Failure Is Not An Option?
The war against terror, which was proclaimed by President George W. Bush has deep roots. I opposed the war from the beginning. You could say, I was against the war before I was for the war. The very real threat to multiculturalism and opposing views and religions, differences in tradition, etc. have all boiled up to the surface. It is an existential threat which didn't begin with the war by the U.S. against Iraq and it must not be allowed to explode into violent killing and destruction in Iraq after the U.S. leaves. The only way to insure peace in Iraq and to keep that violence from spilling over into the rest of the middle-east and spreading to Europe and the U.S., and to constrain Iranian influence and involvement in the Iraqi affairs is for the U.S. to maintain a presence in Iraq. As General Powell correctly assumed, the U.S. broke it and now the U.S. owns it. It was already a very flawed and dangerous situation before the U.S. got embroiled in this simmering caldron of violence. To leave it now would be like unleashing the aggressive forces in the country and leaving the gates open after we have left.
Iran is a major player in the game and there is plenty of evidence that Iran is supplying Iraqi insurgents with the weapons to kill Americans and Iraqis. It may be necessary to stop Iran forcefully. These are the existential threats.
Barack Obama is either unaware of the real challenge from religious intolerance and hatred or just naive enough to think talking to Iranians can convince the Iranian sponsored Jihadists from carrying out their plans to destroy Western society, to prevent enlightened modernity and impose Sharia law on the region and the world.
The Assyrian International News Agency says about "Barack Carter Obama" that he "consistently demonstrates his lack of qualifications to be commander in chief based on experience, world-view and judgment." Yes, he does.
"His latest foray into dangerous naivete came while campaigning Sunday in Pendleton, Ore. He told the assembled multitude: "Iran? Cuba? Venezuela? -- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us." (Assyrian International News Agency - http://www.aina.org/)
"He went on to defend his policy of "aggressive personal diplomacy" and called for "tough, disciplined and direct diplomacy. That's what Kennedy did. That'd what Reagan did," he said. (ibid)
That is not exactly right.
Here is what Kennedy actually said in his inaugural address:
"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
What actually happened was, as described in AIN:
"Yes, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev. But the Soviet leader came away from that summit so unimpressed with the young and untested American president that the following year he put nuclear missiles in Cuba targeted on American cities. Kennedy was forced to blockade Cuba and risk nuclear war." (ibid)
They responded all right, but not in the way Obama envisioned. Maybe that is because Obama doesn't really remember what happened so he is rewriting history to opportunistically support his agenda and views. He is making the world a much more dangerous place by capitulating to tyrants.
"We can't risk that with Iran. As John McCain points out, Iran, unlike the Soviet Union, is directly and daily involved in the killing of Americans through training of Iraqi insurgents and arming them with deadly improvised explosive devices. It is a state sponsor of terror that supports Hezbollah in its attempt to turn democratic Lebanon into an Islamofascist state." (ibid)
"Obama said that Reagan's "direct negotiation" with Gorbachev "over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall." What brought down the Berlin Wall, and the Soviet Union, was Reagan's unrelenting resistance to and confrontation with the "evil empire" based on his strategy of "we win, they lose." That was how Reagan "negotiated" with Gorbachev." (ibid)
"Yes, Reagan talked with Gorbachev. But he resisted the Soviet advance from Nicaragua to Grenada to Afghanistan. He put Pershing missiles in Europe. He launched the Strategic Defense Initiative and said "nyet" when Gorbachev wanted us to deal it away. When Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," the end of the Cold War already was a fait accompli." (ibid)
Obama perspective on this is wrong and his vision is very frightening. To unconditionally talk, to give in to their demands, to give up which is a sign of weakness to the Islamists is not only frightening, it is stupid.
"Obama wants to talk with Iran. But the question he refuses to answer is what he'd tell Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Obama dislikes being called an appeaser. But would he say to Iran: No deal unless you disown and disarm Hezbollah? We doubt it. More likely he'd sacrifice a country such as Lebanon to Tehrans' ambitions in a modern-day Munich." (ibid)
And his adviser, Cirincinone advocates for capitulation by America's closest and most reliable ally, Israel, to its sworn enemies, who have vowed to destroy her.
"In his book, "Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons," Obama adviser Joseph Cirincione, director of nuclear policy at the center for American Progress, says he favors Israel giving up its nuclear weapons to ensure Iran doesn't obtain nukes. That's called appeasement." (ibid)
"Cirincione also was quoted in 2006 calling Israel's 1981 raid on Iraq's nuclear reactor a "failure." But the raid on Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear reactor was an unqualified success that kept the Iraqi dictator from having a nuclear weapon when he invaded Iran a decade later." (ibid)
"McCain said that Obama's view of Iran as a "tiny" threat, a view not shared by the Israelis, "betrays the depth of Sen. Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment. These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess." Indeed they are." (ibid)
"Obama responded during a campaign stop Monday in Billings, Mont.: "The Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons, and Iran doesn't have one." And he'll probably believe that right up to the moment the phone rings at 3 a.m. and he hears: "Mr. President, Tel Aviv has been nuked.""
Are there any Jews supporting Obama? Are there any Americans who care about their security and national interests in the middle east and not least of all, their loyal allies and Iraqis who sacrificed in order to bring democracy to Iraq, who would be foolish enough to support this appeaser: Barack Carter (Hussein) Obama?
Hank Roth
http://pnews.org/
Any and all quoted excerpts here are per the Fair Use Doctrine
for
educational and discussion purposes pursuant to
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
Copyright Law.
Permalink: http://inyourface.info/ArT/Gamma/BaRC.shtml
Today is Friday November 21, 2008
Hank Roth (on the Internet since 1982)