Q: What’s more important in world politics than the mis-named Ground Zero Mosque?
A: The fact that the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism has just gone nuclear—in rhetoric as well as reality.
Q: And how was this allowed to happen?
A: Thirty years of bipartisan appeasement:
Consider the rise of Islamic Totalitarianism. In 1979, a new Iranian regime founded on Islamic [] principles held fifty-two Americans hostage for four hundred and forty-four days, while America helplessly begged for their return and Iranian leaders had a world stage to proclaim their superiority to the nation they call the ‘Great Satan.’ … [W]ith America on her knees, the burgeoning anti-American movement achieved a crucial victory.
[Did this] warrant a military response? Did it rise to the level of a direct attack sufficient to place us at the point of ‘last resort’ with Iran and other nations that sponsor Islamic terrorism? Not according to Jimmy Carter. What about after two hundred and forty-three marines were killed in Lebanon in 1983? Not according to Ronald Reagan. Or after Khomeini’s fatwa offered terrorists a bounty to destroy writer Salman Rushdie and his American publisher for expressing an ‘un-Islamic’ viewpoint in 1989? Not according to George Bush, Sr. Or after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993? Not according to Bill Clinton. The pattern is telling.
It is a pattern that has allowed Iran’s Mullahs to pursue the Islamist Holy Grail combining nuclear enrichment with the sponsorship of world terrorism—from Lebanon to Gaza to Iraq to Afghanistan—while allowing themselves to think the pursuit will attract no response.
Since future decisions are so often made on the basis of past actions, it underscores again how a forceful response at the right time can quell a conflict before it starts; whereas the lack of one so frequently leads to dangerous escalation, and much more force being necessary much later.
U.S. "reassures" Israel that Iran is "at least 12 months" from nuclear bomb despite starting reactor today… There, there. You're not going to get obliterated today; it's just later on where things could get a little dicey… Just try not to think of the idea that the "dying" Lockerbie bomber could, theoretically, outlive your country as you know it.
10 comments:
How exactly does this affect New Zealand?
Do I hear the sound of a wish to keep one's head in the sand?
The nation that has a president who has stated that he wants to blow Israel off the map is now another step closer to achieving that aim.
Non-nuclear wars have gone on for thousands of years & they mostly only effect people in that part of the world.
With nuclear weapons, it's potentially a whole new ballgame.
If we are not affected directly, we could be via radiation & climate changes.
Also, don't kid yourself that we could never be a target.
If the CIA and MI5 had not financed the coup that displaced the democratically elected leader of that country, replacing him with a military dictator, the resulting revolution would never have happened.
Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact is that it's understandable that many Iranians hate America. The American government has been fucking with their country for decades. I don't condone the violent intent of the religious zealots, however I would point out that most of the rhetoric is exactly that - rhetoric - a lot of which has been made up by right wing commentators and dutifully passed along by people such as yourself (the "wipe Israel off the map" quote comes to mind).
If the protests after the last Iranian election weren't enough to convince you that dispensing with the saber rattling long enough for the citizens of that country to take it back from the zealots, which only strengthens their position, then you're blind.
Irael should nuke Iran now and don't wait for approval from Barack Hussein Osama in the White-house.
David, you said that, "If the CIA and MI5 had not financed the coup that displaced the democratically elected leader of that country, replacing him with a military dictator, the resulting revolution would never have happened."
Are you stupid or what. What exactly are the roles of CIA & MI5 ? Were the reasons for the establishment of those government agencies to be passive or take active role in world politics & foreign affairs? They were established to get engaged in influencing policies in foreign governments including sabotage and manipulations.
That's exactly what they did. They did what they were supposed to do, when lawmakers in both countries approved their establishments.
One's head in the sand about what, PC?
I'm not denying that Iran has an odious regime, but I don't see how it actually affects me given the distance between the two countries and Iran's inability to project power across that sort of distance.
Also, Miguel, it may well be that the CIA et al. were established to sabotage and manipulate foreign governments, but you can hardly expect the victims of their activities to take a positive view.
"Are you stupid or what."
I'm fully aware that's what they were expected to do, that's why all this is a matter of public record and not just some conspiracy theory. What gave you the impression that I wasn't?
Have a read of 'the Next hundred Years' by George Friedman. Whilst some of the suggestions 80 years out are a bit fanciful it was an interesting read that helps understand the US approach.
Friedman suggests the Islamofacists day is done, that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have completed exactly what the US wants - to destabilise any potential regional power. The US won't do anyhting more unless they feel threatened by what could develope into a regional power.
Iran doesn't have support from other Islamic states so no problem at present.
Paranormal
Post a Comment