**
This is oyur beef? In the very quote you complained about, and wherever he gets half a chance, he explicitly says the opposite: that other religions can and do share the same basic values of his religion. Hell that’s his whole rationale for his policy in the ME: that the desire for freedom and liberty are universal, and he has incessantly repeated that Islam is compatible with it. Any or all of that that mey be wrong or naive, but to say W has it in for other religions is to utterly disregard what he actually says and does because, well, he’s a pubbie and we all know what he really thinks. :rolleyes:
**Why do I get the impression you’re leaning forward in your seat waiting for it?
**Horsehockey. When people talk about Florida is a state full of old people and hispanics, I’m not being excluded because I’m neither.
[/QUOTE]
**And then there is stuff like saying that Challenger astronauts were “home now”- which we all know implies heaven. One of those astronauts was Indian and very likely Hindu. I doubt her parents are going to be reassured that she’s hanging out in Christian heaven- heck, according to many Christians she’d be burning in Hell.
[/QUOTE]
**So what are we to make of the fact the he DIDN’T say that, that he pointedly said they were ALL “home”? Maybe that he was just saying vaugely platidinous? Would “a better place” be OK? No, that still implies an afterlife. How about “they may or may not still exist in a spiritual condion that may or may not be better than this one?” That would be nice…
ahem Maybe another thread, folks, for the reference to religion? Aside from the assurance to Muslims (something reinforced in this mornings’ press conference that yep, it’s the same God) I don’t see what relevance it has to the speech or to athiest’s hurt feelings.
Anyway, this morning Israel is saying no dice about tearing down the barrier. I agree with the posters who said he needs to follow this up with some sort of action, although given the ruthlessness so horribly demonstrated in Turkey today it’ll be hard politically to crack down on the other countries that’re in the crosshairs with you. But at least he’s on the record with it, that and that Arafat is not doing anybody any good and Europeans are wrong to support him. We’ll see what happens.
Still Blair and Bush could have done other things against AQ besides invading countries remotely connected to the problem. Terrorism hasn’t been this active in a long time. I don’t think it was AQ that prompted all of this on their lonesome was it ?
Vigilantism is still illegal. The correct thing to do is call the police if you suspect tha a crime is being committed. In this case the “police” would have been the UN. What you can’t do is round up your own posse of like-minded idiots and go shooting up the neighborhood and killing innocent bystanders.
In the case of Iraq, it turned out there wasn’t even a crime in first place.
Wow! A brilliant speech from the First Great Man of the Twenty-first Century. The courage and level headed thinking exhibited by George W Bush is the stuff of heros. This God fearing man, my boys, is the Winston Churchill of our time.
Meanwhile, outside in the sreets of London, the Communists and Muslim extremists have organized hordes of flat headed Englanders to rail against the hope for a for a better world that President Bush represents.
Least that’s what failure to abide by the terms of a negotiated cease fire amounts to, in my book.
And you can, yes you can, as a nation, act if faced with an act of war.
And the funny thing about war is that it doesn’t fit well into your facile little analogies. Because when your country is attacked, or faces a threat, it isn’t at all like a private citizen being a crime victim.
The UN isn’t at all like a police force. If it were, it would be a bunch of desk sergeants eating donuts and drinking coffee incessantly, while crime ran rampant and absolutely no arrests were made.
Likewise, the U.S. military isn’t at all like a police force. If it were, it would be an entire force of Inspector Harry Callahans. Nobody would be left alive to be read Miranda rights.
You’re trying to force institutions into roles for which they are singularly ill-suited. I don’t know of one serious international studies scholar who would describe the UN as the world’s policeman.
Strawman. I didn’t say that the US had surrendered any sovereignty to the UN, I said the UN was the controlling international authority. It was illegal for the US to invade Iraq without UN approval. The UN Charter is a ratified treaty and as such acquires the authority of US law as well as international law. GWB is not the sheriff. He doesn’t get to go around arbitrarily enforcing UN resolutions all by himself. To do so makes him a war criminal.
Mr. Moto:
What “act of war” did Iraq commit against the US?
When was the US “attacked” by Iraq?
Are you one of those Faux News fans who thinks that Saddam hussein had someting to do with 9/11?