[lit-ideas] Nuclear Responsibility and Iran
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Lit-Ideas" <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 04:28:59 -0800
We are faced with a situation that was foreseen by the designers of the
League of Nations and the United Nations, namely that the powerful nations
of the world would restrain the world's trouble makers. At the present
time, the U.S. is the only nation powerful enough to perform that task. The
powerful nations of an earlier UN saw the wisdom of restraining nuclear
proliferation. Now the U.S. is the only powerful nation left which can
actually perform that task if force is required. Some Americans understand
this and are attempting to discover the best way to accomplish that task.
Perhaps we can keep Iran from going nuclear without the use of force, but if
not, then we should consider using force. Others, centered in the Leftist
past, seek to put impediment after impediment in the path of those willing
to use force if necessary.
I note with continued puzzlement and amazement how Leftist-oriented people
such as Andreas and Irene oppose America's peace-keeping responsibilities
and instead favor the most disruptive elements on the planet, namely the
Middle-Eastern rogues states -- the nations that have and do threaten world
peace. They do sometimes deny this and say something like "of course I
oppose Saddam," or "of course I oppose Ahmadinejad," but then they go on to
advance their true opinions. Virtually all of their animosity is directed
against the United States. Virtually none of it is directed against the
disruptive Middle Eastern rogue states. How dare, Irene implied, the U.S.
fancy itself above Iran. If the U.S. deserved nuclear weapons, then surely
Iran does as well. Such views as this counter the spirit of the early U.N.
and the present desires of the single guarantor of peace in the world.
Irene, Andreas and other Leftists will be quick to say that the U.S. is no
keeper of the peace. If the American policeman who goes after the Iraqi or
Iranian malefactors, then he is as bad as they are, worse in fact. They
have no interest in a strong U.S. enforcing peace throughout the world.
They prefer a leveling, a reducing of the U.S. such that it is one nation
with no more power than any other modern-day nation. How dare the U.S. put
itself above Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Ahmadinejad's Iran. And yet we do
dare, and most of us still believe, I trust that we must continue to dare,
because no one else is in a position to do so. It is still a good thing to
prevent rouge states from engaging in their nefarious designs. It is still
a good think to prevent or at least reduce nuclear proliferation. And it is
an extremely bad thing for the Leftist-centered haters of America to put
road blocks in the way of America's attempts to carry out these tasks.
The United Nations was set up as the League of Nations was before it on the
belief that the powerful nations of the world by use of their power could
force the recalcitrant nations to forego their disruptive ambitions. The
U.S. is the only nation remaining that can perform that task. This is the
world we live in. Can we be prevented from keeping the peace, countering
the rogue states and disruptive influences of the world? Yes, we can. We
have an insurgency here in the U.S. that seeks its destruction. Where it is
in our National Interest to be strong, they would have us weak. Where we
exert force against disruptive influences in the world, they favor and
support those disruptive influences. They oppose the U.S. in its attempts
to stop nuclear proliferation in Iran. If Pakistan were taken over by
Islamists such that they became a serious nuclear threat to the region they
would nevertheless oppose the U.S. if it proposed bring force to bear
against Pakistan. Leftists support these hypothetical Pakistani Islamists
in advance as well as whatever ambitions they might have. Leftists opposes
in the strongest terms the idea that it would be well for the U.S. to
attempt to oppose a state that had turned rogue from having or using their
nuclear weapons.
Note too the continued Leftist assertion that the U.S. is utterly failing in
Iraq. This harks back to that great Leftist victory, the defeat of the U.S.
in Vietnam. If the Leftists could convince the U.S. populace that the war
in Vietnam was hopeless, perhaps they can do it again in Iraq. It makes no
difference what evil genies such a defeat might loose as long as the hated
U.S. is defeated. But this assertion is so utterly false that even the most
intellectually challenged should be able to see through it. Consider the
makeup of Iraq: roughly 60% Shiite, 20% Kurd, and 20% Sunni. The insurgency
is made up of a small, albeit intense, minority of Sunnis. The
anti-American Leftists support this minority against the majority in Iraq.
This minority, made up of former Baathists who did well under Saddam,
supplemented by Al Qaeda volunteers who understand what is at stake in the
region, is supported by the Leftists. They support the Saddam Hussein
die-hard Baathist bolstered by Al Qaeda. That is the force they think truly
represents Iraq. They oppose the 60% of Shiites and the 20% of Kurds who
want their government to work. They avoid these facts hoping that if they
heap enough scorn upon the U.S. efforts, no one will notice how opposed to
America's National Interests their arguments are.
The America-haters hope they can subject the U.S. to another Vietnam-type
defeat. They don't care if that defeat in Iraq would provide Al Qaeda with
a powerful base from which to launch future attacks against the U.S. and its
allies. They see the U.S. and not Al Qaeda as the greatest threat to the
world. Their views are clearly self-destructive. That is, if they got
their wish, the world would be a more dangerous place. If they reduced the
power of the U.S. such that it could no longer oppose rogue states then wars
among equals, which are much more destructive, would replace the police
actions the U.S. has been engaging in.
Lawrence
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andreas Ramos" <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:04 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Nuclear Hypocrisy and Iran
> From: "Eric Yost"
>
>
>> First, we are not threatening to invade Iran. Do not use the term
"invade" unless you can
>> substantiate plans for a military invasion.
>
> No, Eric, Bush is only threatening an overwhelming attack against 400
locations, along with
> destroying Iran's infrastructure (transportation, electricity, water, etc)
in order to
> topple the government and provoke a revolution. This brilliant plan worked
so well in Iraq.
>
>> Second, and more important, how we would react to a nuclear threat
depends on the level of
>> that perceived threat. For example, we DO have plans to destroy all of
Pakistan's nuclear
>> weapons should Mushareff be deposed and the Taliban seize power. This
would be
>> accomplished by a combination of missile strikes and special forces
follow-up.
>
> So you're hoping if Musharraf is toppled, the USA will immediately attack
Pakistan? That'll
> really go well with the rest of the planet.
>
>> By 2010, when our airborne laser platforms are fully operational and in
widespread
>> deployment, it will be a much simpler task to strip regimes of their
missile-based nuke
>> forces.
>
> Nonsensical fantasies. "Airborne laser platforms" are utterly useless.
>
> "Airborne laser platforms" won't prevent Cheney's Chief of Staff from
being found guilty of
> criminal acts.
>
> "Airborne laser platforms" won't fix rotting US military hospitals.
>
> "Airborne laser platforms" won't restore America's financial strength.
Have you noticed that
> the US stock market is now a reflection of the Chinese stock market? The
tail wags the dog.
> Many of my Chinese friends are astonished. It finally happened.
>
> yrs,
> andreas
> www.andreas.com
>
Other related posts:
