How Reagan Would Handle Islamism

From the desk of Joshua Trevino on Thu, 2006-10-19 14:10

My colleague at The Remedy, Ryan Williams, is not much younger than me — he was eight when Reagan left office, and I was thirteen — but the age difference is enough, I trust, that I may remember with some greater clarity one of the key features of Reagan’s anti-Communist rhetoric: it did not buy into the basic premises of the enemy. It did not concede, at least rhetorically, the commanding role of the state, nor the Hegelian/Marxist march of history, nor the forced perfectibility of man, nor the founding nobility of the Communist enterprise. Reagan’s genius was to recall the American people, and to a lesser extent the West, to the need to proceed from the premises of America’s Founders: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the inalienable rights of man, and government as existing merely to secure their just exercise. One did not win arguments with Communism when accepting Communist starting-points for those arguments. They led inevitably to the Communist end, and appeals to humanity were steamrolled by appeals to inexorable logic.

In dealing with Islamism in the present day, we make the very error that Reagan eschewed with the Communists. We proceed from Islamist premises — namely, that Islam is inherently peaceful; that it is inherently sane; that it is inherently just; and that it is a welcome and benign participant in our post-modern public square. One may not accuse George W. Bush in particular of failing to render a full obeisance on these points. Attendant to this are all manner of details that somehow fall outside the bounds of acceptable discourse in Muslim eyes, and hence in the eyes of any who fear violence. Most recently, we see the shutting-down, by murder and by fire, of any critique or perceived disrespect of the Muslim founder. Reasonable people of any faith may find Muhammed an admirable figure. Or they may examine the historical record and conclude that Muhammed was a violent visionary who slaughtered the defenseless and violated a nine-year old; but state these things in public, and deathly ire stalks the speaker — or, if he is not available, his co-religionists. What victory may we aspire to so long as the most basic freedoms are thus quelled?

There is not an exact parallel here with the state of discourse in the Communist era, but there is parallel enough. Certainly few outside the Communist nations were hunted and killed for merely denigrating Marx or Lenin. But there was a long-running campaign of dissuasion, especially in western Europe and amongst the American elites, directed against those with the bad form to be too anti-Communist. The excuses given for being soft on the horrors of Communism varied from era to era: there was a need to support the Popular Front; there was a need to stay united against the fascists; the Soviets sacrificed so much in the war; we have to focus upon our own (American) sins; and the top two — the original intent was noble, and we must not alienate the moderates. In these last, we see an exact parallel with the apologists for Islam and Islamism today. We perform kowtow to the founding mythos of our opponents, and we indulge in the fantasy that some adherents of jihad and Islamism are more palatable than others.

Mr Williams engages in this error when he refers to the need to reach out to “the moderate Muslim world” — which should, in a just world, and if it even exists, be reaching out to us with all manner of apology and regret — and in his faith that America’s Founding message that “resistance to tyrants is obedience to God” will be well-received by these “moderates.” Suffice it to say that they already agree with this sentiment, and further do not believe that we have the slightest thing to do with the God that must be obeyed. We are, rather, the tyrants to be resisted. Like Milton’s Satan who would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven, the average Muslim whom we face abroad much prefers some manner of shari’a (to which Williams refers as a dissuading factor) to the humiliation of life on the terms of the irreligious, secular West. We cannot hold this against them: they have the integrity of their faith, and it is their choice. But it does not follow from this that we must credit them with moral equality to ourselves — assuming we have a moral standing worthy of the name — and it does not follow from this that because they have integrity, that they are good. The answer for us infidels is not respect — beyond that due the individual with his inalienable rights — but frankness even at the cost of disrespect, and exclusion of the foe’s ideas and ideologues from our public square till a general sanity among them prevails.

The ill-kept secret of Communism to which the elites adhered was that it was in its origins a squalid, murderous creed. Its founder was a moral leper, and its heroes were savages are surely as any pre-modern tribesman. It took a brave survivor of the Soviet Union’s concentration camp system, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, to state this truth plainly and irrefutably — and it took Ronald Reagan to make it policy, and enact it as the will of the American people. That is the lesson of Reagan’s war for ours. In a contest of ideas, truth and victory are inseparable companions. We only delay the latter in eschewing the former. We may call it politeness, or respect, or strategy: but it looks like defeat.

Nansi and the great Arab myth

Submitted by pet85022 on Sat, 2006-10-28 04:27.

I resent your statement that Winston Churchill is my man, he is not and I resent your implication that I am not a Muslim BUT praise be to Allah I am not an Arab like you. Joseph Goebbels once said, " Tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough and everyone will believe you". As an Arab you believe the Arab myth that you are the new super race. You are not. You dismiss scientific fact because it does not fit neatly in your myth. I thought I was having a discourse with a reasonable person, instead I find myself trying to communicate with an Arab fanatic. One who's mind is made up so please do not try to confuse you with the facts. I will not waste any more of my time with you. The rest of the Islamic world laugh at your myth but nod our heads in agreement to keep your money flowing to us. You and all the Arabs are brain washed and you are living in a world where government fiction (myth) is considered fact and true fact does not exist.

More than history tought you.

Submitted by Nansi on Mon, 2006-10-30 20:00.

The Arabs are not giving enough to other Muslims; it is an Islamic practice to give specially to those in need regardless of their ethnicity or background, according to the Hadeath of prophet Muhammad peace be on him people are to share water, food and fire. In our times fire is energy so oil being sold in Saudi the Muslims in Pakistan, India, America or where ever they are should get their share. That is the best social system there if only if Muslims were to follow this. But lots of hypocrites are out there.

I never raised the issue of Arab or non Arab, Muslims are equal regardless of their back ground and what matters to Allah is piety and the fear of him, again that is according to the Hadeath and the Quran. However, Prophet Muhammad used to be proud of whom he is and Arabic is sure the language spoken in heaven as according to the Quran and most importantly Arabic was the language Allah spoke in when he revealed the Quran.

The last one for the day

Submitted by Nansi on Mon, 2006-10-30 20:01.

I really wonder who is telling the lies and who keep on telling this in every reply. Trying to proof that Arab history being forgery, only you people in the West believe this, in fact Muslims regardless of their background are proud of any achievement done by Arabs or non Arabs. I did not even touch on this subject, it is needless to say how much Arabs in the Islamic era have given to civilization but people who are brain washed and those who are so impressed by Western civilization refuse to acknowledge this. Maybe you are trying to fit in, just remember they will never accept you and your own people will not accept you either.

Lastly, I will tell you that the Quran spoke about hypocrites and hypocrisy, those people lived at the time when the Quran was being revealed onto Prophet Muhammad, we just happened to have more of them today. You know people trying to insight hate between Arabs and non Arabs, those who try to give credit to non Muslims over Muslim land. Read the Quran some more maybe you will get some inspiration. Good luck on the next round.

Nansi, to your reply

Submitted by pet85022 on Sun, 2006-10-22 20:22.

It is most difficult for the brain washed to admit they are brain washed. I know it was for me. Your answer to my post is the proof. The last sentence comes directly out of Egyptian school text books.
In a previous post you stated "The Jews were not there first, historically the Canaanites were the earliest known inhabitants of Palestine, those were Arab tribes who settled in the area in the 3rd millennium BC." DNA tests on human remains found in ancient Canaanite ruins prove beyond a scientific doubt the Canaanites are no more related to Arabs than they are to the Chinese. Your above statement is found throughout Palestinian and Saudi school text books. Palestine never ever existed prior to the end of WW1 when Winston Churchill drew some lines on a map when the Ottoman empire was broken up. As I said before, you are living in a world where government fiction is considered fact and true fact does not exist.

Reply to pet85022

Submitted by Nansi on Mon, 2006-10-23 00:47.

Palestine was there long before your man drew the map of the Middle East, but was part of the Othman Empire and before that was part of the Abbacy Dynasty, the same applies for Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and others. In other words it never existed in the form that we have today, in fact the Jews tried to buy Palestine directly from the Othman. So yes it existed and was there long before WW1. The Canaanite by all means were Arab tribes, DNA has been around since the early 90's, apparently it is used to satisfy someone's claim just like the temple of Solomon claimed to be exactly over the same land of the Alaqsa mosque in Jerusalem, they been digging for long time but have so far come back empty handed. Until they figure out a way and make something up they will continue to dig.

I know exactly where you come from, I met lots of people like you. History for you is something that has to fit your objective understanding of the contemporary political system, if it did not add up then history did not exist. If you are Muslim as you claim then you ought to feel sorry for yourself not for me. Islamic and Arab history is the least hope that keep people going. Islam has given much to world civilization than the world is willing to admit. Maybe because it is who control the present controls the past.

I am a way for sometime but will be back next week and will write more to all of you. Happy Eid.

Reply...??? 2

Submitted by marcfrans on Sun, 2006-10-22 20:02.

@ Nansi

...

3) Your tendency to set up 'strawmen' seems to be unlimited.  Where did I claim that "history doesn't matter"?  I claimed no such thing!  What I did say was that the Arab claim, as a group,  on the basis of "ancient tribes" was no better than the jewish one.  In fact the Jewish claim is better, because  people with a distinct jewish culture were there many centuries before any other people (be they 'arabs' or not) with a muslim culture.   But I also said that the criterion of 'who was there first' AS A GROUP was not a legitimate one.

Why don't you read what I write instead of what you want to read?  Once again, the world will remain mired in conflict until people like you learn how to make empirical observations instead of dogmatically repeating 'own' mantras. 

4) How could the west be "controlling" the price of oil on the world market, let alone in Saudi Arabia?   You do not seem to know how markets operate. And you certainly do not seem to have heard of something called OPEC.  In fact, it would seem like you are willing to say anything if it suits your purpose.  

5) Your position on Darfur is still.....yes still.... a mystery, after all this writing.  No surprise there!  Although your latest cryptic statements on the subject suggest that you do not seem to see a problem at all.  So we must end with the usual conclusion.  As long as muslim 'intellectuals' like yourself refuse to make factual empirical observations...what hope can there be for real 'improvement' in your world?  

Reply ??

Submitted by marcfrans on Sun, 2006-10-22 19:41.

@ Nansi

You are presumably an 'educated' person, since you are able to write, and moreover to write in a foreign language (English).  But, what is education divorced from intellectual honesty?  Nothing, I would say.  You seem to be incapable of dealing with the issues presented, and always revert to parroting new or different mantras. 

1) Let's illustrate this.  I EXPLICITLY made a distinction between (a) Israel proper and (b) the 'contested territories of the Westbank and Gaza.  And, further, I stated that the Arabs in "Israel proper" have civil rights.  That is because they are Israeli citizens and Israel is a true democracy.

You ignore all this, and come back asking me "which ones you are referring to".   It is as if my paragraphs 4 and 5 were not there, as if you refused to read them.  How could one have a rational discussion with someone like you, if you refuse to read what is in front of you, and read instead only what you want to 'see' there?   

2) Given the distinction under 1 above, it should be obvious that democracy and civil rights have nothing to do with the westbank and Gaza. These are 'contested territories', formerly from Jordan and Egypt. Moreover, they are directly 'governed' by the Palestinian Authority, with its presidency in the hands of the old 'secular' terrorist organisation Fatah and its cabinet and prime ministership' under control of the islamists of Hamas. So, of course those arabs on the westbank and Gaza have no democracy nor civil rights. However, that is certainly not Israel's fault. You can blame the 'Arab' leaders of fatah and Hamas for that. How often do I have to repeat that Arabs elsewhere in the Arab world do NOT have those 'things' (democracy and civil rights) either.

It's called brain washing

Submitted by pet85022 on Sun, 2006-10-22 03:35.

To Nansi, I am deeply sorry that you have been brain washed by what ever school you went to in which ever Arab country you live in. In reading your posts it is with out a doubt massive Arab revisionism of history that you have been exposed to. I am a retired educator, I have spent a cosiderable amount of time in Egypt, Turkey, Saudi, Pakistan and Morocco. History or historical fact as taught in schools of these countries is the history the government of these countries want their citizens to learn. All of it is brain washing none of it is fact. In Morocco none of my students knew of the Roman empire. When I asked who built those (Roman) ruins in the desert, I was told they were built by ancient moslem people. In Iran the ancient Persian capital is being bulldozed over by the order of the Iranian clerics BECAUSE anything that came before Islam is worthless. As a fellow Moslem I feel really and truly sorry for you, living in a world where government fiction is considered fact and true fact does not exist.

My Fellow Moderate Muslim Pet85022

Submitted by Nansi on Sun, 2006-10-22 11:14.

I do not know the history you are talking bout or the history you been tough, but we certainly studied ancient history like the Kildans, Assyrian, Babylon, The Roman Empire and much more. No one lacks knowledge of basic history or geography as westerns specially Americans.

Continues...

Submitted by Nansi on Sun, 2006-10-22 10:25.

Yes, Islam is more recent than Judaism, as I mentioned yesterday about King David and Solomon, those were mentioned in the Quran. The message of Islam was there from the creation of mankind, regardless what it is called. Maybe if these people really followed their scriptures correctly they would accept Jesus and later Muhammad, then there would be no problem. You do not understand this argument but we can not accept the Jewish justification over Palestine from neither religious nor historical claim. Let’s just agree that the Jewish claim is Biblical more than anything.

You really have many contradictions throughout your argument. If history is irrelevant then everybody can occupy which ever land they want. I forgot maybe that is why you justify the American occupation of Iraq; at least that is what it implies when you defend it.

I did not say removal of Saddam was only for oil do not put words in my mouth. There are many strategic objectives behind all this but certainly oil tops the list. The west and specially America is not paying top prices, in fact they are the ones controlling the prices of oil pumped in Saudi, Kuwait.

Darfur Darfur Darfur, why the Sudanese government wants to kill it is citizens and why from all over the hot places America is taking the humanitarian initiatives to rescue them. Why not the Muslims in Thailand or the Philippines? Maybe because of the beauty of their eyes.

swallowing...till the end

Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2006-10-21 19:04.

@ Nansi

.....

8) I am not surprised either about your unwillingness to recognise the american intervention on behalf of muslims in the Balkans (probably because your oil argument would look even more nonsensical there). But, you reach your absolute peak of nonsense where you try to say something about Darfur. So what is your position on Darfur now? Because I cannot possibly deduce it from your ramblings. Should the americans intervene or not? Should they try to save your black muslim brothers or not? And ,if they did, would you reflexively 'employ' your ridiculous oil argument again. As far as I know, your islamist brothers in Khartoum have promised their oil already to China and (to a lesser extent) to France. Maybe, these countries should intervene? Fat chance for that! Of course, if they had any moral decency left, it is the muslim neighbors of Sudan who should intervene. Now, what are the chances of that? 0.000!

swallowing ...deeper

Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2006-10-21 18:59.

@ nansi

......

5) You purposefully want to confuse 'Israel proper' with the Westbank and Gaza. The latter are 'contested territories' that came out of the most recent attempts (in 1967 and 1973) by arab armies to destroy Israel.  The Arabs will have to negotiate about their 'disposition'.  So long as they refuse to do that, the conflict will endure.  You parrot the 'islamist' (not the 'Arab') position that there should be a 1-state solution, because you know that will guarantee ultimate islamisation of the whole area (just like you are succeeding in Lebanon and beginning to succeed in 'Europe').  The jews, of course, are not so stupid, they know the danger that 'you' represent, and they will insist on a 2-state 'solution'.  But they realise that even a 2-state solution can not be a real solution as long as the Arab world will remain mired in totalitarianisms, which is almost the same thing as saying 'until islam can reconcile with modernity'.  Can you tell me  when that is going to happen?

6) If you still think that Saddam and/or Mullah Omar were removed to "take oil" then you can as well believe in Santa Claus.  There is a world market for oil, and western countries pay world prices for their oil imports.  That is the 'cheapest' way to get oil on the market.   It is certainly much cheaper than removing Arab tyrants and creating 'chances' for (a few) arab democrats!  At the same time there are lots of dictators who give oil away at cheaper prices to buy political favors.  It is amazing that you cannot make these distinctions.

7) I did not express any "wishes" w.r.t. the Othmans - as you falsely claim - but I do observe that you refuse to answer my question about Constantinople/Istambul.   No suprise there!  As if there were still any need to confirm your intellectual dishonesty.

swallowing....deep

Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2006-10-21 18:30.

@ nansi

1) If one is going to claim land on the basis of "earliest inhabitants" and "tribes" in the mists of time, then almost anyone could claim land anywhere in the world. You ignore the reality of what the world must have looked like in 'nomadic' times.  I did NOT claim that "the jews" were in that land before any "arab tribes".  Neither you nor I have any clue where the 'ultimate' ethnic roots lie of "Arabs".  I said that "the jews" were in that land many centuries before "the muslims".  And that is a fact that you cannot refute.  Islam is a much more recent religion than judaism, and you know that islamisation dramatically changes any culture or 'people'.  The jews as a people with a jewish culture were there a long time before any other people (be they called 'arabs' or not) with an islamic culture.    

2) I do not deny that present-day 'arabs' have legitimate rights.  All existing persons have some legitimate rights.   I simply contest that 'arabs' AS A GROUP have some 'natural' right to that land BASED on ancient "tribes". On that (illegitimate) basis the jews would have a much better claim than the muslims to that specific land.

3) I define "democracy" as a political system (a) where there is regularly power alternation between different ideologies, en (b) where there is genuine freedom of expression or speech. Measured by those two criteria, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. 

4) You know that 'arabs' in Israel proper have "civil rights".  In fact, they are the only arabs in the Middle East who have genuine "civil rights" (which requires judicial 'certainty' and an independent judiciary, and both are inconceivable in nondemocracies).   

Reply to marcfrans

Submitted by Nansi on Sun, 2006-10-22 10:24.

Civil rights for Arabs within Israel, which ones you are referring too, the ones inside the land occupied in 1948 or the one occupied in 1967. Arab Israelis or those in the west bank and Gaza? Israel is the only country that still has no borders so you can take back point 5, Israel was built in 1948 with the dream of expanding from the Nile to Euphrates, if it was not for the constant resistance they faced in Lebanon, Gaza and the 1973 war they would have never withdrew an inch.

As for Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza, it is needless to talk about them, it is all over the media, the last example is jailing of the Hamas leaders those elected in one of the most cleanest election campaigns. I guess Israel must suspend democracy to preserve it. Israel has not been acting responsibly towards the Palestinians they occupy according to the UN.

As for the Arabs or Palestinians 'regardless of the type of citizenship imposed on them', within the green line or Israel they have experienced long history of racism, but they are forgotten by the rest of the world. Israel classifies all its citizens with different labels, the Arabs are the last category; yes they have seats in the Knesset but no actual rights on the ground. In fact they refuse to allow them buy property or expand their existing homes to justify the natural growth of their population. Most recently they were not allowed to board planes in local flights.

still spouting....#2

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2006-10-20 15:58.

@ Nansi

.....

As for closing "bases" in the region? Well, serious strategic thinkers in the west are considering it. But it would mean abandoning certain 'responsible' governments and 'barbarians' taking over. And, how is one going to control or prevent the emergence of a single tyrant (with natural resources!) from emerging in 'your' world (what a terrible thought)? And how is one going to 'control' all your Caliphat-believing transnational terrorists? All these bases are there at the request from their hosts. Just like they are in Germany, Japan, Belgium, etc...

Your selective reading of history is comical, almost infantile. Othman sultans who "stopped western savagery from taking over their lands"? Wasn't Constantinople christian for centuries before it became muslim Istambul? How did that happen? Too difficult a question, perhaps? As long as people like you want to 'undo' history, this world of ours will remain in a primitive Hobbesian state. Pretty much like the Middle East itself, really.

Swallow it back marcfans

Submitted by Nansi on Sat, 2006-10-21 12:01.

You can try to sell this to someone else. The Jews were not there first, historically the Canaanites were the earliest known inhabitants of Palestine, those were Arab tribes who settled in the area in the 3rd millennium BC, in other words long before the Jews were even enslaved by the Pharaohs in Egypt let alone escaped to the Promised Land. The Jews claim over Palestine is biblical more than anything; we know King Solomon and King David the great prophets ruled greater Israel. We know Jesus lived there too and we also know that prophet Muhammad descended from Mecca to Jerusalem before descending to heaven, our claim is also religious and historical.

Please do not keep lying to your self about Israel being the only democracy, if Israel is true democracy then maybe it ought to let the Arabs in the west bank and Gaza be part of it is system. The Palestinians do not care what you will call the land so long they are given their civil rights and their lands and homes does not get destroyed systematically anymore. The Palestinian Authority has proposed this to Israel before but it got shot down because Israel claims it land is for Jews only. For God’s sake is that democracy of its own? to make you happy just think of this, that land had so many empires come and go, Israel by no mean is the last one to rule it. if they had some sense they would try to solve things peacefully with the Arabs before the world powers change hands and their biggest supporter can no longer support it self as we are starting to see sign of it already. Islam does not have any problem with Jews or Christians.

Give examples of stealing resource, get your head out of the sand… what do you call Iraq, but the plan did not work, the roses they thought was awaiting them turned to bombs. It is been happening since the discovery of oil in the region, 99 year contract with Saud Arabia if they liberate Kuwait and drive Saddam out. Where you been, do not you know basic history.

Still spouting...

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2006-10-20 15:51.

@ Nansi

I advise you to ignore the mindless anti-muslim abuse of some, but please realise that your continued spouting of 'islamist' nonsense contributes to that phenomenon.

You claim that Bush "has used everything in his arsenal to quell islam".  What nonsense!  Is that why he continues to allow immigration of muslims to America?  To "quell" them?  Is that why his predecessors saved muslims (1) in Koeweit from the secular arab fascist Saddam, and (2) in Bosnia and Kosovo from ethnic cleansing by 'christian orthodox'?  Is that why there are appearing weekly ads in American newspapers urging Bush to intervene to save the black muslims of Darfur from genocide by your more fundamentalist 'brothers', etc....?     I know, I know....you do not want to make empirical observations, but you prefer to parrot islamist nonsense.

Once again, you called Israel "a foreign body", even though the jews were there long before the 'muslims'.  But I know your kind does not tolerate 'diversity' of religion in the Middle East, nor a single 'model democracy' (the contrast is too sharp for comfort in exposing 'own' islamic failures).  Your charge of the west "stealing resources in the region" is pure nonsense too.  Can you give an example of that?  I don't think so. On the contrary, your "region" is benefiting tremendously from the technological progress which is constantly being made in the west (and for which it is bearing all the development costs).

......

Mr. Joshua Trevino

Submitted by Nansi on Fri, 2006-10-20 11:35.

I assure you Mr. George W. Bush used everything in his arsenal to quell Islam and the so called Islamic terrorism, savagery, threats and other names you like to makeup. He is playing politics through his foreign secretary and surly has the strongest military at his disposal with the best advisers from and before the time of Reagan. But it certainly proofed to be failure and that becoming more apparent day by day. Your article Mr. Joshua Trevino could not be more helpless, you’re crying for the past as if your hero president should come out from his grave and crush Islam. It is exactly the same when the Muslims cry for Salahadeen or Harour AlRasheed or the Othman sultans, all those who crushed and stopped the western savagery from occupying their land.

The solution is before your eyes, you only choose not to see it. If you are so civilized and so democratic and so and so all these good things you portray your self then maybe you should write in the same manner. Maybe the West should leave the Muslims alone. Maybe they should start with the closure of their bases in the region, stop supporting this foreign body in the region called Israel, stop the manipulation to justify steeling the resource of the region. I think this will come but not by their choice but by the growing Islamic and national resistance. They certainly had enough of your lies and manipulations.

Questions....

Submitted by dosser on Fri, 2006-10-20 16:40.

I've heard the term, "so called Islamic terrorism" which implies that you believe it is not. What, pray tell, is it then?

"Stealing resources"? How is that happening? We seem to be paying for it.

swallow again marcfans

Submitted by Nansi on Sat, 2006-10-21 12:07.

The Othman Turks, yes indeed the blue mosque was a church but Turkey today is Muslim county, maybe they ought to convert to Christianity or hand over the land to the Vatican and immigrate to another land to satisfy your wishes. That is not the same argument as the conflict in Palestine.

I will not talk too much about American reaching to the Muslims or others for help, only you believe it. The Americans would not have moved a thing to liberate Kuwait if it was not for oil, they admit it why do not you? Same thing happened in Yugoslavia, was not the Americans who imposed weapons embargo on the Bosnian Muslims arguing that if we let them arm the conflict will grow and at the same time the Serbs were massacring them by the thousands. When NATO intervened it was only because they did not want Serbia to become very powerful in Europe. Darfur??? Wakeup people, every time the administration wants to wage a ware somewhere they start off with brainwashing the American public to get some support. Darfur is no exception lots and lots of resources, maybe you should admit it. This is the real face of capitalism I know you like to spice it up and call it democracy.

Last easy question for you, why is it that when the war in Rwanda happened the west was racing to get its citizens out including your hero Americans. No oil, no natural gas, nothing just few poor people.

Hey Nansi.....

Submitted by oiznop on Fri, 2006-10-20 13:00.

Maybe the West should leave the Muslims alone. Maybe they should start with the closure of their bases in the region, stop supporting this foreign body in the region called Israel, stop the manipulation to justify steeling the resource of the region. I think this will come but not by their choice but by the growing Islamic and national resistance. They certainly had enough of your lies and manipulations.

These things won't happen until this country is allowed (by the looney leftist environmentalists who lobby the looney leftists in the democratic party) to drill for it's own oil in Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico, and developes alternative fuel sources to oil.....Then we will leave the "muslims alone."....or in my estimations, tell the RAGHEADS TO F OFF!......Once we cut off their life blood, by no longer "steeling" the resources of the region, and the Islamo Scum starves as a result, then your wish will come true!......;-).....

Time will prove Serbia was right....

Submitted by FLLegal on Fri, 2006-10-20 01:24.

If Reagan were alive and President, he would call Islam EVIL like he did communism AND he would take a "kick-ass" approach against Islam in this nation (U.S.).

I thought I would never feel this way, but Islam is soooo evil and tyrannical that I would have to look the other way if a Western leader(s) conducted genocide against Islam.

Perhaps we were wrong to have stopped Serbia from waging genocide and instead should have joined them. Time will prove they were right....

Guess Again....

Submitted by oiznop on Thu, 2006-10-19 21:14.

and (opposite to his rhetoric) he increased the size of government causing increased deficits and national debt.

The Democrats in Congress at the time, with their social programs, had nothing to do with it, though, eh Andre???.....;-)....

Tear down this wall

Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2006-10-19 21:08.

@ Kapitein Andre

1) Reagan's famous dictum in Berlin was "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall".  There were no "gates" involved.

2) Indeed, many can "articulate views".  That is fairly easy.  But, Reagan did more than that.  He was instrumental in bringing down the 'evil empire', though you are not willing to credit him for that.  It is true that Reagan never got a good press in Europe. They preferred to buy the illusion that the soviets folded by themselves.

3) The closest the world came to nuclear war was not "in 1982-83" (a ridiculous 'observation' by you) but during the Cuban missile crisis under Kennedy, not under Reagan.  This is not a blot on Kennedy's record, far from it, but it shows how biased you are against Reagan.  By the way, the world is moving closer again towards nuclear war, largely due to European INaction w.r.t. the islamic bomb.

4) Your point on Reagan's economic record is misinformed and small-minded.  Yes, he did increase the public sector debt, but the latter remained at a relatively low level (in terms of ratio to GDP), certainly way below the current levels in euroland.   That was not a negative nor a positive thing in itself, but that need not be debated here.  Your charge that he "increased the size of government" (relative to GDP) is doubtful (even though I don't have the relevant figures in front of me).  If anything, Reagan lowered the size of the US FEDERAL government through his tax cuts.  And he redynamized the American economy by constraining the oligopoly power of certain public sector unions, which helped to restore more flexibility in labor markets. In so doing, he laid the structural groundwork that has put the US economy on a faster growth path compared with the other G-8 economies, just the reverse of what had happened during 1960-80.

Reagan's War?

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Thu, 2006-10-19 17:34.

Reagan is a poor example...there were and are many Americans who hold and can eloquently articulate the views you have described. While "Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate," was part of a powerful speech in West Berlin, Reagan's brinkmanship with the Soviets during the early 1980s brought the world the closest to nuclear war during 1982-83, and (opposite to his rhetoric) he increased the size of government causing increased deficits and national debt.

 

Quite frankly, a new discourse must be created, one that does not view Islam as either an "evil empire" or a "religion of peace with a few bad apples."

 

It must be made clear that Islam is incompatible in the West, and that Muslim immigrants are no longer welcome, for there are more deserving, educated, and liberal immigrants who truly want to be a part of a respect the West. Period.

 

In this respect, Islam, Fascism, National Socialism, Anarchism, Socialism, and Communism are all in the same boat - none can be part of a democratic society if their goal is to destroy it.