Hi Charles :)
>>I did not try to make 'characterisation' I simply overreacted :)
>>But what he wrote in it really does not make any sense to me.

>I think he goes to far in some ways, but his points that do make sense :
>
>"But why single out England? If anything, much more, and worse, has been going on in other European countries, including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Denmark, and the Netherlands. All of these countries have large and growing Muslim populations demanding that their religious values and sensibilities be accommodated at the expense of the traditional values of the West, and even in some instances of the law. Yet rather than insisting that, like all immigrant groups before them, they assimilate to Western norms, almost all European politicians have been cravenly giving in to the Muslims’ outrageous demands."
>
>There is no question that there is a culture clash in Europe that Western Culture is not winning because the very people who have complete contempt for Western Culture are using that culture's greatest strengths to destroy it. ( very much in the spirit of Stalin's "usefull idiots" )

Well that is nature of democracy. Great numbers means political rights.
Some European countries have great numbers of muslims and they naturally
seek their rights like everbody else.
What Podhoretz & Co are getting wrong, is that Great majority of those European muslims are simple hardworking people that have nothing to do with what he coins 'Islamofashisam'. They are not in Europe and elsewhere as 'agents' sent inn ahead of battle for Islamisation of the entire world (with ultimate intention to destroy Israel as this guy probably imagines) ,
but simply came there to live and work in peace and create prosperity
for their families.
Admitedly there are some lynatics/frieks/hoodloms but far away from what is being painted as a picture.

I also believe that European countries should insist not on assimilation
but on integration into society and full respect of European values.
Muslims can't have their 'enclaves' in law etc, they have to adhere to rules like everybody else.


>
>This quote from Bernard Lewis is in the article and makes perfectly good sense :
>"MAD, mutual assured destruction, [was effective] right through the cold war. Both sides had nuclear weapons. Neither side used them, because both sides knew the other would retaliate in kind. This will not work with a religious fanatic [like Ahmadinejad]. For him, mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement. We know already that [Iran’s leaders] do not give a damn about killing their own people in great numbers. We have seen it again and again. In the final scenario, and this applies all the more strongly if they kill large numbers of their own people, they are doing them a favor. They are giving them a quick free pass to heaven and all its delights."
>
>The quotes from Khomeini and Rafsanjani that follow it in the article are pretty chilling as well.
>
>My point is that whether or not you disagree with Podhoretz's conclusions, it is just political fist-pumping to kiss the whole thing off as nonsense. He raises questions that need to be asked. If someone has a different conclusion then fine, discuss it in an intelligent way.

Try with this; (closing statement on his WSJ article)
Quote:
'...Not so George W. Bush, a man who knows evil when he sees it and who has demonstrated an unfailingly courageous willingness to endure vilification and contumely in setting his face against it. It now remains to be seen whether this president, battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory, and weakened politically by the enemies of his policy in the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel. As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will.'

[ No comment! ]

I can agree that more then just a caution is necessary to save us from nuclear catastrophies. There are ways to neutralise nuclear threat comming from Iran, but that does not include bombing them. Quiet opposite.

Answer is to stop war and gradually calm down whole region

I believe that if situation and climate in the region was different, then Iran could be made to abolish it's nuclear program though series of high summit open talks with them.
But that would include threating them with due respect, respect their borders and state, stop military provocations, offer economic incentives,
compromise solutions (Russia had some proposals) etc.
But if you believe they are madman (as this guy advocates), threat them as madman, insist on whole world threating them as madman - then not meny things are possible then eventual confrontation with devastationg consequences.


>And I haven't heard any of the bloggers that dismiss Podhoretz as a madman talk about what they want to do when Israel takes out the Iranian nuclear program. Did you notice the strike in Syria up on the Turkish border?

Yes I read about it. Any scoupe what a heck was it ?!?
How come Syrians were silent about it ?

>
>They aren't kidding.
I know.