Hitch remains an enigma to me. He is able to see the horror that religion has unleashed on this planet-from the crusade to jihad (same thing really), but he still insists that the way to handle it is to bomb the crap out of the Islamic world (in other words-support a modern crusade). As Shakespear said, a rose by any other name is still a rose, and so a crusade by any other name remains a crusade-to the Muslims anyway.

Islam has modern practitioners who are not the rabid crazies portrayed in movies and by conservative media but Hitch and other like him would prefer we not recognize this fact. It is so much easier to kill people you dont see as people. To think that the thousands of innocent Iraqis killed by allied shock and awe bombings as not being victims of terror from above was strange considering the English know as much as anyone about horror coming from a technically advanced enemy in the sky-but Hitch seems to think that such destruction is OK when you think the cause is right-but then the Germans and the English were on near equal footing-this is not the case in Iraq.

So here is Hitch, claiming to be an atheist yet leading a charge which is entirely based on religious persecution. No doubt the US Christian community with it's bloodlusting revenge supporters going to church every Sunday to proclaim a committment to the prince of peace think Hitch is pretty OK for an atheist.

The words of Adolph Hitler?

As the 19th century draws to a close, Germany stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the Europe to victory in the of Christianity, Germany faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does Germany have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does Germany have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to our principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by our past . Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain German influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of Christianity's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes German principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts Germany's global responsibilities.

Of course, Germany must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. Germany has a vital role in maintaining power and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 19th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of German leadership.

Our aim is to remind Germany of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to allies and to challenge those hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of German power and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for the German role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a dictatorial policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if Germany is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

##############################­##############################­#######

No. It is the stated agenda of a major Republican think tank which counts the vast majority of the Bush administration membership as its former and present leading members and leadership.

Here is the same thing with German references and other identity covering words restored to their accurrate wording from the PNAC websit. It is very enlightening:

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

RML, that means reinstating the draft. I don't trust an all volunteer Army, especially today. Ask yourself why. Why do we need to inject large numbers of draftee's, of all thoughts and creeds, versus an Army of Bush supporters?

The oath we take is to protect and preserve the Constitution. There are too many there now who pledge allegence to the presidunce.

So… when someone uses WWII analogies to justify their support of the “war against terror” you guys are the first to jump all over them say that you cannot compare the fight against terrorists to WWII. Preceded usually with some kind of statement like, “Surely you are not going to compare Nazi Germany to Iran/Iraq/N. Korea etc”. However when it comes to comparing Republicans to Nazis this comparison is fair game. The truth is none of the statements stated below are evil in of themselves. These are goals that any strong nation should do and do all the time. What makes the difference is the context of which type of nation you are a part of. What the true intentions of that nation are. Based purely on the statements below it is spurious to conclude that the intentions of the US is analogous to that of Nazi Germany.

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to allies and to challenge those hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of German power and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for the German role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Actually it is a difrect insinuation that since we have the best military technology and the most money to play with that we should spend our "capital" to basically control the planet.

If you agree with that statement, at least you are being honest.

The fact remains that the PNAC agenda could have been (as I did) listed by Germany at the peak of their power during WWII and it would have been an accurrate statement. They had the best equipment and technology, they were winning everywhere they went. They could not name a reason to stop because basically they felt that their superiority was justification for their rule. That is the same message PNAC has and its members including Wolfowitz and Condy Rice have been leading with that agenda and Bush's statements often include phrases which call back to the same agenda.

Your belief is that these only become dangerous statements when acted upon. I say they are being acted upon as we speak in Iraq. Already Iran is being spoken of as a potential next location for the Bush show.

Would you prefer to wait until we are executing muslims in gas chambers?

I can't recall reading anything Hitchens has written where he advocates killing thousands of Iraqis (or thousands of people anywhere).

Wren

So, do you think the original Muslim conquest, which imvaded Christian lands, without provocation, was NOT a crusade?

Let us at least acknowledge that the question of how many of those killed in Iraq as a result of U.S. military action were truly "innocent" is at least debatable. Which "study" do you believe is really objective?

Instead of being so presumtuous as to interpret Hitchens for the rest of us, why don't you just write to him directly and give him the chance to answer your charges.

Religious persecution? Please! Give me a break. It is always amazing to witness the brazen arrogance of Islamic fanatics as they claim "persecution", even in those countries which have a Muslim majority.