The hard left in America needs to realize a bald, cruel fact: Anyone who sees no moral distinction between Israel and the mullahs of Iran, or sees the U.S. attempt to set up a constitutional republic in Iraq as equivalent to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, suffers from incurable moral cretinism. The more the fervent anti-war base embraces these ideas, the more they ensure that no one will trust the left with national security. Ever.
Will they learn the lesson? Even money says Sheehan will be sitting in the Michael Moore seat next to Jimmy Carter at the '08 Democratic convention.
That last part sounds familiar.
7 comments:
don't you just love Lileks? His views on the world are pretty interesting.
fj
Israel refuses to join the Nuclear Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty despite having a nuclear arsenal.
Iran is a signer to the Treaty, and probably is trying to become a nuclear power.
The situations are different, but I do believe it would be difficult to explain "why it's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons, but not iran' without being hypocritical. Which is probably why Lileks just mouths off instead of trying to explain.
The Syrian occupation of Lebanon is a different situation in most all ways than the US occupation of Iraq (Mainly that Syria entered Lebanon in the wake of the Israel pullout from intervening in a civil war - and Syria stayed much longer than was needed; we started a war in Iraq to execute a botched attempt at regime change and nation building).
But the question of when and why it's OK to send uninvited troops into a sovereign nation and when it's not is also a difficult question to answer for those who supported the invasion of Iraq.
Why is it ok for Israel to have nukes while it is not such a good idea to have a nuclear Iran? Is that the question?
1948, 1967 & 1973, Quite simple isn't it.
The moral relativism that seems to occupy much of the left in this country is staggering.
On one hand we have the terrorist in Iraq and Afghanistan intentionally bombing women and children, videotaping the beheading of just about anyone who doesn't agree with their take on Jihad and dragging the burning bodies of western contractors through the streets and hanging their corpses from a bridge in Fallujah.
On the other hand we have Abu-grab, where a few soldiers acted outside the law and were punished. Even the very rare case where a soldier murdered a detained terrorist, that soldier will be spending the foreseeable future from inside Leavenworth prison.
It reminds me of the Sesame Street song, one of these things is not like the other...
Syria is the same as the America, Israel is the same as Iran, Hezbollah is just a political party. When you look at both sides and can’t see any difference, you should look at the ideals and goals of each nation/group.
America wants freedom and democracy around the world.
Iran wants the world to be subjugated to Sharia law and Jihad.
Israel wants to live in peace with its neighbors.
Hezbollah wants to rid the world of Jews.
If I have to pick between subjugations, I’ll take freedom and democracy thanks.
Your point seems to be that Israel might need to use some nukes some day, or that the nukes are a deterrent against conventional attacks.
If the first, I suppose we disagree on the morality of using tactical nuclear weapons.
If the second, why doesn't israel declare their nukes and sign onto the NNP treaty?
I'm not understanding your point about moral relativism: indeed, arguing it's moral for israel to possess undeclared nukes but not Iran is the epitome of relativism.
I'm saying Israel ought to disarm and Iran ought not pursue nuclear weapons.
Anyway, why doesn't israel declare their nukes, do you figure?
Eric, the argument over the morality of using nuclear weapons is a shaky at best.
Let's look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the casualties of both attacks is between 120,000- 200,000 dead initially and over time from radiation. Now look at the conventional bombing of Tokyo and its surrounding areas. The incendiary bombing of Tokyo caused between 100,000 to 200,000 deaths.
What if Hitler had acquired the atomic bomb first? He would have used them to attain his ultimate goal, the subjugation of the entire world. It is very conceivable that he would have nuked all major cities in Brittan, America, the Soviet Union and anyone else who did not immediately surrender to the Nazis. A nuclear weapon, just like any weapon, is not good or bad in and of itself. It is the intent of the person or State using the weapon.
A nuclear Israel has kept their neighbors from launching a convention attack on them for 30 years. If you sit with back to the sea, surrounded by hostile nations that have attacked you on numerous occasions, you would want to have tactical nukes.
As for the NNP treaty, India, Pakistan and Israel are not going to sign a treaty that does not let them keep their nukes. If Iran is allowed to develop nuclear capabilities, I am sure they would not sign either.
As for the relativism of Israel vs. Iran, go back to my point on the ultimate goal of each nation's leadership. Case closed.
Eric, why should a nation that is one of the top supporters and exporters of global terrorism be allowed to acquire the means to attain its ultimate goal?
"Eric, why should a nation that is one of the top supporters and exporters of global terrorism be allowed to acquire the means to attain its ultimate goal?"
I didn't change my mind today. My answer is still, "I'm saying Israel ought to disarm and Iran ought not pursue nuclear weapons.
I just can't agree that a nuclear arsenal at all deters suicide bombers.
Post a Comment