No one wants a war, but ...
No one wants a war, but ...
Posted: September 23, 2006
By Henry Lamb
Once again, the U.N. is demonstrating how useless it is. Now that Iran has defied the U.N.'s demand to stop enriching uranium – or face serious consequences – the U.N. has decided that the "serious consequences" will be more talk about what to do. All the while, Iran continues to enrich uranium, saying that it is for peaceful use, to provide energy.
Well, maybe.
No one wants war. Russia and China are both deeply involved in economic relations with Iran, and do not want to jeopardize their own economies by supporting sanctions. France – well, France is France. The only thing that is certain about the French is that the U.S. cannot count on them. The two remaining permanent members of the Security Council, Britain and the U.S., even with Germany, could not impose economic sanctions with enough bite to slow Iran's enrichment processing.
No one wants war, but what are the options?
The U.S. could adopt the view that we should take Iranian President Ahmadinejad at his word and believe that Iran is developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only. This policy would certainly win the approval of the international community, as well as the anti-war forces at home. But then, would we not also have to take Ahmadinejad at his word when he says that Israel will be wiped off the map, that the U.S. should bow and surrender to Iran, that there will be cataclysmic events to remove Zionism from the face of the earth?
The U.S. could adopt the view that Ahmadinejad is a masterful liar who publicly proclaims to the U.N. and to the world that Iran seeks peace, while privately supplying weapons to terrorists in Lebanon and Iraq. Iran is a present threat to peace in Iraq and Israel. Ahmadinejad's public vows to destroy Israel and his steadfast refusal to honor the U.N.'s demands to stop enriching uranium present a serious threat to world.
The Bush administration has adopted this latter view; Bush critics want public policy to reflect the former view.
It is indeed ironic that when it comes to environmental threats, these same critics race to embrace the precautionary principle: "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."
In the face of a very real threat of catastrophic, irreversible nuclear degradation at the hands of people who daily demonstrate their absolute indifference to human life, Bush critics want no part of preventive measures.
There are no simple solutions to the conflict between Islamic rule and freedom. This conflict is the root cause of the terrorist attacks around the world. Ahmadinejad and others claim that the daily deaths in Iraq occur because the U.S. is occupying a foreign nation. It is this invasion and occupation, however, that prevents Islamic rule, and gives the hope of freedom for the people.
Islamic rule can be forced upon a nation with terror and military might; freedom cannot. Freedom has to be planted, nurtured, cultivated and allowed to grow. It cannot grow where it is not protected and defended. This is what the U.S. forces are trying to do in Iraq – give freedom a chance to take root and grow. This is a bold but costly effort to find a long-term solution to the basic conflict.
Many, perhaps too many, Americans do not subscribe to this point of view. "America should not be the world's policeman." "America should take care of its own problems and let the rest of the world do the same." "America should stop meddling in the affairs of other nations." These ideas have merit, and in a perfect world would be valid. This is not a perfect world.
In a perfect world, all people and all nations would be free. People and nations could enter into agreements that are mutually beneficial – or not – as they choose. When people or nations consider the world to be perfect only when people and nations are compelled by force to fit into a common economic, political or religious mold, freedom must be vanquished. This, of course, is the underlying conflict that has spawned wars across the ages.
No one wants war, but it may be inevitable. If the choice is to yield to Islamic domination or go to war to defend freedom, then war is inevitable. The evidence is mounting that Islamic extremists intend to impose Islamic rule as far as possible, using terror tactics as the primary weapon. The only unanswered question is how far it will be allowed to spread before the defenders of freedom stand up.
Islamic terror has already reached the U.S. mainland, and the threat has significantly reduced the freedom Americans have traditionally enjoyed. The threat will not be reduced by abandoning the battle in Iraq or ignoring the growing threat in Iran. The best hope of avoiding a war is to be totally prepared – and willing – to fight it, while doing everything possible to prevent it.
Posted: September 23, 2006
By Henry Lamb
Once again, the U.N. is demonstrating how useless it is. Now that Iran has defied the U.N.'s demand to stop enriching uranium – or face serious consequences – the U.N. has decided that the "serious consequences" will be more talk about what to do. All the while, Iran continues to enrich uranium, saying that it is for peaceful use, to provide energy.
Well, maybe.
No one wants war. Russia and China are both deeply involved in economic relations with Iran, and do not want to jeopardize their own economies by supporting sanctions. France – well, France is France. The only thing that is certain about the French is that the U.S. cannot count on them. The two remaining permanent members of the Security Council, Britain and the U.S., even with Germany, could not impose economic sanctions with enough bite to slow Iran's enrichment processing.
No one wants war, but what are the options?
The U.S. could adopt the view that we should take Iranian President Ahmadinejad at his word and believe that Iran is developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only. This policy would certainly win the approval of the international community, as well as the anti-war forces at home. But then, would we not also have to take Ahmadinejad at his word when he says that Israel will be wiped off the map, that the U.S. should bow and surrender to Iran, that there will be cataclysmic events to remove Zionism from the face of the earth?
The U.S. could adopt the view that Ahmadinejad is a masterful liar who publicly proclaims to the U.N. and to the world that Iran seeks peace, while privately supplying weapons to terrorists in Lebanon and Iraq. Iran is a present threat to peace in Iraq and Israel. Ahmadinejad's public vows to destroy Israel and his steadfast refusal to honor the U.N.'s demands to stop enriching uranium present a serious threat to world.
The Bush administration has adopted this latter view; Bush critics want public policy to reflect the former view.
It is indeed ironic that when it comes to environmental threats, these same critics race to embrace the precautionary principle: "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."
In the face of a very real threat of catastrophic, irreversible nuclear degradation at the hands of people who daily demonstrate their absolute indifference to human life, Bush critics want no part of preventive measures.
There are no simple solutions to the conflict between Islamic rule and freedom. This conflict is the root cause of the terrorist attacks around the world. Ahmadinejad and others claim that the daily deaths in Iraq occur because the U.S. is occupying a foreign nation. It is this invasion and occupation, however, that prevents Islamic rule, and gives the hope of freedom for the people.
Islamic rule can be forced upon a nation with terror and military might; freedom cannot. Freedom has to be planted, nurtured, cultivated and allowed to grow. It cannot grow where it is not protected and defended. This is what the U.S. forces are trying to do in Iraq – give freedom a chance to take root and grow. This is a bold but costly effort to find a long-term solution to the basic conflict.
Many, perhaps too many, Americans do not subscribe to this point of view. "America should not be the world's policeman." "America should take care of its own problems and let the rest of the world do the same." "America should stop meddling in the affairs of other nations." These ideas have merit, and in a perfect world would be valid. This is not a perfect world.
In a perfect world, all people and all nations would be free. People and nations could enter into agreements that are mutually beneficial – or not – as they choose. When people or nations consider the world to be perfect only when people and nations are compelled by force to fit into a common economic, political or religious mold, freedom must be vanquished. This, of course, is the underlying conflict that has spawned wars across the ages.
No one wants war, but it may be inevitable. If the choice is to yield to Islamic domination or go to war to defend freedom, then war is inevitable. The evidence is mounting that Islamic extremists intend to impose Islamic rule as far as possible, using terror tactics as the primary weapon. The only unanswered question is how far it will be allowed to spread before the defenders of freedom stand up.
Islamic terror has already reached the U.S. mainland, and the threat has significantly reduced the freedom Americans have traditionally enjoyed. The threat will not be reduced by abandoning the battle in Iraq or ignoring the growing threat in Iran. The best hope of avoiding a war is to be totally prepared – and willing – to fight it, while doing everything possible to prevent it.
posted by shummer60 at Saturday, September 23, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home