When questioned by Charles Krauthammer of Fox News about Iran's effort to obtain nuclear weapons, then presidential candidate, Ron Paul, said that he would not use military force to prevent it. He supported his position by saying that Russia and China have had nuclear weapons for many years, yet we never stopped talking or trading with them. Therefore, he reasoned, Iran should be treated no differently. This is a dangerous, and very naïve position. Yet, neither Krauthammer, nor anyone else on the panel, put forth a reasoned argument against it.
England, France, India, North Korea, Israel, and Pakistan also have the bomb. However, none of them are ruled by Islamic extremists who believe that all non-Muslims are unworthy of salvation, that the Mahdi (their messiah) can only return to an earth cleansed of all infidels. Thus, if they cannot convert us to Islam we must be killed, and the extremist elements among them are willing to martyr themselves to accomplish it.
Indeed, they are promised Allah’s absolution for them and their families, and life in a paradise of 72 mansions, each with its own virgin. Should a fanatical enemy with this twisted mindset attain nuclear weapons, would it not be wise to assume they would use them?
Iran is on the verge of attaining such weapons, and its President, Ahmadinejad, sees himself as the chosen facilitator of the Mahdi’s return. He has also stated that the Holocaust never happened, and that Israel must be
driven into the sea. Can any U.S. President assume that he, and the Ayatollahs behind him, will suddenly become rational, responsible human beings after they possess the one weapon that can make their dreams of an all Islamic world a reality?
Terrorists are products of radical Islam, who kill on order without conscience, or mercy. They cannot be reasoned, or negotiated with; which they see as a weakness of the decadent West. The only thing they respect is power, and they would respect ours if they thought we had the will to use it. Unfortunately, our actions (or inactions) lead them to think otherwise.
Providing them the protection of our laws is a foolish precedent to set. It reinforces their belief that we are weak, and emboldens them to strike us harder and more often. They are not battlefield soldiers fighting to protect their country, but vicious killers who cowardly target innocent civilians, and use women and children as human
shields. When captured they should be treated as war criminals, thoroughly interrogated, and incarcerated for the duration of the war—as has historically been done.
Diplomacy, empty threats, and economic sanctions are all exercises in futility when dealing with people whose earthly lives mean nothing to them. Appeasement of the enemy has never, any time in history, resulted in anything but disaster for the appeasers.
England, France, India, North Korea, Israel, and Pakistan also have the bomb. However, none of them are ruled by Islamic extremists who believe that all non-Muslims are unworthy of salvation, that the Mahdi (their messiah) can only return to an earth cleansed of all infidels. Thus, if they cannot convert us to Islam we must be killed, and the extremist elements among them are willing to martyr themselves to accomplish it.
Indeed, they are promised Allah’s absolution for them and their families, and life in a paradise of 72 mansions, each with its own virgin. Should a fanatical enemy with this twisted mindset attain nuclear weapons, would it not be wise to assume they would use them?
Iran is on the verge of attaining such weapons, and its President, Ahmadinejad, sees himself as the chosen facilitator of the Mahdi’s return. He has also stated that the Holocaust never happened, and that Israel must be
driven into the sea. Can any U.S. President assume that he, and the Ayatollahs behind him, will suddenly become rational, responsible human beings after they possess the one weapon that can make their dreams of an all Islamic world a reality?
Terrorists are products of radical Islam, who kill on order without conscience, or mercy. They cannot be reasoned, or negotiated with; which they see as a weakness of the decadent West. The only thing they respect is power, and they would respect ours if they thought we had the will to use it. Unfortunately, our actions (or inactions) lead them to think otherwise.
Providing them the protection of our laws is a foolish precedent to set. It reinforces their belief that we are weak, and emboldens them to strike us harder and more often. They are not battlefield soldiers fighting to protect their country, but vicious killers who cowardly target innocent civilians, and use women and children as human
shields. When captured they should be treated as war criminals, thoroughly interrogated, and incarcerated for the duration of the war—as has historically been done.
Diplomacy, empty threats, and economic sanctions are all exercises in futility when dealing with people whose earthly lives mean nothing to them. Appeasement of the enemy has never, any time in history, resulted in anything but disaster for the appeasers.
RSS Feed