AHMADINEJAD IS NO HITLER
Fareed Zakaria has a remarkably sensible column denouncing the current hysteria over Iran.
He points out that Ahmandinejad, unlike Hitler in Germany, is not in complete control of his country. As a theocracy, it's really ruled by the mullahs. He contrasts U.S. resources with those of Iran -- its military budget is 1% of ours, and our defense outlay is double the entire Iranian GDP. He portrays the Iranian president as a swaggerer (like his American counterpart) who is greatly enjoying his 15 minutes of fame, compliments of the Bush administration, which he has won by simply goading the U.S.
Read the whole thing. It's a marvel of sanity in this new rage of fearmongering. And if there's any 1938 "appeasement" going on, it's by those who fail to understand that the greater threat to the U.S. is an internal one.
Can everyone please take a deep breath?
...
Iran is run by a nasty regime that destabilizes an important part of the world, frustrates American and Western interests, and causes problems for allies like Israel. But let's get some perspective. The United States is far more powerful than Iran. And, on the issue of Tehran's nuclear program, Washington is supported by most of the world's other major powers. As long as the alliance is patient, united and smart—and keeps the focus on Tehran's actions not Washington's bellicosity—the odds favor America. Ahmadinejad presides over a country where more than 40 percent of the population lives under the poverty line; his authority is contested, and Iran's neighbors are increasingly worried and have begun acting to counter its influence. If we could contain the Soviet Union, we can contain Iran. Look at your calendar: it's 2006, not 1938.
posted by Motherlode at 6:51 AM
1 Comments:
Whaddya mean "we"? It was Reagan and Thatcher who finished off the Soviet Union - not the liberals. You may recall "tear down this wall!". Iran is well-known as a promoter/financier of terrorism. Don't you think we have enough problems with terror as it is currently being manifested without unhindered help from a terrorist nation? Isn't the world having enough trouble with homemade bombs small enough to fit in a shoe without giveing them a nuke? Do you not believe that Iran is on track to develop one? Do you think they won't use it? Do you think they're kidding or bluffing? The United States was more powerful than Nazi Germany when Hitler began his rise - and a more than a bit of a challenge once he was allowed to flourish unfettered for years. Is that what you want from Iran? Or North Korea? Or Venezuela? Are you in favor of waiting until they are fully armed before taking action to limit them? Would that be your approach if a violent gang moved next to your home? Your same comments could could have been applied in 1938 by pooh-poohing the threat and stating that it wasn't 1916.
Post a Comment
<< Home