Differences

Submitted by Rubicon (United States), Jun 5, 2008 at 16:16

Your article points out the fundamental differences between the "blame America" crowd, and the crowd who says people make the world they want.

Obama says there can be peace, "if only Israel &/or America were to." You can add onto that almost any justification, reason, ploy, comment, obfuscation, or other babble you want. It all amounts to, "if only Israel & America were not to blame for this, that, the other thing, and everything.

McCain, who is NOT a clear conservative, & is NOT a true Republican candidate, is seen by most as the lesser of the evils and definitely lesser evil that anything Obama comes up with. McCain realizes the "grievances" of the radical Islamist groups has little and/or nothing to do with Israel or its existence. Israel is simply "used" as an excuse for the continuation of conflict.

If Israel were to disappear tomorrow, radical Islamists would still be out there screaming down with the infidel. There would still be no peace. There would still be "grievances" which the radical Islamist movement would insist require them to fight on to defeat the hated "Satan" America, and to subjugate her and the rest of the western world under "their version" of Islam.

I am NOT knowledgeable when it comes to Islam. For all I know, it could be a religion of peace. However, based on Koranic texts that I have read about in numerous articles, it certainly appears to me that no amount of compromise, no amount of appeasement, no amount of apology, will satisfy, until the rest of the world submits to Islam.

Obama looks at these issues from a "if America & Israel would just accept the legitimacy of the grievances of radical Islam, then all would be well.' I can only define that point of view as the promotion of appeasement. McCain looks at these issues from a "if only radical murdering zealots would just stop their killing sprees & stop trying to overthrow governments, stop trying to suppress other religious beliefs, stop trying to force Islam on everyone else, then all would be well."

No matter what I do or do not know about Islam, or any other religion for that matter, based on the historic actions of radical Islamists, I can only embrace the positions of McCain since they reflect the reality I see as historic fact!

McCain may not be a true conservative. He may not be a "real" Republican. But, if I compare McCain to Obama or even Hillary, all I see is the socialist Obama or Clinton, promoting anything that appeases and creates a state controlled society. On the other hand I see someone, McCain, who will at least try to promote the time proven tactics of a free state, using a free market, respecting individual rights, religious freedom for all, private property rights, and the rule of civilized law for all!

Seems to me being liberal should not have to mean being stupid or ignoring the realities of one who would give away anything, so he can have what he wants. Obama is a man on a mission. He "thinks" he is to rectify all of the wrongs done to blacks over the years. He "thinks" he can make the wounds heal by pushing reparations and social justice.

Justice, social or otherwise, is not based on utopian thought. It is either in the heart and nature of a peoples, or it is not. Obama's social justice train could very well set back race relations for centuries if he attempts to push social reparations for injustices done decades ago, by a nation who abolished slavery, but is now fighting radical religious zealots who still practice that very injustice. (See, America did come far, despite those who say she has not!)

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".