Point of no return? By Thomas Sowell Tuesday, August 22, 2006 It is hard to think of a time when a nation -- and a whole civilization -- has drifted more futilely toward a bigger catastrophe than that looming over the United States and western civilization today. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and North Korea mean that it is only a matter of time before there are nuclear weapons in the hands of international terrorist organizations. North Korea needs money and Iran has brazenly stated its aim as the destruction of Israel -- and both its actions and its rhetoric suggest aims that extend even beyond a second Holocaust. Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee. This is not just another in the long history of military threats. The Soviet Union, despite its massive nuclear arsenal, could be deterred by our own nuclear arsenal. But suicide bombers cannot be deterred. Fanatics filled with hate cannot be either deterred or bought off, whether Hezbollah, Hamas or the government of Iran. The endlessly futile efforts to bring peace to the Middle East with concessions fundamentally misconceive what forces are at work. Hate and humiliation are key forces that cannot be bought off by "trading land for peace," by a "Palestinian homeland" or by other such concessions that might have worked in other times and places. Humiliation and hate go together. Why humiliation? Because a once-proud, dynamic culture in the forefront of world civilizations, and still carrying a message of their own superiority to "infidels" today, is painfully visible to the whole world as a poverty-stricken and backward region, lagging far behind in virtually every field of human endeavor. There is no way that they can catch up in a hundred years, even if the rest of the world stands still. And they are not going to wait a hundred years to vent their resentments and frustrations at the humiliating position in which they find themselves. Israel's very existence as a modern, prosperous western nation in their midst is a daily slap across the face. Nothing is easier for demagogues than to blame Israel, the United States, or western civilization in general for their own lagging position. Hitler was able to rouse similar resentments and fanaticism in Germany under conditions not nearly as dire as those in most Middle East countries today. The proof of similar demagogic success in the Middle East is all around. What kind of people provide a market for videotaped beheadings of innocent hostages? What kind of people would throw an old man in a wheelchair off a cruise liner into the sea, simply because he was Jewish? What kind of people would fly planes into buildings to vent their hate at the cost of their own lives? These are the kinds of people we are talking about getting nuclear weapons. And what of ourselves? Do we understand that the world will never be the same after hate-filled fanatics gain the ability to wipe whole American cities off the face of the earth? Do we still imagine that they can be bought off, as Israel was urged to buy them off with "land for peace" -- a peace that has proved to be wholly illusory? Even ruthless conquerors of the past, from Genghis Khan to Adolf Hitler, wanted some tangible gains for themselves or their nations -- land, wealth, dominion. What Middle East fanatics want is the destruction and humiliation of the west. Their treatment of hostages, some of whom have been humanitarians serving the people of the Middle East, shows that what the terrorists want is to inflict the maximum pain and psychic anguish on their victims before killing them. Once these fanatics have nuclear weapons, those victims can include you, your children and your children's children. The terrorists need not start out by wiping our cities off the map. Chances are they would first want to force us to humiliate ourselves in whatever ways their sadistic imaginations could conceive, out of fear of their nuclear weapons. After we, or our children and grandchildren, find ourselves living at the mercy of people with no mercy, what will future generations think of us, that we let this happen because we wanted to placate "world opinion" by not acting "unilaterally"? We are fast approaching the point of no return. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...o_return&ns=ThomasSowell&dt=08/22/2006&page=1
Yep. And then there are still those that think "this is far away from our home, why should we get involved". Same as Great Brittain thought before WWII: "They'll never be able to get across the North Sea". Same as the US thought an attack on the US mainland was implausible. How long do people keep sticking their heads in the sand? How long before people realise that the Muslims have not migrated their beliefs / behaviour / attitudes out of the middle ages? Holmes
Liberals are idiots but there's a great deal that neocons remain wilfully blind to, too. Neocon beliefs are almost as hazardous to the wealth of western civilization as the worst of liberalism.
The key problem with Islamo-Fascists is that they are not rational... In the sense that incentives or threats can result in ** deterrence **. Hitler was very rational. A megalomaniac... but rational. He wanted wealth and power for his race... and acted accordingly. The Islamo-Fascists simply want all "infidels" = non-Muslims DEAD... Are trying to precipitate some sort of "apocalypse" from Islamic mythology... And here is the key... DO NOT CARE ABOUT THEIR OWN PEOPLE... Repeat... do not care how many Muslims have to die to achieve their goals. In terms of nuclear game/war theory... Which is a highly advanced science... Deterrence simply does work with such an enemy... So there is only one option: First Strike. In the next 6 months we may see conventional bombing of Iran... But a nuclear first strike by Israel or the US will happen sooner or later. It won't matter who is US President or Israeli PM... It will be a stark black/white decision.
there is a reason why neocon rhymes with moron methinks... just curious, what do you guys great thinkers think of this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh democratically elected and all that the CIA employed itself to overthrow and replace with big US biz stooge aka the Shah now u got the radical islamists and Ahmadinejad running the show and your complaining?? give us a fucking break..... let me think, did u guys nuke japan once - cld perhaps be 'excused' in the context -, or was it twice? thats where i live now... i can assure u, they'll send u their sympathies when u get yours all the very best
Prattle. So you're a moonbat living in Japan. Big deal. I lived there for several years and never met or heard of a Japanese cursing an American out because they're American or because of the atomic bombings. I HAVE heard more anti-American epithets in countries that were never nuked and supposedly our allies, i.e. France. I'm sure you're popular in Japan. They love crazy gaijin.
they sure do now who's talking about anti-american? didn't say they were anti-american, neither am i... but just stop whingeing and accusing the rest of the world for the mess u created, just deal with it and shut up and if u continue to make the same booh-boohs u'll get slapped the same next time... yr choice not to believe it ok beer time! ciao ;-)
You're all over the place. First you talk about the US being nuked, how much the US whines and is responsible for the world hating it, then you say you're not anti-US. Omae wa baka da zo.
I agree with almost everything you say here. But, I'm wondering if perhaps we are misjudging the leadership of the enemy. Generally, the reason why a person gains leadership authority is because he believes that he is right and that he knows the "way," that others should follow. The strategy that the U.S. has been following is currently based on the notion that there is no point in cutting off the heads of our enemy, because the "dragon" will simply grow a new head. I think this may be a strategic error. There are not that many people in any society capable of becoming a great leader (and by great, I don't mean "good" or "noble" -- I just mean capable of leading the masses). I wonder if we were to make our intentions clear that we will stop at nothing to assassinate any leader of any nation who poses a serious threat to our existence, and then start doing just that, whether some of our enemies might not just cower away. After all, there's nothing more convincing to a bully than to have his nose bloodied for everyone to see. Most world leaders, throughout history, have all wanted to survive, and at all costs. Few ever led their troops into battle. Most hide far behind the lines. The current crop of mullahs are doing just that, which to me indicates that they are not quite as fanatic as they want us and their people to believe. Because, if they were that fanatic, they would be strapping on the bombs themselves and charging into the war zone. Osama bin-Ladin has demonstrated, by example, that a leader can get away with murder and remain a leader and at large. I think we have made a big mistake not concentrating our efforts on taking him out. We should start taking all of these "leaders" out, until they shrink back into their dark holes -- after which, their people will certainly find a new leader, but it will probably be someone less fanatical, because there will no longer be any percentage in being a fanatic leader.