About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 - 11:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And these WWII analogies need to stop.  This is not a war between two nation states with leaders operating out of self interest.  This is not a war where one side will eventually waive a white flag.
 
I don't know which analogies you are referring to.  I was comparing today's Americans with the Americans of WWII, which is not the same as saying that these two wars are analogous.



 
This war will be permanent as long as mainstream Muslim opinion continues to view US policies as an attack on their religion.

I think this war will be permanent as long as we allow it to be.  As long as we pussy-foot around in an effort to spare the enemy's spiritual headquarters instead of bombing it and him to smithereens, he'll keep fighting, even if George Bush has Laura in a burqua by Christmas.




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 41

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 - 3:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon writes:

Pete's right, these WWII analogies need to stop, George won that long ago. I always thought Iraq was mostly about surrounding and intimidating Iran. Right now they realize that their survival relies in part on no more 9/11s.
Chris, why would George's air strikes run a risk of the need for a land invasion and conscription? Israel's on Iraq in the 80's did not. It's not enough to say, 'you never know what could happen.' Why would it run that risk?
With 100K+ M16s on the ground in Iraq are they really going to respond by attacking us there or anywhere? You called them "pipsqueaks", so what are we afraid of?

Israel's attack on Iraq was quite limited; the potential targets in Iran are spread out.  If we were to follow the advice of some advisors on this list, we should make a "golf course" out of that country.  Kill 70 million people while we're at it.  Who cares!  Even if the bulk of this population is yearning to breathe free as they mount protests against the mullahs:  JUST BOMB THEM ALL BACK INTO THE STONE AGE WHERE THEY BELONG.

I can hardly contain my glee at the prospect of mass murder.

Look:  I agree with Pete and Jon, both of whom argue that the "WWII analogies need to stop"---though I don't agree that "George won that long ago."  Competing historical speculations can't really be won by anybody; so let's just leave it at that.   

This is a war that is largely driven by a network of jihadists who are loyal to an idea, not a state per se, but to a larger theocratic vision.  To the extent that the U.S. has continued to involve itself with this region of the world, especially in its intervention on behalf of authoritarian regimes at various times (in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and so forth), it has contributed to the consolidation and growth of the very forces that need a "Great Satan" to sustain themselves.  I do not believe that making a "golf course" of Iran will stop the bloodshed in the Middle East or here at home.  I would certainly advocate surgical strikes on installations that are a threat to the security of the U.S.; I don't believe that Iran poses that kind of threat.  Certainly not a threat that can't be contained.

The fact is that the U.S. is currently bogged down in Iraq:  Troop strength is increasing to 150,000; over $150 billion in taxpayer funding with no end in sight; about 1,200 American lives lost; and more than 30,000 medical evacuations.  I don't see how the situation in Iraq stabilizes if the U.S. unleashes the fury of hell on Iran.  These countries' governments are pipsqueaks; but if the situations are not stabilized, the U.S. can find itself in deteriorating conditions that put its troops at risk.  I don't see how the virtual nuking of Iran will stabilize the situation, unless one defines "stable" as the mass genocide of all Muslims.




Post 42

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 - 4:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here's a question:

Supposing the US enacts the most hawkish policies imaginable towards Iran and other Islamic states, and the Islamists still pull off successful string of dirty bomb attacks on US cities.  What does the US do then? 




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 43

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 - 8:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Israel on Iraq was smaller, that’s a difference. I asked: why would George’s strikes run the risk of us needing to perform a full-scale invasion?

Maybe someone suggested we use nukes and kill 70 million during George’s strikes, but I don’t recall it, George didn’t say it, and it certainly isn’t required.

Regarding competing historical speculations: George’s are quite sound. All speculations are not equal. George’s “speculation” that the French could have mopped up Hitler when the Rhineland was reoccupied is about as close to fact as it comes. His “speculation” that the Germans would have walked all over Stalin if he had not been bothered by the allies elsewhere is actually very sound, if not mathematically established---not at all equal to the speculation that Hitler or Stalin would have been lying nearly dead after their bout, waiting for someone to stab them.

I could go on, but George already won, so let’s leave it at that.

Chris, you’ve changed to saying that it’s Iran’s government that’s a pipsqueak. Come now. You were caught acknowledging that their military threat was pipsqueak-like in the context of the ease of deterring them. So answer my question, and say something better than a reference to stabilization: What are we afraid of?

Jon



Post 44

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 - 9:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Chris didn't switch "pipsqueak" to their government, I suppose he meant their government all along. Still, why fear them? Why fear what happens next after we knock out their major threat?



Post 45

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 - 11:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regarding competing historical speculations: George’s are quite sound. All speculations are not equal. George’s “speculation” that the French could have mopped up Hitler when the Rhineland was reoccupied is about as close to fact as it comes. His “speculation” that the Germans would have walked all over Stalin if he had not been bothered by the allies elsewhere is actually very sound, if not mathematically established---not at all equal to the speculation that Hitler or Stalin would have been lying nearly dead after their bout, waiting for someone to stab them.
Bingo!




Post 46

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 - 10:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Allow me to correct:
His “speculation” that the Germans would have walked all over Stalin if he had not been bothered by the allies elsewhere is actually very sound, if not mathematically established

It should read:
His “speculation” that the Germans would have walked all over Stalin if THEY had not been bothered by the allies elsewhere is actually very sound, if not mathematically established



Post 47

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 5:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regarding competing historical speculations: George’s are quite sound. All speculations are not equal. George’s “speculation” that the French could have mopped up Hitler when the Rhineland was reoccupied is about as close to fact as it comes. His “speculation” that the Germans would have walked all over Stalin if he had not been bothered by the allies elsewhere is actually very sound, if not mathematically established---not at all equal to the speculation that Hitler or Stalin would have been lying nearly dead after their bout, waiting for someone to stab them.

I could go on, but George already won, so let’s leave it at that.

Actually, most of George's speculations hinge on the uncritical acceptance of the view of the war presented or otherwise accepted by most mainstream (i.e. STATIST) historians. The commonly accepted view of the Wall Street crash as being the result of inherent faults in the capitalist system also hinges on the historical interpretations of mainstream (statist) historians. Does that make it true/correct/right?

(Has this exchange got us any further than we were when Chris said it was pointless continuing?)

MH




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 48

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 6:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't see how the virtual nuking of Iran will stabilize the situation, unless one defines "stable" as the mass genocide of all Muslims.


Huh? Why does the debate always degenerate to “mass genocide?” We didn’t kill all the Nazis and Japs, if you remember. Why is this even a question when Islamists are far less intransigent then our foes of WWII? Why is this a question when our enemy can’t even muster up enough fighters to put up a decent show of it in Fallujah? I can think of many places over the last century where “genocide” or mass slaughter is indicative of the regimes in question but the United States isn’t one of them.

Quite frankly, I find it insulting and totally unwarranted that this issue is considered debatable or continues to surface as if it is the next logical step. It’s just not going to happen. If there is a movement that is interested in mass slaughter it is our Islamic enemy. If there is indiscriminate slaughter, we’ve seen it on 9/11, Bali, Madrid, Beslan, etc – by our enemy.




Post 49

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 6:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Actually, most of George's speculations hinge on the uncritical acceptance of the view of the war presented or otherwise accepted by most mainstream (i.e. STATIST) historians.



MH,

Actually, most of George's conclusions are based on critical examination of a myraid of sources that are far from lock step in their theories. After George read those sources, he then weighed the known statistical data, and on top of that he had even spoken to numerous veterans of opposing sides of that conflict for some antedotal support. I happen to know that George arrived at these particular conclusions by a very scrupulous method of reasoning. For example his conclusion about a hypothetical Anglo-French ultimatum after the German re-occupation of the Rhineland,  was arrived at after viewing a statistical breakdown of both the German and Anglo-French military in 1936. The overwhelming numerical and technological superiority of the Anglo-French forces forced him to conclude that those historians that made this argument were correct. This along with the fact that the memoirs of the German staff officers of this period confirm their terror at the prospect. When nearly all of the objective proof and evidence points towards one conclusion, and there is nearly no evidence or proof that points to the other; he accepts the former as having greater validity. He learned this method from a famous philosopher. The same method was used to deduce the probable outcome of a 'one on one' between Russia and Germany. That many times George's conclusions were identical to some of the most renowned authorities on the subject, led him to hold some historians in greater esteem than others (he does this with philosophers as well), and thus he defers to their knowledge in many of the details. However, it is has never been George's nature to accept anything uncritically.

One thing George does avoid however, is making sweeping statements about the conflict without being able to offer any chronological, statistical, strategic, historical or even antedotal evidence in support of his arguments. He avoids this in order to rise above the level of mere speculation on a topic which has been among his life-long interest. If George does find himself in a conversation where the most he can do is 'speculate', he will tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the persons who are experts in that field, over those that are not. He recently did this in his personal life when his auto mechanic suggested he needed a new starter for his car, but his neighbor (a vetanarian) suggested that he did not. George will grant you that his neighbor may have been correct, but he feels that the odds were against it. And since George's knowledge of auto mechanics is extroidinarily limited, he felt confident in his having given that mechanic the benefit of the doubt.

Having known George for years, I think you can trust me on this one.

Sincerely,

George

PS: On the other hand we could argue on the definition of the word 'speculation', drop the context, and then conclude that all rational deduction is mere speculation; none more valid than any other.

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 12/09, 6:52am)




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 50

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 7:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
At this link, I wrote:

And on the issue of deterrence:   I find it amazing that this country spent decades deterring the Soviet Union---the 'mad, crazy Communists' who were 'out to take over the entire world,' and who had a deadly nuclear arsenal equal to the U.S. arsenal, and who had tentacles everywhere from Southeast Asia to Latin America---but that this country suddenly does not have the capacity to deter pipsqueak authoritarians like Hussein or the mullahs of Iran.

Note the use of the phrase "pipsqueak authoritarians" in reference to "Hussein or the mullahs of Iran." 

At this link, I wrote:

These countries' governments are pipsqueaks; but if the situations are not stabilized, the U.S. can find itself in deteriorating conditions that put its troops at risk. 

So, that's right, I meant their governments or regimes all along.  My point was that the U.S. was able to contain the massive Soviet government with its massive nuclear arsenal; surely it can contain under threat of retaliation the threat posed by these smaller governments with much smaller arsenals.

As for competing historical speculations:  You're missing my point, Jon.  My point was:  WHO CARES if Hitler had defeated Stalin?  Or vice versa.  As Isabel Paterson wrote at the time (a sentiment that Rand shared):  “Whichever destroys the other, leaves a destroyer the less for the world.”  Moreover, whoever was left standing would have had their hands full; and if George is correct that Hitler would have walked all over Stalin---the U.S. would not have had a 60-year Cold War to worry about. It would have probably destroyed Hitler after taking care of the Japanese.  This country's arsenal was clearly capable of devastating the Axis powers; the question I've raised was about the timing of U.S. entrance into the European theater.

Jon wrote:  "Maybe someone suggested we use nukes and kill 70 million during George’s strikes, but I don’t recall it, George didn’t say it, and it certainly isn’t required."

I didn't say "nukes," what I said was:  "I don't see how the virtual nuking of Iran will stabilize the situation, unless one defines 'stable' as the mass genocide of all Muslims" (emphasis added).  And I wasn't referring to George's strikes (as I understood them), but to Michael's suggestion that "[w]e should take down their air defenses and bomb all 350 suspected nuclear development sites, plus we should destroy all of their oil fields, refineries, shipping terminals, gas and oil pipelines, all the major highways and rail lines into and out of the country, every army, air force and naval military base and depot we can identify and every airport of significance."  And Michael's suggestion that "[a]t the end of our attack, there should be nothing of military significance left in existence and no economic means of rebuilding it.  What is left ought to resemble a 40,000 hole golf course."  I took that to be akin to a "virtual nuking" of Iran, and I think leaving 40,000 holes should kill quite a few people.  I know the U.S. has precision bombs, but I suspect that the holes will be slightly larger than the ones that are found on golf courses.

And my comment was:  Let's "[k]ill 70 million people while we're at it.  Who cares!  Even if the bulk of this population is yearning to breathe free as they mount protests against the mullahs:  JUST BOMB THEM ALL BACK INTO THE STONE AGE WHERE THEY BELONG."  By which I meant, in a reductio ad absurdum:  Let's just get rid of all the people, since it is people who make bombs, and theocratic Muslim ideas that people hold, which are the most lethal weapons of all.  Get rid of the people and they'll be no people left to think those thoughts.

A clarification:  I have not suggested that the U.S. government is advocating or practicing genocide.  My beef is with some of the comments I've seen on this site.  Need I remind people here that just a few weeks ago, the debate on SOLO was pretty much about killing all Muslims?  When it gets to the point that I think the Bush administration is more reasonable than some of the voices on SOLO, well...

As for the final question:  "What are we afraid of?"  I don't think it's a question of fear.  I simply believe it is not prudent to launch strikes on Iran at the current time and to create a situation that might very well further radicalize the theocratic forces in that country, and in Iraq, and in the Islamic world in general.  I think the short-run goal here should be to marginalize the theocrats, to use surgical strikes against imminent threats to U.S. security, and to focus on destroying all the supporting financial mechanisms that sustain anti-U.S. terrorism.   Long-run, this is an ideological and cultural battle that can't be won by bombing the Islamic world back into the stone age.




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 51

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 7:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One other point.  George wrote:

PS: On the other hand we could argue on the definition of the word 'speculation', drop the context, and then conclude that all rational deduction is mere speculation; none more valid than any other.

I'm not saying that one speculation is as valid as the next. What I've suggested is that none of us can hold constant the other things that may have happened had even one major factor changed in the manner in which the war was fought.  To assume that all things are held constant or that they would have gone on as before is not a valid assumption.  That's why we get into hopeless speculation. 

In the end, I'd much prefer to deal with what was and what is.  We can leave our rational speculations not to what might have been---but to what could be.  That's why focusing on the actual past and the actual present is so important, because the many potential future courses of events arise out of that actuality.  That's why this debate on the costs and benefits of possible future courses of actions is so important.

Anyway, I think I've said enough on this subject. 




Post 52

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 7:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
George,

Let me say first of all that it was not my intention to cause insult, and if I have done so then I do apologise.

When I previously queried your sources you responded essentially by listing largely "mainstream" historians (by mainstream historians I mean those who may differ somewhat on specifics but don't seriously challenge the "received wisdom"). I haven't read all those you named, however I doubt many of them are Objectivists or libertarians. I'm always happy to seriously question the "received wisdom", precisely because a number of Objectivists and libertarians have utterly trashed the received view of incidents such as the Wall Street crash and to an extent even the US civil war (though some of the more radical libertarian critiques go much too far on the latter).

You are correct that I haven't given any sources or anything to back up the view that Britian should've stayed out of World War II a while longer (though there actually are some if you're interested). The reason I haven't is because as I've repeatedly stated, my initial comment wasn't entirely serious. That said, the consequence of Britian and the US entering the war when they did was in both cases a growth in domestic socialism, as I suspect Rand would've predicted. So those suggesting we'd have been better off waiting longer always draw my interest.

Regards,
MH




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 53

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 7:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Let me say first of all that it was not my intention to cause insult, and if I have done so then I do apologise.


Apologise?  Insult?

Oh no, no need for that.

MH, it is obvious that we don't know each other very well. All you did by raising this issue was allow me to 'show off' in an area (history) that I consider myself to be extremely informed. For 5 or 6 post I was the 'academic' and not CM Hegel : )

So your post should have read:

"George, I hope you are grateful for my having giving you a means to run your mouth with a sense of authority."

My response would have been, "I am, thanks!"

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 12/09, 7:58am)




Post 54

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 9:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hehehehe!!!

Well in that case George, you are welcome ;-) Perhaps we should try and get to know each other - I have a feeling we'll get on rather well!

I think the one thing we're all agreeing is that there is little point in discussing this further, therefore I will make my final four points on the subject (in an entirely benevolent and non-insulting spirit of course).

1. I'm not a historian, but History was one of my favourite topics at high school, and my studies covered (amongst other things) the Third Reich and World War II ;-)

2. If the mechanic in your analogy had made a number of serious mistakes in the past, I would be very careful before consulting him again.

3. Mechanics, unlike historians, are generally not ideologically driven to any extent whatsoever, so I'm not sure that particular analogy is useful.

4. Given your long standing interest in the subject, you may or may not find the later part of this article interesting, informative, helpful, mind blowing etc etc etc :-)

MH




Post 55

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 9:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I’ve enjoyed the review of history and George’s copious comments that go beyond my knowledge of the subject matter. I think it is a very profitable exercise to ask how history might have been changed if people had acted otherwise.

Coming back to the current problem, there are many factors that we can accept as a given for the near future. We have taken responsibility for Iraq in numerous ways. We play a role in governing Iraq; we’ll be a guardian for awhile; we’ll guide her to some type of parliamentary government; and we’ll be providing for Iraq’s defense in the near future. In the course of defending Iraq, we will have to deal with any threat from Iran. Our troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Iranian military build-up and WMD program is a direct threat to our troops and the countries we’ve decided to defend. Contrary to what I’ve said yesterday, it seems likely that we’ll try to take out Iran’s nuclear capacity unless we could be sure of a popular uprising. Given the time scale, the latter doesn't seem likely.
(I’m suggesting this as a prediction, not a prescription.)


(Edited by Jason Pappas on 12/09, 10:29am)




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 56

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 12:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks again to our resident World War II historian George Cordero for his many good comments.  I, myself, have enormous interest in WW 2, btw, and have studied it extensively.  So I relished reading  George's comments, regardless of my viewpoint.  (I'm also a big fan of film treatments and documentaries of the war---I'm convinced that if there were such a thing as reincarnation, I probably lived in that era. :)  ) 

I also profited enormously from listening to many of my Uncles who were part of that "greateset generation."  I had an Uncle who fought in the Aleutians (to whom I dedicated Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, actually), and 4 Uncles who fought in Europe---one of whom survived a German POW camp, one of whom was killed in the Battle of the Bulge.  And I've had uncles who served in Korea, and cousins who served in Vietnam, and a brother who was on stand-by to invade Cuba in 1962... so I come from a family with a long line of military service.

As an aside, I don't know if you folks have ever seen my tribute to my Uncle Sam, but here it is:
A Memorial Day Tribute to Uncle Sam

Whatever our different thoughts on WW2 (or on the current war), and the course it may or may not have taken, make no mistake:  I honor the memory of that generation and the enormous price they paid. 

Back to the subject at hand... Jason:  When do you think this assault might come?  I suspect that if you're right it won't be until after the Iraqi elections, which are scheduled at the end of January.  I doubt they'll want to "upset the apple cart" prior to that date or prior to Bush's second inaugural.  So... if we're going to predict, I want dates!!!  :)




Post 57

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 1:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm really late to jump in here, but it occurs to me that in facing the horrific spectacle of a nuclear-armed, theocratic, messianic Iran, the choice need not be between doing nothing or some sort of massive invasion/annihilation. As I've thought for years now, the best answer could be for some Western state to just surgically target most or all of their governmental, military, party, and religious leadership, establishment, and infrastructure. The West could deal them a quick, stunning, surprize attack which would then probably change the socio-political dynamics of the country radically at a single "shock and awe" stroke.

In this scenario, the general population -- which is partly but not completely innocent -- would be mostly unharmed. In most dictatorships, good people naturally tend to avoid leadership positions and so they too would go largely unharmed. In turn, this stunning blow by world policeman America (or some such) would send a message to the planet that if a given nation and population cannot overthrow its evil dictatorship at the very least the good people of the nation should avoid aiding and abetting the evil leadership too directly. Once this behaviour was established as a pattern it would probably tend to discourage the dictators and their cronies while emboldening the freedom-fighters and their allies.

The West could also make clear that after this brutal and devastating chastisement, that it will not interfere further -- unless another too-threatening anti-Western dictatorship emerges. This small but important non-interference doctrine and policy would have the effect of quieting the anti-Western crowd -- albeit not too much considering what just happened.

One of the advantages of this foreign policy is that -- unlike anything offered up by cultist deviant Peter Schwartz -- it addresses both personal morality (self-defense or deterrence) and social morality (liberating the enslaved or saving the innocent) in deciding how to deal with a formidable external threat.      




Post 58

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 1:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
OK, Chris, I already lost one prediction when I said, last February, that Kerry would win by changing his campaign from an anti-war theme to an “I’ll fight the war better” theme. I’ll give myself half credit for the theme switch but I blew the big one! (You told me so!) Now, you want dates for our military response to Iran’s nuke & missile build up? OK, I'll go for it: within the next year; select targets by air; and no ground troops.



Post 59

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 2:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Chris said:

 

I would certainly advocate surgical strikes on installations that are a threat to the security of the U.S.; I don't believe that Iran poses that kind of threat.  Certainly not a threat that can't be contained.

 and:

 

I simply believe it is not prudent to launch strikes on Iran at the current time and to create a situation that might very well further radicalize the theocratic forces in that country, and in Iraq, and in the Islamic world in general.

 

These are always the “cost/benefit” premises that I mentioned earlier: 1) That the threat to America is not real, and 2) That an American military response will make things worse, it will embolden our enemy.  

 

The Iranians chant “Death to America” at official government meetings -- it is for all practical purposes their national motto.  They are sitting on one of the planet’s largest oil reserves, and are using its revenues to finance the construction of nuclear weapons, as well as the construction of long-range missiles to deliver those weapons to Europe and, eventually, America.  They’ve admitted to enriching uranium – so they clearly possess the materials and the means of making the fuel for nuclear weapons.  Here is a nation with considerable resources, the explicit goal of destroying America and the clear intent to develop the means to do it.

 

Chris, what will it take to convince you this is a threat?  A mushroom cloud and the vaporization of a million or so New Yorkers?

 

Chris said:

 

And on the issue of deterrence:   I find it amazing that this country spent decades deterring the Soviet Union---the 'mad, crazy Communists' who were 'out to take over the entire world,' and who had a deadly nuclear arsenal equal to the U.S. arsenal, and who had tentacles everywhere from Southeast Asia to Latin America---but that this country suddenly does not have the capacity to deter pipsqueak authoritarians like Hussein or the mullahs of Iran.




 

In the first place, had America been able to destroy the Communist threat, at little risk to America and with little loss of American life, that would have been far preferable to a 30-year “cold war” of deterrence that delivered millions to the vast, unspeakable horrors of totalitarian rule.  The fact that deterrence "worked" in one situation does not argue that it will work in every situation, nor does it argue that it is the best approach in every situation.

 

The fact that America did not have the option of easily destroying Communism early on – or , if we had it, we let ourselves be talked out of it by the “cost/benefit” crowd – does not argue that we should abandon that option now with respect to the Islamic threat.

 

In the second place, there are two fundamental differences between the situation with Communism versus Islam.

 

One, the Communists wanted to take over functioning economies; their objective was to seize wealth to insure they could stay in power.  Sneaking a nuclear weapon into America to destroy Manhattan would not have advanced that goal.  And an open attack would have risked the destruction of their own country.  In 1962, we went “eyeball to eyeball” with them over the missiles in Cuba, and they backed down.  This gave us reason to believe that they were rational enough not to risk war – and it gave them reason to believe they could not act with impunity.

 

Islam, however, has no interest in seizing anything material; it only seeks the submission or death of all infidels – even if it results in fifth century barbaric conditions like

 those that the Taliban imposed on Afghanistan.  Obviously, a nuclear weapon destroying Manhattan is something millions of Muslims would find delightful.  If we know anything, we know there is an element in Islam you cannot deter.  Suicide bombers cannot be threatened with anything.  Like the Kamikaze hordes of Japan, they can only be destroyed.

 

Two, Communism eventually collapsed because it could not live up to its secular promise to achieve material prosperity – it could not survive the inevitable comparisons with the West, which it gradually lost the ability to prevent.  Islam, however, makes no such secular promises.  In fact, it demands that its adherents accept abject poverty if that is necessary to spread the cause.  Thus, there is no reason to believe that it will ever collapse from within.

 

Instead, it will fester in Iran, fueled by its oil and gas revenues for decades to come, working non-stop to acquire the means of destroying America.

 

We need to destroy Iran before they develop the ability to destroy us.  Furthermore, the destruction needs to be sufficient to insure that a nuclear weapons program cannot be rebuilt any time soon, and sufficient to erase any and all doubts about America’s military power and our willingness to use it.  Hopefully, this will motivate the sane element in Islam to rein in the insane element.  If not, we will move on to the next Islamic threat.

 

The Iranians have made it clear that they intend to inflict mass death on America.  I say it is insane to run any risk that they will be able to do so.








Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.