The NYT weighs in on Darfur

 

Got to hand it to the liberals.   They recognize a crisis in the making (actually long after the making) and have a solution–the United Nations.  The New York Times opines:

The events of the last week demonstrate just how critical it is to get a well-armed and well-trained United Nations peacekeeping force on the ground in the Darfur region of Sudan. President Bush is right to press the U.N. to expedite the deployment of soldiers to take over the role currently performed by an ineffectual African Union force. If the United Nations is to have any hope of repairing its tattered image around the world — particularly in America — its diplomats must quickly eliminate any bureaucratic hurdles in the way of a peacekeeping mission.

The Security Council agreed in February to plan to replace some 7,000 African Union soldiers with U.N. forces. But when the Sudanese government objected, the planning for a peacekeeping force stopped.

You see, one nation third world thug nation objects and the entire enterprise fails.  This is why the UN is totally ineffective in the world today.  Tiny corrupt nations can, by veto, thwart the will of the majority of democratic nations.  Good grief, can the UN be any less effective? 

Islam and the West

Here is a critical look at Islam and its aims regarding Western civilization from one of my favorite websites edited by Sandro Magister :

Islamic terrorism is a rather complex response to the confrontation with the West, which Islam sees as a devastating, deadly threat.

For the zealots, everything that comes from the outside is like poison to their traditional ways of life, so they hold that there is only one way to avert cultural catastrophe: expel the invader and hermetically seal off the borders, so nothing can pollute or corrupt their miniature world. This is, in part, the position of Osama Bin Laden, who is opposed to the American presence, not only in Iraq, but also in Saudi Arabia.

But this defensive program would never work against Western civilization. Unlike all previous civilizations, it is not localized or territorially circumscribed. The pervasiveness of the global village is such that there is only one way to escape its grasp: destroy it. And this is Al-Zawahiri’s ideological program, which he pursues with a complex strategy. For the formula of “modernizing Islam,” he substitutes another: “Islamizing modernity,” and therefore the West.

Within the Muslim world, Islamization means de-Westernizing everything: from political and cultural institutions to economic ones, even to the point of rethinking banking operations. On the outside, it means spreading Islam through vigorous missionary activity, in both Europe and the United States: this activity is supported above all by Saudia Arabia. But according to the most radical interpretations, Islamizing the West means violently attacking its political and economic power, without sparing the civilian population.

It is imperative that we understand the aims of the Islamic extremists.  This is why it is so disheartening when the MSM and liberals politicize the war and ignore and excuse the Islamofacists who are so active throughout the world.

The Nutty Professor Almond

 

One Boston College professor is so outraged that this year’s commencement speaker and honorary degree designee, Condoleezza Rice is coming, he has resigned his academic appointment.  Steve Almond, adjunct professor of English, has written an open letter to BC president Fr. William P. Leahy.

I am doing so — after five years at BC, and with tremendous regret — as a direct result of your decision to invite Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to be the commencement speaker at this year’s graduation.

Many members of the faculty and student body already have voiced their objection to the invitation, arguing that Rice’s actions as secretary of state are inconsistent with the broader humanistic values of the university and the Catholic and Jesuit traditions from which those values derive.

But I am not writing this letter simply because of an objection to the war against Iraq. My concern is more fundamental. Simply put, Rice is a liar.[emphasis mine]

Once again, the professor suggests that the reason for his objection to Rice is based upon her violation of “humanist values” that are not consistent with Catholic and Jesuit traditions.  How many times has the professor objected when pro-abortion speakers and honorees have visited the campus?  Has the good professor resigned in the past on account of pro-abortion advocates?  Or perhaps he is unaware that abortion is an absolute evil, denounced ALWAYS by the Church.  How about homosexuality?  Would you object to an openly gay speaker on the basis that they do not personally exemplify “Catholic and Jesuit traditions?”  Do you know what the Church teaches regarding homosexual actions?   

Honestly professor, suggesting that you denounce Rice on the basis of moral beliefs contrary to the Church is disgusting.  For the love of Pete, just say you object because you are a political partisan and really don’t want to give the other side a platform at BC. 

You call Dr. Rice a liar.  Was Bill Clinton a liar when he warned about WMD’s in Iraq?  How about John Kerry, John Edwards, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, Tony Blair, the Egyptian government and all the rest?  Were they liars?

Here’s an idea.  Talk to the other professors who signed the letter to Leahy and persuade them into resigning too.