care about your economics, except as loot. They don't
care about your tolerance, fairness, democracy, compassion- they think
you're stupid, and of less worth than a good goat.

Not much point in trying to change a mind set in concrete.....I'm fresh out of
jack hammers. You're entitled to your opinion, however mistaken; I choose to
think otherwise.

George Z.

"Ken Smith" wrote in message ...
George Z. Bush wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Asmodeus wrote:
Ken Smith wrote in :

The concept of international isolationism in a world where oceans can be
crossed
in a matter of hours instead of days, weeks or months is truly mind
boggling.

"Isolationism" in the modern sense is the adoption of a laissez-faire
attitude toward how other countries govern their affairs, as opposed to
engineering a seemingly endless procession of coups in virtually every
Third World country on the friggin' globe. If we *can* trust democracy
and self-determination, then let's trust them.

Isolationism, the the 30s and 40s , was a movement designed to keep our nation
out of international agreements. I wasn't aware that its definition had
changed. Surely, a nation committed to isolationism (as I define it) would not
have been involved in engineering coups to achieve regime changes.....they would
have expressed no interest in seeing such changes made.



It amounts to little more than sticking one's head in the sand thinking that
one's backside will be protected by an ocean's vastness, and all within the
confines of a global economy. Like I said, mind boggling!!!

One's backside is better-protected by a fair, consistent, and
credible foreign policy, which keeps us from being a global hemorrhoid.
We'd be in a lot better position to broker a settlement between the
Israelis and Palestinians, for instance, if we could be seen as an
honest broker.

That just might be a little hard to do if you express no interest in what's
going on outside of your own back yard. That's my point.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ...

You may be right, but that'd sure as hell **** off the Turks, and they've been
our friends for a long, long time. Not an easy problem to solve, is it?


You're right and my solution is Screw the Turks.

--

FF

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
John A. Stovall wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2004 16:22:08 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

Chas wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" DID NOT WRITE:

.....again, the Muslims claim a proprietary authority over their holy
sites
and desecrate those of other religions.



You screwed up the attributions.

I may have screwed up once, so I only apologize once. You've already got that,
so there's no need to bore the public with repetitions.


I wanted a correction to appear as a reply to each published instance
of the error.

Propogation dely may have played a part here.

--

FF

"George Z. Bush" wrote
You seem to be inferring that that is true of the Koran, and that each of
its
1.6 billion adherants interprets every tenet identically.

there is no doubt that the basic tenet is; Submit & Recite.
And an identical interpretation by every single muslim, past and present,
public and private, on the record and off, here and there, then and now,
just isn't necessary to make the point.

From what I have read
of how Muslims address that point, they claim it is not true.

They have conquered in it's command for 1300 years, starting with Mohammed
and his Companions.

Now, if you think
they're all lying and trying to hoodwink you, you might want to consider
how to
deal with your paranoia problem.

It's not 'paranoia' when they kill you by the thousands and tell you why.

What they hope, as translated by you, is immaterial. Since you're not
even
qualified to speak for us, you're hardly qualified to speak for them.
Muslims
world-wide are no more of one voice regarding their religion than
Christians
are.

But Muslims are also enjoined to take the part of any muslim over any dhimmi
or infidel for any reason. That's why you don't see any opposition to the
terrs, and damned little condemnation.

Chas

"George Z. Bush" wrote
Not much point in trying to change a mind set in concrete.....I'm fresh
out of
jack hammers. You're entitled to your opinion, however mistaken; I choose
to
think otherwise.

Always trust the advice of your Psychic Friend- after all, you're paying
them.

Chas

George Z. Bush wrote:
"Ken Smith" wrote in message ...
George Z. Bush wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Asmodeus wrote:
Ken Smith wrote in :

The concept of international isolationism in a world where oceans can be crossed
in a matter of hours instead of days, weeks or months is truly mind boggling.

"Isolationism" in the modern sense is the adoption of a laissez-faire
attitude toward how other countries govern their affairs, as opposed to
engineering a seemingly endless procession of coups in virtually every
Third World country on the friggin' globe. If we *can* trust democracy
and self-determination, then let's trust them.

Isolationism, the the 30s and 40s , was a movement designed to keep our nation
out of international agreements. I wasn't aware that its definition had
changed. Surely, a nation committed to isolationism (as I define it) would not
have been involved in engineering coups to achieve regime changes.....they would
have expressed no interest in seeing such changes made.

There is an obvious difference between relative isolationism, which
relies mostly on creating cultural and economic ties to promote one's
legitimate interests, and our unduly meddlesome current policy.

It amounts to little more than sticking one's head in the sand thinking that
one's backside will be protected by an ocean's vastness, and all within the
confines of a global economy. Like I said, mind boggling!!!

One's backside is better-protected by a fair, consistent, and
credible foreign policy, which keeps us from being a global hemorrhoid.
We'd be in a lot better position to broker a settlement between the
Israelis and Palestinians, for instance, if we could be seen as an
honest broker.

That just might be a little hard to do if you express no interest in what's
going on outside of your own back yard. That's my point.

You think in terms of black-and-white, when there are infinite shades
of grey.

Chas wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote
You seem to be inferring that that is true of the Koran, and that each of its
1.6 billion adherants interprets every tenet identically.

there is no doubt that the basic tenet is; Submit & Recite.

Of course there's a doubt. When some Muslims publicly say that they don't
subscribe to that interpretation, then there is a doubt.....at least in my mind,
if not yours.

.....And an identical interpretation by every single muslim, past and present,
public and private, on the record and off, here and there, then and now,
just isn't necessary to make the point.

You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to not share it, and don't.

From what I have read
of how Muslims address that point, they claim it is not true.

They have conquered in it's command for 1300 years, starting with Mohammed
and his Companions.

Translate into a coherent English sentence, please.

Now, if you think
they're all lying and trying to hoodwink you, you might want to consider how
to deal with your paranoia problem.

It's not 'paranoia' when they kill you by the thousands and tell you why.

We are talking about three billion Christians (that's with a "B") and 1.6
billion Muslims (also with a "B") and you see thousands of deaths as a cause of
a new Crusade? Sorry, but leave me out of that kind of thinking.

What they hope, as translated by you, is immaterial. Since you're not even
qualified to speak for us, you're hardly qualified to speak for them. Muslims
world-wide are no more of one voice regarding their religion than Christians
are.

But Muslims are also enjoined to take the part of any muslim over any dhimmi
or infidel for any reason. That's why you don't see any opposition to the
terrs, and damned little condemnation.

I'm so happy that, by reducing a complex problem down to a simple sentence,
you've managed to make fools of serious scholars who conclude otherwise. Must
make you feel good about yourself and how smart you are.

George Z.