Friends and my not so friendly friends. If ever you
read something, please read this. Dr Sowell is so
very correct in his assumptions. Our mutual enemies
have told us their intentions and carried out some of
their threats. Do not dismiss them lightly. Please.
Jewish World Review June 5, 2008 / 2 Sivan 5768
Obama and McCain
By Thomas Sowell
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Now that the two parties have finally selected their presidential candidates, it is time for a sober— if not grim— assessment of where we are.
Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. When election day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.
This year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world— Iran— is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb.
The point when they get that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran's nuclear bomb will be the terrorists' nuclear bomb— and they can make 9/11 look like child's play.
All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorists demand— however outrageous those demands might be— or to risk seeing American cities start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds.
All the things we are preoccupied with today, from the price of gasoline to health care to global warming, will suddenly no longer matter.
Just as the Nazis did not find it enough to simply kill people in their concentration camps, but had to humiliate and dehumanize them first, so we can expect terrorists with nuclear weapons to both humiliate us and force us to humiliate ourselves, before they finally start killing us.
They have already telegraphed their punches with their sadistic beheadings of innocent civilians, and with the popularity of videotapes of those beheadings in the Middle East.
They have already telegraphed their intention to dictate to us with such things as Osama bin Laden's threats to target those places in America that did not vote the way he prescribed in the 2004 elections. He could not back up those threats then but he may be able to in a very few years.
The terrorists have given us as clear a picture of what they are all about as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did during the 1930s— and our "leaders" and intelligentsia have ignored the warning signs as resolutely as the "leaders" and intelligentsia of the 1930s downplayed the dangers of Hitler.
We are much like people drifting down the Niagara River, oblivious to the waterfalls up ahead. Once we go over those falls, we cannot come back up again.
What does this have to do with today's presidential candidates? It has everything to do with them.
One of these candidates will determine what we are going to do to stop Iran from going nuclear— or whether we are going to do anything other than talk, as Western leaders talked in the 1930s.
There is one big difference between now and the 1930s. Although the West's lack of military preparedness and its political irresolution led to three solid years of devastating losses to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, nevertheless when all the West's industrial and military forces were finally mobilized, the democracies were able to turn the tide and win decisively.
But you cannot lose a nuclear war for three years and then come back. You cannot even sustain the will to resist for three years when you are first broken down morally by threats and then devastated by nuclear bombs.
Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes President of the United States next January.
At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure— at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job.
Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.
On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.
.....Bugga bugga....All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorists demand— however outrageous those demands might be— or to risk seeing American cities start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds.
Ain't that the truth... can I vote for candidate c?Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. When election day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.
Sure, you can vote for whomever you wish.
The nuclear bomb is a technology. The US can do everything in its power to prevent various nations from getting the bomb, but sooner or later, any nation with enough willpower and knowhow can build one. At best, the US can slow down the spread of nuclear weapons. Once you realize this, then you need to put a bipartisan policy in place so that new nuclear nations are not going to consider the US as an enemy to attack. This does not mean caving in, but it does mean that the US puts itself in a dangerous position by trying to unilaterally dictate terms to everybody else. Also, the GOP and the Democrats play a dangerous game if they veer from one policy to another. Containment of the USSR worked because it was a bipartisan policy. Different administrations had different actions, but all of them had containment as a goal.
So you are saying they wont do what they say they
will do. Is that correct dan. It is all just a big
game. God help you. Ignorance has no bounds.
I agree that ignorance has no bounds. We are all guilty of it.
You agree with dan? Just curious.
I agree that ignorance works both ways. I also know that you really love this Sowell dude.
I consider him a well educated and well read
individual. He knows his subject and spells things
out in a straight forward manner. And yes he is
a conservative.
Have you ever heard him and Dr. Williams in a
conversation? It is something to hear two level
headed, smart people talking on different subjects.
Dr. Williams also has a great sense of humor.
But Joe, what Dr. Sowell had to say in this column
is very important. Why, because it points out
something we all, including myself, tend to forget.
The people we are fighting have told us in the past
and are telling us now what they have in mind for
us. And sadly have carried out these threats and
will carry them out again if we don't pay attention.
Remember, the WTC was bombed twice, by the
same people. They failed their first time and
succeeded the second time. They have bombed
our embassies, our ships and our barracks. Just
how many times do they have to prove a point?
I am not fear mongering nor is Dr. Sowell. Simply
stating facts as they exist.
And I repeat, yes I do like Dr. Sowell's columns.
He is a smart and intelligent man.
where on the map is radical islam?
Where do you want to start. Put your finger
almost anywhere and they are there. But that
wasn't the point of the column. Iran was. And
what they are capable of doing if they get the
nuclear option. That is part of the problem. They
already have people in place, including the U.S.,
that will do the deed, gladly.
And with our open borders, and a Congress that
really refuses to do much about it, it would only
be a matter of time before a nuclear weapon was
smuggled into the country. It is not a "if" question, it is a "when" question.
since nuclear weapons leave a footprint, they would leave themselves completely exposed.
what do you suppose would happen then?
I don't follow what you are trying to say. Please
explain.
a nuke from iran would be the wet dream that hawks have been praying for.
You didn't really read the column, did you?
Recovering from a nuclear explosion with our
state of mind in this country would be almost
impossible. Many would be for surrendering at
the first opportunity, while many would just sit
and ponder what we did to deserve this.
Congress would just go into a state of shock and
not be able to function. Or would want to
consider a bill for health insurance for children
hurt in the explosion.
Hopefully, there would be enough hawks left to
protect the country and mount an offensive. But
with all the street demonstrations by the peace
activist it would be difficult.
I know I am being silly. I just hope it never
happens.
But I take it that you have no objection to Iran
having the bomb. And that they pose no threat
to us. Is that correct?
The fact is that terrorism exists and we all know that. And they will strike again. It is not a matter of if, but when. Terrorism must be fought but going to war on false pretenses is not the answer. At least not for me.
That is why so many Americans have issues with the Iraq war. It is not that I am against fighting terrorism but don't sell it to me. Just tell me the facts.
So are we just to sit and wait until they strike again. You acknowledge they will strike again.
Do you feel like everyone is lying when they say
Iran is trying to get the "bomb"?
What do you propose we do? Really, I would like
to know.
maybe it's time for a checkup.
Who said we should just sit back and wait? You know damn well our intelligence services are doing everything they can to stop future terrorist attacks. I think we are doing what we can but I'm not naive to think it'll never happen again.
What do you suggest we do? Invade every country we feel is a threat? You do remember where the 9/11 attackers came from right? It wasn't Iraq or Iran.
Invade? A good question. Threat? I consider
Iran more than a threat. They are now fighting us
by using surrogates and, no doubt in my mind,
funding terrorists.
No their country of birth was neither of the above.
But that has no bearing on what they did. They
believed in the destruction of our country and we,
along with the rest of the world, had little doubt
Iraq would befriend and arm the terrorist. And
one thing invading Iraq did was cause the terrorist to
attempt to defeat us, which they failed to do, or
make us leave the country which they have failed
to do. We have destroyed a great deal of their
leadership by fighting them in Iraq. And from
what I read, many are turning against the terrorist in all the ME.
I have no doubt that Israel will strike first if they
think they are getting too close to really making
a workable bomb. Israel is well aware of Iran's
intentions to destroy them. Iran has stated as
much and they mean it.
As for us invading. I say support Israel in their
efforts. Iran should maybe pay attention to what
happened in Syria. No nation came to their
defense when Israel destroyed their nuclear
program.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
