Liberal Pacifism
Judging by Dianne Feinstein's LA Times op-ed, it's obvious that pacifism is alive and well in the Democratic Party. Here's what I mean:
"We need strong American leadership, working toward a verifiable diplomatic solution. That sounds lovely but that's hardly our best option. Is Sen. Feinstein so delusional to think that we can negotiate a treaty that will end Iran's nuclear ambitions? Hasn't she been paying attention the past year? What does she think they've been trying to do? And yet, Ahmadinejad announce this week the enrichment of uranium. If that's Feinstein's idea of a successful diplomatic negotiation, I don't want to see her definition of a disastrous diplomatic negotiation.
Football coaching legend Bill Walsh was once asked how he got his team to do what he wanted them to do. He said (I'm paraphrasing here.) "I start with the X's and O's and why things will work. If they still don't grasp the concept, I get the team together and run a play. If they still don't get it after seeing the proof, then I just get out the billyclub and pound it into their heads." I'd say that we've finished the X's and O's and running the play stages. It's time to beat it into Iran's head that they won't have nuclear weapons, especially if they continue threatening Israel.
In Sen. Feinstein's world, threatening the use of force is the opposite of negotiating. In Sen. Feinstein's world threatening the use of force is something that only a bully would do so it has no place in diplomacy. Doesn't she remember that the reason why the USSR caved during the Cuban Missile Crisis was because JFK threatened the Soviets with nuclear destruction? The USSR didn't cave because we conducted single-track negotiations. We shouldn't conduct single-track negotiations with Iran either.
President Reagan was the most successful negotiator in my lifetime. His motto was that you negotiated from a position of strength. Because he did, the USSR ceased to exist.
Conservatives, if you're thinking about staying home this November because you hate the GOP position on illegal immigration, think twice. Immigration is important but how important is it if Iran develops ICBM nuclear capability in the next 5 years? Immigration in that light will look insignificant.
If you stay home, you're saying that you don't care if Iran wipes Israel off the map and causes a gas crisis. Once they go nuclear, they hold the keys to OPEC because they can threaten ships going through the Straits of Hormuz, where much of the world's oil goes through.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Saturday, April 15, 2006 11:59 AM
No comments.
TEHRAN THIS WEEK claimed that it had enriched uranium, a first step toward nuclear weapons capability. The question now is whether the Bush administration has learned from its mistakes in Iraq, or will it set our nation on a road that leads to military confrontation with Iran? No one concerned about U.S. national security wants Iran to obtain a nuclear weapons capability. It would be a destabilizing force in the Middle East and throughout the world. That's exactly why we need strong American leadership, working toward a verifiable diplomatic solution.The biggest mistake we could make is in not considering a military option. Sen. Feinstein essentially kicked that option to the curb. Simply put, that's inexcusable. It's also why we can't trust Democrats with national security. Their pacifistic positions are dangerous, especially in light of the war that we're in.
"We need strong American leadership, working toward a verifiable diplomatic solution. That sounds lovely but that's hardly our best option. Is Sen. Feinstein so delusional to think that we can negotiate a treaty that will end Iran's nuclear ambitions? Hasn't she been paying attention the past year? What does she think they've been trying to do? And yet, Ahmadinejad announce this week the enrichment of uranium. If that's Feinstein's idea of a successful diplomatic negotiation, I don't want to see her definition of a disastrous diplomatic negotiation.
Football coaching legend Bill Walsh was once asked how he got his team to do what he wanted them to do. He said (I'm paraphrasing here.) "I start with the X's and O's and why things will work. If they still don't grasp the concept, I get the team together and run a play. If they still don't get it after seeing the proof, then I just get out the billyclub and pound it into their heads." I'd say that we've finished the X's and O's and running the play stages. It's time to beat it into Iran's head that they won't have nuclear weapons, especially if they continue threatening Israel.
As a matter of physics, there is no missile casing sufficiently strong to thrust deep enough into concrete or granite to prevent the spewing of radiation. Nuclear "bunker busters" would kill tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people across the Middle East. This would be a disastrous tragedy. First use of nuclear weapons by the United States should be unthinkable. A preemptive nuclear attack violates a central tenet of the "just war" and U.S. military traditions.Get a grip, Sen. Feinstein. The only person who's talked about nuclear weapons as a military option in Iran is Seymour Hersh. Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney has talked about 28,000 lb. bunker busting conventional bombs that would do the job of setting their nuclear program back 3-5 years. That's a far more intelligent way of dealing militarily with Iran's nukes.
In Sen. Feinstein's world, threatening the use of force is the opposite of negotiating. In Sen. Feinstein's world threatening the use of force is something that only a bully would do so it has no place in diplomacy. Doesn't she remember that the reason why the USSR caved during the Cuban Missile Crisis was because JFK threatened the Soviets with nuclear destruction? The USSR didn't cave because we conducted single-track negotiations. We shouldn't conduct single-track negotiations with Iran either.
President Reagan was the most successful negotiator in my lifetime. His motto was that you negotiated from a position of strength. Because he did, the USSR ceased to exist.
Conservatives, if you're thinking about staying home this November because you hate the GOP position on illegal immigration, think twice. Immigration is important but how important is it if Iran develops ICBM nuclear capability in the next 5 years? Immigration in that light will look insignificant.
If you stay home, you're saying that you don't care if Iran wipes Israel off the map and causes a gas crisis. Once they go nuclear, they hold the keys to OPEC because they can threaten ships going through the Straits of Hormuz, where much of the world's oil goes through.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Saturday, April 15, 2006 11:59 AM
No comments.
