Wednesday, September 19, 2012


"I certainly understand why the Israelis are concerned."

Iran's nuclear weapons program is a bit of a puzzler.  What I'm referring to is the left's response to it.  First they argued it wasn't happening, that Iran didn't want to build nuclear weapons.  Now they're arguing that the nuclear weapons they never were building are no threat.
Bob Schieffer on CBS' Face the Nation show recently said:
Tom Friedman, is a military showdown inevitable in this? I mean, I, just to be the devil's advocate, let me just say, we’ve coexisted with first the Soviet Union and now Russia for a long, long time, and they have nuclear weapons. What is the difference in Iran having a nuclear weapon and Russia having a nuclear weapon or China or Pakistan?
Now Friedman accurately points out that neither China, Pakistan, or Russia continually made speeches about how they're going to use these weapons to usher in a new golden age of religious change or said repeatedly how they'll nuke a nearby country.
But that's not really the point, in my opinion.  Yes, its bad for a country that keeps vowing they'll use nukes to have nukes, even if they have a tradition of making a lot of loud violent promises they don't follow through on.
The point is, I'd rather Russia, China, and Pakistan didn't have nukes either.  The fact that they haven't use them (so far) is no particular comfort.  I'd rather my next door neighbor didn't have a lion in their back yard, no matter how calm its been... so far.
I'd rather nobody had nuclear weapons, but if anyone has to have them, I'd rather only nations reliably in support of liberty, justice, and honor had them.  And if that's not possible, at the very least I'd rather no nation that is filled with radical religious zealots had them.  I mean, isn't that at least the minimum desire?
I thought all the left didn't want people to have nuclear weapons to begin with, that they wanted disarmament.  Now suddenly its not so bad?  When even Saudi Arabia would rather Iran not have nukes you know there's a problem with this country getting such a powerful weapon.
And its not just them using nukes on other countries officially.  Its that Iran is a major terrorist supporting, training, and harboring country.  They have ties with Hezbollah, which is basically an official state terrorist organization used to attack Israel and any of Iran's enemies, like Iraq.  What if these guys get even a little nuke?  Or just the radioactive material to make a dirty bomb?
This is the nightmare every nation has been worrying about for decades now, and Iran is almost there.  And Schieffer wants to argue that this is of no particular cause for alarm?
Its sad to me how the twisting, byzantine efforts of the relativist bring them to such absurd places.  The chain goes like this: We don't want the US involved in an attack on Iran, it would upset Muslims if we did, so we need to find a policy that lets us ignore Iran's nuclear weapons, so let's argue that nukes maybe aren't so bad after all.
This isn't a chain of logic, its more like what your 5 year old kid does to explain why its OK for him to have used a sawzall on your golf clubs.  Its a chain of excuses meant to get from point A to point B no matter how unrelated or reasonable that chain may be.  That's what happens when your intelligence isn't trained enough or you don't care enough to follow logic, integrity, and ethics; when only the end result matters.

No comments: