PDA

View Full Version : Well Are We?



xrayzebra
07-28-2007, 09:56 AM
A piece by Thomas Sowell that ask a very important
question. Are we the France of the 1930's. It seems
we are by some of the reactions on this forum. And
by some of our most popular politicians. We shall see
in time.



Morally Paralyzed
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, July 24, 2007

"Moral paralysis" is a term that has been used to describe the inaction of France, England and other European democracies in the 1930s, as they watched Hitler build up the military forces that he later used to attack them.

It is a term that may be painfully relevant to our own times.

Back in the 1930s, the governments of the democratic countries knew what Hitler was doing -- and they knew that they had enough military superiority at that point to stop his military buildup in its tracks. But they did nothing to stop him.

Instead, they turned to what is still the magic mantra today -- "negotiations."

No leader of a democratic nation was ever more popular than British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain -- wildly cheered in the House of Commons by opposition parties as well as his own -- when he returned from negotiations in Munich in 1938, waving an agreement and declaring that it meant "peace in our time."

We know now how short that time was. Less than a year later, World War II began in Europe and spread across the planet, killing tens of millions of people and reducing many cities to rubble in Europe and Asia.

Looking back after that war, Winston Churchill said, "There was never a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action." The earlier it was done, the less it would have cost.

At one point, Hitler could have been stopped in his tracks "without the firing of a single shot," Churchill said.

That point came in 1936 -- three years before World War II began -- when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, in violation of two international treaties.

At that point, France alone was so much more powerful than Germany that the German generals had secret orders to retreat immediately at the first sign of French intervention.

As Hitler himself confided, the Germans would have had to retreat "with our tail between our legs," because they did not yet have enough military force to put up even a token resistance.

Why did the French not act and spare themselves and the world the years of horror that Hitler's aggressions would bring? The French had the means but not the will.

"Moral paralysis" came from many things. The death of a million French soldiers in the First World War and disillusionment with the peace that followed cast a pall over a whole generation.

Pacifism became vogue among the intelligentsia and spread into educational institutions. As early as 1932, Winston Churchill said: "France, though armed to the teeth, is pacifist to the core."

It was morally paralyzed.

History may be interesting but it is the present and the future that pose the crucial question: Is America today the France of yesterday?

We know that Iran is moving swiftly toward nuclear weapons while the United Nations is moving slowly -- or not at all -- toward doing anything to stop them.

It is a sign of our irresponsible Utopianism that anyone would even expect the UN to do anything that would make any real difference.

Not only the history of the UN, but the history of the League of Nations before it, demonstrates again and again that going to such places is a way for weak-kneed leaders of democracies to look like they are doing something when in fact they are doing nothing.

The Iranian leaders are not going to stop unless they get stopped. And, like Hitler, they don't think we have the guts to stop them.

Incidentally, Hitler made some of the best anti-war statements of the 1930s. He knew that this was what the Western democracies wanted to hear -- and that it would keep them morally paralyzed while he continued building up his military machine to attack them.

Iranian leaders today make only the most token and transparent claims that they are building "peaceful" nuclear facilities -- in one of the biggest oil-producing countries in the world, which has no need for nuclear power to generate electricity.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and its international terrorist allies will be a worst threat than Hitler ever was. But, before that happens, the big question is: Are we France? Are we morally paralyzed, perhaps fatally?

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

Be the first to read Thomas Sowell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate


Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

George Gervin's Afro
07-28-2007, 12:54 PM
A piece by Thomas Sowell that ask a very important
question. Are we the France of the 1930's. It seems
we are by some of the reactions on this forum. And
by some of our most popular politicians. We shall see
in time.



Morally Paralyzed
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, July 24, 2007

"Moral paralysis" is a term that has been used to describe the inaction of France, England and other European democracies in the 1930s, as they watched Hitler build up the military forces that he later used to attack them.

It is a term that may be painfully relevant to our own times.

Back in the 1930s, the governments of the democratic countries knew what Hitler was doing -- and they knew that they had enough military superiority at that point to stop his military buildup in its tracks. But they did nothing to stop him.

Instead, they turned to what is still the magic mantra today -- "negotiations."

No leader of a democratic nation was ever more popular than British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain -- wildly cheered in the House of Commons by opposition parties as well as his own -- when he returned from negotiations in Munich in 1938, waving an agreement and declaring that it meant "peace in our time."

We know now how short that time was. Less than a year later, World War II began in Europe and spread across the planet, killing tens of millions of people and reducing many cities to rubble in Europe and Asia.

Looking back after that war, Winston Churchill said, "There was never a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action." The earlier it was done, the less it would have cost.

At one point, Hitler could have been stopped in his tracks "without the firing of a single shot," Churchill said.

That point came in 1936 -- three years before World War II began -- when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, in violation of two international treaties.

At that point, France alone was so much more powerful than Germany that the German generals had secret orders to retreat immediately at the first sign of French intervention.

As Hitler himself confided, the Germans would have had to retreat "with our tail between our legs," because they did not yet have enough military force to put up even a token resistance.

Why did the French not act and spare themselves and the world the years of horror that Hitler's aggressions would bring? The French had the means but not the will.

"Moral paralysis" came from many things. The death of a million French soldiers in the First World War and disillusionment with the peace that followed cast a pall over a whole generation.

Pacifism became vogue among the intelligentsia and spread into educational institutions. As early as 1932, Winston Churchill said: "France, though armed to the teeth, is pacifist to the core."

It was morally paralyzed.

History may be interesting but it is the present and the future that pose the crucial question: Is America today the France of yesterday?

We know that Iran is moving swiftly toward nuclear weapons while the United Nations is moving slowly -- or not at all -- toward doing anything to stop them.

It is a sign of our irresponsible Utopianism that anyone would even expect the UN to do anything that would make any real difference.

Not only the history of the UN, but the history of the League of Nations before it, demonstrates again and again that going to such places is a way for weak-kneed leaders of democracies to look like they are doing something when in fact they are doing nothing.

The Iranian leaders are not going to stop unless they get stopped. And, like Hitler, they don't think we have the guts to stop them.

Incidentally, Hitler made some of the best anti-war statements of the 1930s. He knew that this was what the Western democracies wanted to hear -- and that it would keep them morally paralyzed while he continued building up his military machine to attack them.

Iranian leaders today make only the most token and transparent claims that they are building "peaceful" nuclear facilities -- in one of the biggest oil-producing countries in the world, which has no need for nuclear power to generate electricity.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and its international terrorist allies will be a worst threat than Hitler ever was. But, before that happens, the big question is: Are we France? Are we morally paralyzed, perhaps fatally?

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

Be the first to read Thomas Sowell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate


Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.


Ray... listen.. The US public is willing to do whatever is necessary to esnure we are protected. Most are willing to give a little to allow the govt to do it's job. However, most Americans realize Iraq is not part of the war on terror, rather it is a distraction. Another thing, most Americans don't like their President telling them that he can what he wants without being checked by the Congress. No matter how hard you and the other dean enders try America will not accept Iraq as a part of the war on terror. Have you noticed that you never hear any rumblings about what we are doing in Afghanistan? Wy? Because the country understands why we are there... stop trying to tie Iraq with the overall war on terror..By the wya haven't youi heard that AL-Qaeda is stronger now than they were before 9/11?..Iraq ius a waste of time, money , treasue , and blood..

exstatic
07-28-2007, 12:58 PM
"Moral paralysis" is the perfect description of the Bush administration.

Yonivore
07-28-2007, 01:01 PM
"Moral paralysis" is the perfect description of the Bush administration.
How so? The administration continues undeterred with most of it's policy initiatives, foreign and domestic -- in spite of a "morally paralyzed" Congress than can neither pass meaningful legislation or discern their place in the constitutional order of things.

George Gervin's Afro
07-28-2007, 01:03 PM
How so? The administration continues undeterred with most of it's policy initiatives, foreign and domestic -- in spite of a "morally paralyzed" Congress than can neither pass meaningful legislation or discern their place in the constitutional order of things.


Of course the administration COULD be wrong..

Yonivore
07-28-2007, 01:17 PM
Of course the administration COULD be wrong..
Wrong thread, we're talking about whether or not the administration is morally paralyzed.

Try again.

boutons_
07-28-2007, 02:39 PM
Moral vacuum is the term best describing the dubya/dickhead Exec.

Morally paralyzed in the sense they seek Repug partisan advantage, and protection and enrichment of the super-rich above all else. The Irarq war is a morally bankrupt grab for cheap, high-quality Iraqi oil to fill the pockets of the US/UK oilcos and ultimately the Repug party treasury. Iraq is a morally repulsive waste of US lives and treasure, while decreasing US national security.

xrayzebra
07-29-2007, 10:20 AM
Moral vacuum is the term best describing the dubya/dickhead Exec.

Morally paralyzed in the sense they seek Repug partisan advantage, and protection and enrichment of the super-rich above all else. The Irarq war is a morally bankrupt grab for cheap, high-quality Iraqi oil to fill the pockets of the US/UK oilcos and ultimately the Repug party treasury. Iraq is a morally repulsive waste of US lives and treasure, while decreasing US national security.


boutons, I am still waiting on your explanation on where
all this high-quality oil to fill the pockets of the US/UK
oilcos is at. Am I missing something?

Cant_Be_Faded
07-29-2007, 02:36 PM
If I were Iran and the US were sticking their dick into Iraq's asshole like this I would definitely be trying to get nukes too.

fyatuk
07-29-2007, 03:10 PM
I absolutely hate the argument that Iran must be developing nuclear weapons because they don't need nuclear power because of their oil reserves. If I'm Iran, I'm certainly trying to develop nuclear power plants for the sole purpose of it means more $. Other than the initial construction costs, nuclear power is far cheaper than oil based electricity generation, so it makes economic sense to invest in nuclear power given the steadily rising price of oil throughout the world, that is basically guaranteed to continue to increase. Its also good for the "developed" countries since it means there's more oil in the market and a longer lasting oil supply.

Besides, the non-proliferation treaty guaranteed every countries rights to pursue nuclear energy generation and to enrich uranium up to a certain point, which to my knowledge Iran has never violated. Yet we (US, EU, and Israel) tried to prevent those rights Iran had by international treaty. I don't blame them for being pissed about such things.

There are a few things that are worrisome, but most of those came about after the fallout when we insisted they remain incapable of processing their own uranium. The whole situation is stupid.