Saturday, October 28, 2006


Compromise, generally, is a good thing as relates to domestic affairs. Compromise is also indicated when treating with allies.

With enemies, compromise is deadly. There are people in this world who want us dead or subjugated. It doesn't matter why they want this, or if they have any just claim against us. Subjugated or dead. Those are the choices. Their words are plain.

There are those Americans who don't hear those words, or don't undertand the meaning of those words. Rhetoric has weight and words have meaning. When the President of Iran talks about the destruction of Israel, does the opposition think the is kidding? When al-Queda talks about attacking the United States, does anyone rational think that they don't want exactly that? When Moslem leaders talk about establishing a worldwide caliphate, do we believe that they don't mean exactly what they say?

We are at war, people. This is a war for our way of life. If you think life as a gay person is hard in the United States, imagine what it may be like under Sharia.
Written in Arabic, the fatwa comes from a press conference with the powerful religious cleric, where he was asked about the judgment on sodomy and lesbianism. “Forbidden,” Sistani answered, according to OutRage, “Punished, in fact, killed. The people involved should be killed in the worst, most severe way of killing.”
As regards women's rights, we have to look at a cleric in Australia, one of our closest allies.
In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

I got a picture from the Gateway Pundit that demonstrates compromise that we can all agree would have been disastrous for the United States as we know it. Yet, this poster was a political cartoon represting Democrats from 1864.

Is there anyone who thinks that the United States should have compromised with the Confederacy in 1864? Is there anyone who thinks compromise with Hitler was a good idea? The French find themselves now in a current intifada with Muslim youth. There are lessons here that must be learned and we must be blind not to see the threat.

Victor Davis Hanson talks about a book in he recently read, A review of Robert Spencer’s The Truth about Muhammad, Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion (Regnery Publishing, 2006)
The mistreatment of women, polygamy, child-marriage, stoning of adulterers, cutting off the hands of thieves, mutilation of enemy corpses, the sentence of death for apostasy, the subjection of dhimmi or Christians and Jews, even the killing of writers who displease the faithful — remember the sentence of death against Indian novelist Salman Rushdie, still in force — all have their precedents in the things Muhammad said and did. And as Spencer documents in his conclusion, this invocation of Muhammad is continually made by the jihadist terrorists themselves, who accurately link their violence to incidents and sayings from the life of Muhammad. To pretend that these devout Muslims are ignorant of their own religion’s traditions or are “hijacking” them is willful blindness.
We are willfully blind at our own peril.

**UPDATE** The poster shown above was not a Democratic poster, but a poliitical cartoon drawn by Thomas Nash that reflected the Democrats’ peace plank in their party platform, adopted at their national convention in Chicago in August 1864.


oyster said...

Umm, the U.S. will do whatever Cleric Sistani wants, as he controls the Shia majority we have empowered in Iraq. Despite his hideous attitudes concerning gays, Sistani is a "moderate" compared to thugs like Al Sadr who allows death squads to flourish.

If you are saying Sistani and Al Sadr are the enemies then we should leave Iraq and bomb everyone there (the 600k Christians I guess would have to "take one for the team"), because there's absolutely no hope at all for the country as a whole.

Putting Americans in there to referee sectarian disputes amongst Sistani and Sadr's followers and Sunni insurgents is madness.

If you honestly feel most Moslems are the enemy, how can you not advocate for either full scale war on Iraq or immediate withdrawal?

What is your "no compromise" foreign policy position on Iraq?

Pawpaw said...

Oyster, my friend. We have screwed Iraq up from the get-go, IMHO. While we were right to go in there, we prosecuted the war all wrong. We were not nearly savage enough.

Any population who allows a madman dictator to go unmolested for as long as Saddam Hussein went unmolested, should not expect to immediately be granted admission to nation status.

Just like we occupied Germany and Japan, we should have occupied Iraq. Like Germany, we would have stamped out resistance for a year or so, and hanged a bunch of Ba'athist leadership. Then, the Iraqi people might be ready for self-government.

I don't believe that all Muslims are the enemy. I'm sure there must be some secular Muslims, like there are secular Christians and secular Hindu. I also don't believe that Islam is a peaceful religion.

Christianity used to be a bloody religion, but it went through a reformation in the 16th century. Islam is long overdue for a reformation. For the record, I am a secular Methodist. (That sentence is very nearly redundant.)

As to my dispostition of Sadr, I think that a good rifleman should be able to sort that out in short order. Failing the precision riflery option, a couple of missile strikes on his mosque would probably send him forward to his reward. I think we made a big mistake a year or so ago when we didn't capture and hang him.

I hope I answered your questions.

Anonymous said...

An Iraq solution is simple. We need an administration which doesn't have oil executives telling military generals how to fight a war.