Wow, looking at the news yesterday, that's also what I thought.

Isn't it wonderful that we're once again the focus of the elite and educated?

I didn't hear all of W's speech, but what I heard I liked. Stick it in and turn the knife.

From London, a look at the Bush speech and the protestors

"What Do They Want?"

Bush as a president at war:

The angels in heaven for sure were listening when Bush mentioned them in his speech. I still wonder who is the talkshow priest he takes his inspirations from. The christian militant overtones in his public speeches seem to be getting stronger over time.

So the ones have a jihad, and the others a crusade. Welcome to the Middle Ages!

Dear TOE
If it wasn't for those nice folks in the Balkins you'd probably be bowing to Mecca five times a day. The French could have defeated Hitler by themselves in 1936. It took a few more of us by the time you europeans got off your can.
You'll never know what a favor Bush did for you as Sadamm won't be supplying terrorists with WMD for you to see the results.
You're almost enough to make me believe in evolution.

I believe in evolution. Your post is good evidence. Saddam would have been the first one to invent the production of WMD - presumably to supply for terrorists for free - out of thin air. That's about what the American weapons inspectors were able to present so far.

A three million letter alphabet and we know a few words and no grammer or syntax. Thats the human genome. Its also redundant, self replicating, and self repairing. The most complex code anyone has ever seen and you believe it happened by a huge series of lucky accidents. No wonder you think the terrorists won't knock on your door.

Well, if you think it does help you to prevent them knocking on your door, keep reding the Bible, or even better, join the knights in Bush's crusade.

TOE:

So, w/ all your confidence in "old Europe," one wonders why your email address is to Asia?

You may have been right about the Jihad part but the crusade no. President Bush is simply trying to diminish the attacks that are sure to come in the future. President Bush also gave the politically correct answer that Allah and the God of the Bible are the same. I think he hopes that if a stable democracy can be set up in Iraq the middle east may change with it. Sadly, I believe that Iraq will be an Islamic state in the next ten years, not just one where Islam is the main religeon. Your assumption that because I don't believe in evolution I am a Christian is correct. There are many people with P.H.D. s in science that are not Christians but still make the case that the evidence for intellegent design is unmistakable. So I'll just keep reading my Bible and not worry about my future. I worry about yours though.

To Dean: email address
There's no hidden message behind that. Though some Bush admirers could suspect, that it reflects the current 'alliance' of European (France, Germany) and Asian powers (Russia, China) plotting against the US grand schemes of world dominance, oops, I meant, liberation, of course.

To Mike O:
The black vs white painting of states and the framing of political conflicts in terms of good vs. evil in Bush's speeches does indicate that he is on a "crusade". He repeatedly stressed that his "mission" is to bring democracy to the parts of the world where it doesn't reign yet.

As it has often been the case in history the "natives" aren't naturally at good terms with visiting missionaries, especially if the method of evangelization is by force and the alternative death.

You seem to have some confusion about history. Islam historically has converted by the sword not Christianity. The Crusades were not about evangelism. They were about looting and plundering. Notice they sacked Constantinople on the way in one of them. They did have some effect in keeping the Moslems out of southern Europe though. Please don't lump Christianity with the Roman Catholic Church, it placed an anathema on those who believed as the reformers who led to the founding of the protestant churches. It was at the council of Trent and has never been repudiated.
Many protestant missionaries have been killed by natives for trying to evangelize them but it doesn't go the other way.
Do you get your history from places other than movies?

Two points:
a. There were "noble" motives for the crusades as you can find some for almost any war. Evangelization or death of the people who occupied the Christian holy places was one of them. That wars don't end with the same aims as they started - e.g. the sacking of Constantinople , we all know about that. But you are unfair to history if you don't look at the whole picture and paint the crusades reduced to a big plundering adventure.
b. It's too easy blaming the Roman Catholic church for all ills and disregarding the massive evangelization campaigns by the various protestant denominations. And it's a bit naive talking only about missionaries being killed but not the other way round. Well, it's true, often the missionaries didn't have to do it personally because they were accompanied by troops doing the job, but that's hair-splitting. Read about imperialism in the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. There you have all the propaganda talk about bringing the "light of civilization" and the right religion to the backwards peoples. Never mind that they never asked for it. You can even interpret Wilson in that light who BTW didn't hold coloured people in high esteem. (And please don't raise the argument that imperialism is something "European". Look at your own military adventures during that period. Just because the US did have theirs in the Americas and the Pacific and the Europeans in Africa doesn't make them different.) Some speeches of this period sound astonishingly familiar if you read and listen to Bush's speeches.

The United States sent missionaries all over the world in the 19th and 20th centuries. Point out to me when they were accompanied by troops or when force was used to evangelize.