America Must Choose Between Islam and the West

Do you want to know why the price of oil is so high? In 1950 when the House of Saud threatened to nationalize Aramco, instead of backing Aramco, the government worked out a deal to give Aramco a tax break on all the money they would lose. It wasn't long before Aramco was all Saudi owned and the Saudis became the biggest backers of the Jihad.

In 1956 when England refused to roll over to Egypt's nationalization of the Suez Canal and went to war, instead of backing its allies, backed Egypt which was a Soviet client state, even introducing a UN resolution against Britain and France and attacked the British economy.

When Eisenhower heard about Israel’s invasion of Sinai, he exclaimed: "You tell ’em [the Israeli government] that, God damn it, we’re going to apply sanctions, we’re going to the United Nations, we’re going to do everything that there is so we can stop this thing".

The US offered a UN resolution against the operation. After his successful re-election on 6 November Eisenhower ordered economic sanctions against Britain. The US Federal Reserve orchestrated a run on the pound, and Britain’s gold reserves fell by a further £100 million in only a week (or by an eighth of their remaining total). Moreover, the US treasury made it clear it would block an IMF loan for Britain to stabilize the pound.
Eisenhower won and America lost. Nasser won and the Arabs won. The Arabs took control of the oil industry and used it to fund terrorism. The rise of the worldwide Islamic Jihad can be directly tied to America's willingness to back Arabs over its allies in Europe and Israel. Later in life Eisenhower admitted that Suez had been his greatest mistake, but by then it was much too late.

The British defeat at Suez shattered the American-British alliance and it also opened the dreaded power vacuum in the Middle East, a vacuum that the Soviet Union was more than happy to fill. For the next few decades, America would feverishly court and prop up Arab tyrants to keep them out of Soviet hands.

With the sunset of the British empire in the Middle East, a variety of coups followed. Iraq was overthrown by the Baathists, one of whom was a young army officer known as Saddam Hussein. The era of England and France as international superpowers ended and instead they fell back on following America's model by courting those same tyrants.

Today America applies that same model, substituting Islam for Communism and again it continues to fail. American must choose between its allies and the dictators and sheiks of Araby. America must choose between Islam and the West. America is the only country properly capable of leading the war against Islam but instead the US has bent over backward to accommodate a vicious ideology at the expense of its allies.

If America applies the energy it has expended on supporting the Arab dictatorships on instead supporting any country and political party combating the Jihad, they may yet undo Eisenhower's mistake and put the snake back in its nest. But to do that it must make the right choice and the difficult choice

Post a Comment


  1. Personally I think much or at least some of the problem lies in the fact that the US has placed itself in a double bind situation. A double bind is a situation in which a person--or in this case a nation--has to make a decision, but no matter what the choice, he loses.

    In the case of the US, the double bind is fight Islam while holding the party line that we're not fighting Islam at all and it's a religion of peace. We recognize the threat but still want to be thought of as the good and tolerant guys (similar thing in Israel, I think).

    I've yet to hear anyone say the US is at war WITH Iraq only at war IN Iraq. Add to all of this greed and liberal politicians battling conservative ones and you've got a disaster in the making.

    Someone needs to step up and say we are at war with Islam and with the countries harboring and supporting them.

  2. America isn't competent enough to stop supporting illegal aliens, much less make a decision to choose between izlum and the west.

  3. That's because we still haven't learned that Arabs will never be loyal to the US. EVER. We need to stop trying to choose the lesser of two evils.

    They're all evil if you ask me, and brokering deals with this Arab nation or that has only led to these countries biting us on the ass in the end.

    (sorry for the language)

  4. Do you remember that episode of The Honeymooners where Ralph Cramden is trying to screw Norton out of something? Well to CONvince Norton everything's on the up and up Ralph decides to flip a coin.

    The coin is mid-air when Ralph says, "Heads I win, Tails you lose." He then puts the coin back in his pocket.

    Norton: "Wait a minute, wait a minute. Do you mind giving me back my coin?"

    The US is Norton and the Muslims are Ralph. Heads we win, tails you lose."

  5. Well the west should return to its original rootsand stay with them.

  6. yes and the US keeps losing and keeps bargaining away what's worthwhile to appease people who can never be appeased

  7. Which comes back to the question of why they feel the need to be accepted by criminals.

    It can't be because of the oil wells. We've already proven we can take them away and if the world really wanted them, we could keep them. So there has to be more to it.

  8. Sultan, I know Eisenhower was furious at Israel's part in the 1956 war. Do you have a source for this interesting quote?


  9. The following is an abbreviated portion of Daniel Pipe's piece taken from a pro-George W. Bush web site.

    Daniel Pipes has been a fairly consistent and strong supporter of George W. Bush. From time to time I post on his web site, though not often.

    Several weeks back, he wrote a piece wherein he took great pride in voting twice for George W. Bush. Further, Dr. Pipes maintained historians would judge this president's foreign policy (particularly in the Middle East) an overall success.

    I challenged Pipes then on his web site. It would appear Dr. Pipes is reassessing his former optimism.

    The point is, though I am not an overly religious Jew, you cannot ignore the consequences of defying the clear warnings of the ancient prophets. You don't have to be a holy roller to understand this.

    "I will bless those who bless you and the one who curses you, I will curse," is every bit as valid today as it was some 3500 years back. By any standard of measure, Mr. Bush has cursed the children of Abraham.

    Pipes wrote in part:

    "George W. Bush's policies toward the Middle East and Islam will loom large when historians judge his presidency. On the occasion of his concluding his 8-day, 6-country trip to the Middle East and entering his final year in office, I offer some provisional assessments.

    Radical Islam: ............

    Pre-emptive war: ...........

    Arab-Israeli conflict: Bush avoided the old-style and counterproductive "peace process" diplomacy and tried a new approach in June 2003 by establishing the goal of "two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side, in peace and security." In addition, he outlined his final-status vision, specified a timetable, and even attempted to sideline a recalcitrant leader (Yasir Arafat) or prop up a forthcoming one (Ehud Olmert).


    So much for intentions; how, in fact, have things worked out? At the end of his first term, I found that the Bush policies, other than the Arab-Israeli one, stood "a good chance of working." No longer. Today, I perceive failure in all four areas.

    Bush's once-improved understanding of radical Islam has been reversed, to the point that he uses lengthy and inelegant euphemisms to avoid referring to the problem by name, relying on formulations like "a group of extremists who seek to use religion as a path to power and a means of domination."

    Bush's vision of resolving one century of Arab-Israeli conflict by anointing Mahmoud Abbas as leader of a Palestinian state is illusory. A sovereign "Palestine" alongside Israel would drain the anti-Zionist hatred and close down the irredentist war against Israel? No, the mischievous goal of creating "Palestine" will inspire more fervor to eliminate the Jewish state.

    Finally, encouraging democracy is clearly a worthy goal, but when the Middle East's dominant popular force is totalitarian Islam, is it such a great idea to rush head-long ahead? Yet rushing ahead characterized Washington's initial approach – until the policy's damage to U.S. interests became too apparent to ignore, causing it largely to be abandoned.

    At a time when George W. Bush arouses such intense vituperation among his critics, someone who wishes him well, like myself, criticizes reluctantly. But criticize one must; to pretend all is well, or to remain loyal to the person despite his record, does no one a favor. A frank recognition of mistakes must precede their repair.

    I respect Bush's benign motivation and good intentions while mourning his having squandered a record-breaking 90 percent job-approval rating following 9/11 and his bequeathing to the next president a polarized electorate, a military reluctant to use force against Iran, Hamas ruling Gaza, an Iraqi disaster-in-waiting, radical Islam on the ascendant, and unprecedented levels of global anti-Americanism.


    to steve

  11. Anonymous15/1/08

    Steve, could uou provide a link to the pipes article?

  12. kahaneloyalist, sure:

    Sutan, this book is available from on-line bookstores. Do recommend it as a good reference. I've already got several but not anything specifically focusing in on this period of time.

    The author is a member of Council on Foreign Relations? Isn't the CFR generally globalist, for a Palestinian state, etc.?

  13. kahaneloyalist, one more thing. Frontpagemag and its editors are strong, uncritical supporters of George W. Bush, Israel be damned.

    I am not.

  14. kahaneloyalist, I sent you a link but Sultan will not post it?


  15. steve, I'm not sitting in front of the computer moderating comments 24/7

    they're up now

    I'm not recommending the book, just citing the quote, the book seems like a fluffy rehash of basic events

  16. steve, I'm not sitting in front of the computer moderating comments 24/7>>>>

    Thanks. That's good. Neither am I.

  17. Anonymous17/1/08

    thanks steve