(Page 3 of 5)
Not for nothing the flag of this religion is the Sword of Islam and not the Crucifix or the Tablets. Everything always comes down to a messianic vision for the world. All this nonsense about lack of opportunity is trash talk. They had less opportunity back in their homeland and didn't blow themselves up.
Now, however, Islam is gathering itself to rampage against both
Christian and Jew for the same reason. What the West needs is a
Charles Martel or a Roland. Or an American President without
multicultural pretensions saying Islam is a peaceful religion. I
can't predict how it will end for Christians. I know Islam won't
destroy the Jews. Nothing ever has. Nothing ever will. How do I
know? The Bible tells me so. And history does, too.
-- Wolf Terner
Fair Lawn, New Jersey
I disagree on two points. First, the poverty of the 1930s was in America where capitalism was the way of life. So they were looking for something different. In the Middle East they are living in poverty because of Islam and not because of the West or capitalism. So their gripe should be with Islam, not the West and capitalism.
Second, Communism was just an ideology and the other has a
spiritual aspect to it and therefore must harder to stop and
control/change. I do not think the West has a clue what they are
fighting here. This ideology is much harder to change. And I do not
think that democracy is all that is needed. I think it will
definitely help. The most import thing is to get the flow of
information into those countries.
-- Joseph D'Ambrosia
Well said!
Now let's find a solution to poverty and apply it to the third world and remove the fuel for these threats to our society.
Not to mention the moral implications!
-- Toby
Cary, North Carolina
PARTIED OUT
Re: Paul Chesser's New Leader
-- How About a New Direction?:
I use profanity only in cases of very strong emotion, either
negative or, as in this case, positive agreement. My response to
Paul Chesser's article that tells what we stupid Republicans have
to do to prevent becoming the minority party again is: no *******
****. The author simply repeats what the Republican Party said that
it was going to do in its landslide victory of 1994. I fault the
lack of vision, leadership, and true conservatism of President
Bush, who has yet to meet a spending bill that he didn't like,
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), and Speaker of the
House Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), as well as many of the GOP rank and
file, including pork barrel politicians like Senator Charles
Grassley (R-Iowa). Why should we conservatives vote Republican?
-- David Shoup
Iraq
Mr. Chesser offers a quaint semi-tough re-packaging of basic ideas
as to how Republicans can re-establish themselves with all
Americans as well as their conservative base. A new Republican
House leader is merely window dressing to hide the real problem
behind the culture of corruption that both parties suffer from. If
Mr. Chesser really wants a new direction that will seriously shake
up the status quo, I suggest he start a national dialogue about
term limits. As Robert Novak reminds us, it was Newt's "Contract
With America" that propelled the Republican Party to majority
status. One of the main tenets of the Contract was term limits. It
died a quiet death for obvious reasons. Basic Human Nature 101
tells us that money and power increase exponentially as both remain
symbiotic to one another. Terms limits, while not a magical
panacea, given human creativity, would give those who give big
money reason to pause about the value of such largess.
Concomitantly, limited exposure to the lure of power that infects
Washington, D.C. would reduce the need for the money flow. You only
get limited government when the ability to control it is also
limited. If the ability to control government is limited, the flow
of money is reduced. The tax code is a perfect example of this
principle. I'd love to see a national poll on term limits. I
suspect given the Abramoff scandal and recent performances by
Democrat members of the Senate, that the poll would send shock
waves into the heart of D.C.
-- A. DiPentima
CONCEDING POOR GOVERNMENT
Re: Ralph R. Reiland's A Patttern
of Blindness:
Mr. Reiland correctly noted that the federal government, and most of the state and local governments for that matter, seem to be totally inept. This couldn't be further from the truth. They are incredibly competent in the one area important to most of their members.
He points out that the State Department seems to have no idea what is happening on the diplomatic front anywhere in the world. He notes that the Federal Emergency Management Agency seems unable to manage a federal emergency. And he notes that the Central Intelligence Agency seems unable to collect and effectively analyze intelligence. That no one bothered to read an intelligence memo from an FBI field agent should not surprise anyone, either. After all, the memo came from Phoenix, for goodness sake. No up and comers out there. That federal, state, and local politicians are engaged in a turf war during a major natural disaster should surprise no one. Such turf wars are the norm in this country.
Finally Mr. Reiland asks if anyone sees a pattern. Of course we do: the governments of this nation have been getting less and less responsive for the last 50 years. The real question should be: Why? The answer is rather simple, actually. Politics. The upper echelons of these agencies are all politicians; not diplomats, crisis managers, intelligence officers or law enforcement officers. They are politicians. And worse, they work for politicians. True service professionals cannot stand politicians, simply because, for the politician, the mission of the agency is secondary to his real priority which is the politics of managing his career. Thus, they are continually blindsided because they are not paying attention to what their agency should be doing, but rather how best to manage their careers.
This is true in the legislative and judicial branches, as well. All government has become politics. Attention to the details of one's job description results in acute frustration for the dedicated government professional. Because of this the best and the brightest leave early, leaving only the politicians and the incompetents and those who have given up operating these agencies. Is it any wonder that nothing gets done, or at the least does not get done well?