Here's a news-flash to all those pundits who were opposed to the re-election of the President of the United States of America: George W. Bush is not the dope you guys thought (or hoped) he was.
Of course, that does not stop many writers from putting a negative spin on his victory, calling it "narrow" even though it was the largest popular vote win in modern American history; even more so than 'Hill-billy' Clinton's victory in 1996.
Frankly, I think that says more about the personal political views of those pundits rather than about how objective history will judge what President Bush did or did not do. What everyone must agree on, however, is that Mr. Bush is DEFINITELY the man of the hour and has an opportunity to consolidate the gains made by the Conservative "bible belt Christians" (like me) who have thoroughly backed him.
That, however, doesn't mean backing out of Afghanistan or Iraq, as some believe or hope (his selection of Condi Rice as the new Secretary of State should disabuse people of that vain and dangerous notion). Quite the contrary. A backing away now would be tantamount to a betrayal, and result in a net loss of the 'political capital' he worked so hard to earn.
Moreover, it is simply not possible. As history demonstrates, unless a wise ruler such as Turkey's Kemal Atatürk can be found, Moslem-dominated countries are seldom capable of establishing the kinds of democracies beneficial to their own people, and ours. The words of the Koran (hardly a liberal document), in fact, preclude it. And since there is no 'liberty' within it, no 'liberty' can be harvested from it.
Normally, that wouldn't be a problem for most of us in the Western world. If Moslems want to butcher and torture Moslems, that's their issue. But when they fly airplanes into buildings and then try to blame the 'Jews,' or some 'radical sect' that is "not representative of Islam," people out here laugh...and then start loading bombs onto airplanes.
That's the reason not only for the military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also the First Gulf War. To a certain extent, these conflicts are also an offshoot of the several (losing) wars these supposedly 'peaceful' Arab regimes have had with Israel ever since its founding in 1948. Until such a time, however, as a new Atatürk arises in the Middle East (or even a noble savage like Saladin) that will allow Islam to be practiced peacefully, and individually, in these Moslem-dominated countries, I fear (and believe) the West is headed for perpetual war with them.
Frankly, if we could avoid importing a single drop of their damned oil, I think the West would be better off. Although we have friends in such countries as my (now late) aunt's Kuwait (she died two years ago), Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, and the UAE, without our cash they'd wither away back to the quiet insignificance they had for a 1,500 years under Islam-imposed rule.
To be honest, I'd like nothing better, except, of course, for the damage such a policy may cause to our true Arab friends, who have always stood by the West. It's also simply not economically possible right now, and won't be until new sources of energy are developed independent of oil. Either that or the vile Arab/Moslem regimes that continually support and incubate terrorism in their own lands are overthrown by those who support genuine freedom and liberty everywhere.
The trouble is (as I stated earlier) I just don't think genuine freedom and liberty is possible within Islam; short of the coming of some Saladin or Atatürk to 'impose' it from above. If I am proven wrong on this point, however, I'll be very grateful. Until then, if ever, I predict there will have to be constant intervention by the West in the affairs of Middle East Arab/Moslem states; for our own good if not theirs.
Eric Margolis, in a column entitled "Yankees are blind to blundering Bush" (Oct. 17, 2004, Calgary Sun) said, "As for Bush's vow to wage unceasing war on America's enemies around the globe, (former TV host and presidential candidate Pat Buchanan) quotes President James Madison: 'Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it compromises and develops the germ of every other. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.'"
Frankly, I think that says more about the personal political views of those pundits rather than about how objective history will judge what President Bush did or did not do. What everyone must agree on, however, is that Mr. Bush is DEFINITELY the man of the hour and has an opportunity to consolidate the gains made by the Conservative "bible belt Christians" (like me) who have thoroughly backed him.
That, however, doesn't mean backing out of Afghanistan or Iraq, as some believe or hope (his selection of Condi Rice as the new Secretary of State should disabuse people of that vain and dangerous notion). Quite the contrary. A backing away now would be tantamount to a betrayal, and result in a net loss of the 'political capital' he worked so hard to earn.
Moreover, it is simply not possible. As history demonstrates, unless a wise ruler such as Turkey's Kemal Atatürk can be found, Moslem-dominated countries are seldom capable of establishing the kinds of democracies beneficial to their own people, and ours. The words of the Koran (hardly a liberal document), in fact, preclude it. And since there is no 'liberty' within it, no 'liberty' can be harvested from it.
Normally, that wouldn't be a problem for most of us in the Western world. If Moslems want to butcher and torture Moslems, that's their issue. But when they fly airplanes into buildings and then try to blame the 'Jews,' or some 'radical sect' that is "not representative of Islam," people out here laugh...and then start loading bombs onto airplanes.
That's the reason not only for the military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also the First Gulf War. To a certain extent, these conflicts are also an offshoot of the several (losing) wars these supposedly 'peaceful' Arab regimes have had with Israel ever since its founding in 1948. Until such a time, however, as a new Atatürk arises in the Middle East (or even a noble savage like Saladin) that will allow Islam to be practiced peacefully, and individually, in these Moslem-dominated countries, I fear (and believe) the West is headed for perpetual war with them.
Frankly, if we could avoid importing a single drop of their damned oil, I think the West would be better off. Although we have friends in such countries as my (now late) aunt's Kuwait (she died two years ago), Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, and the UAE, without our cash they'd wither away back to the quiet insignificance they had for a 1,500 years under Islam-imposed rule.
To be honest, I'd like nothing better, except, of course, for the damage such a policy may cause to our true Arab friends, who have always stood by the West. It's also simply not economically possible right now, and won't be until new sources of energy are developed independent of oil. Either that or the vile Arab/Moslem regimes that continually support and incubate terrorism in their own lands are overthrown by those who support genuine freedom and liberty everywhere.
The trouble is (as I stated earlier) I just don't think genuine freedom and liberty is possible within Islam; short of the coming of some Saladin or Atatürk to 'impose' it from above. If I am proven wrong on this point, however, I'll be very grateful. Until then, if ever, I predict there will have to be constant intervention by the West in the affairs of Middle East Arab/Moslem states; for our own good if not theirs.
Eric Margolis, in a column entitled "Yankees are blind to blundering Bush" (Oct. 17, 2004, Calgary Sun) said, "As for Bush's vow to wage unceasing war on America's enemies around the globe, (former TV host and presidential candidate Pat Buchanan) quotes President James Madison: 'Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it compromises and develops the germ of every other. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.'"
Buchanan, a classical Conservative if there ever was one, however, along with Madison, was wrong. While Madison may have said those words, he's also the same president who declared war on Great Britain and invaded Canada; America's first foreign-soil 'defeat' (it was a 'tie,' actually, but I'm Canadian you know, eh). In the Civil War both the Confederate States and the United States held elections for president and for congress. In W.W.I, W.W.II, Korea, Vietnam, and now the War(s) on Terror and Iraq, freedom has been preserved and strengthened and elections were continually held. That's not simply because the US is an exceptional nation but because Americans genuinely believe in these things.
President Bush has that same belief. And now, after a bitter political campaign, four years of being called an 'idiot' or 'dangerous,' he has the political clout and the moral power to see through to the end those actions and policies that he has so nobly, and tirelessly, persued. I, both as a Christian, a Conservative, and a relative of New Yorkers, look forward, eagerly, to what he will do next.
As for bin Laden and terrorists everywhere (including the goons running Iran's nuclear program), they'd better look to their calendars and say their prayers to the 'god' they think will protect them. In the first place because their time is running out, and in the second because that 'god' has demonstrated, at least so far, that he is either unwilling to intervene on their behalf, or not real enough to actually do so.
Sincerely,
President Bush has that same belief. And now, after a bitter political campaign, four years of being called an 'idiot' or 'dangerous,' he has the political clout and the moral power to see through to the end those actions and policies that he has so nobly, and tirelessly, persued. I, both as a Christian, a Conservative, and a relative of New Yorkers, look forward, eagerly, to what he will do next.
As for bin Laden and terrorists everywhere (including the goons running Iran's nuclear program), they'd better look to their calendars and say their prayers to the 'god' they think will protect them. In the first place because their time is running out, and in the second because that 'god' has demonstrated, at least so far, that he is either unwilling to intervene on their behalf, or not real enough to actually do so.
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
No comments:
Post a Comment