Monday, March 12, 2007

Democrats back off again, this time over Iran.

Israel's lobby in the halls of Congress scares Democrats into capitulating on their attempt to limit President Bush's authority for taking military action against Iran. Conservative Democrats led the way away from the measure, as they were concerned about the possible impact on Israel. What's all the fuss! We lived in a world where a strategy called M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) helped keep things peaceful with the former Soviet Union. The same strategy should and can be applied to Iran. If Iran wants to use its oil revenues to build bombs instead of it solving its social and economic problems for its people, they have the right. I'm no friend of the mullahs in Iran, nor their government, but I do empathize with the average Iranian. Cool down the rhetoric please and take some meaningful actions to limit this President's authority.

There's too much blustering and posturing about war, when we should be discussing peace. Come on Democrats, get on one page here, as you look spineless and comical in all the about-faces you have taken since November. You were more together as a party before you won the majority. Get your act together.

To read the story click here.


Blogger Wmusick427 said...

This does not sound centrist at all.
Now, do not take me for a fool, for I believe Iran has already produced nuclear weapons capable of use by terrorists in the form of backpack bombs. In a game of cards, why would you reveal your ace until forced to? I digress.
To respond to your comments regarding the solution you suggest, yet not to get involved in partisan debate for I really believe myself a centrist, but it seems like you are attempting to bypass the issue by relating two unequal concepts in the nuclear capabilities of the Soviet Union to the possible nuclear capabilities of Iran. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, it would be nothing like the cold war. Terrorist cells penetrate the furthest reaches of the globe with capabilities far beyond the communist spies. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, they would hold the region in terror creating more tension between Israel and Palestine; an Arab rebellion against the great Israeli power would be more feasible with the power of nuclear weapons behind them. We all know Iran is unafraid to “lend” weapons to those wishing to cause chaos. Covert terrorist attack displaying nuclear weapons, impossible to attributable to a single nation, would create the clash of civilizations Huntington so vividly describes. We may be able to say the weapon came from Iran, but the U.S. will still be forced to enter into the conflict.
By empowering the people of Iran in allowing them to acquire nuclear weapons, you create a refugee camp for terrorist to base their operations. This is not to discredit the growing cultural advancements in Iran because they are increasingly adopting western ideals. However, Hezbollah would be able to base their operations with the protection of a nuclear deterrent. In addition, as in Iraq, where the borders of Iraq were unsecured, thousands of people with plans to terrorize would flood the country to use its nuclear weapon as protection.
The difference between Iran having a functional nuclear weapon is drastically different from the Soviet Union because the Soviet Union used conventional warfare and focused their energies on military targets rather than civilians save against their own people. Honestly, I agree that we should be focused on peace but appeasement is not the right course of action. It sounds simple to say, "Just let them get it and it will be fine!" This easy way out, as in most cases, should not be acceptable.
Bill Musick
Political Science Undergraduate, 2007
Missouri State University

10:14 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Technorati Profile