Monday, July 17, 2006

Do we encourage our enemies?

Hat tip to Cox and Forkum for the cartoon. You can read their related commentary and links HERE. Here is one of their excerpts, from Robert Tracinski's The War Comes to Us:

If, in the face of repeated threats and provocation by an aggressive dictatorship, you refuse to go to war, the war will eventually come to you.

That's the meaning of Iran's de facto declaration of war against Israel--which is, ultimately, a new war Iran is waging against the US. Iran is so desperate for war with the West that it is bringing the war to us, openly and willfully initiating a regional conflict that may soon involve three of Iran's proxies--Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria--fighting against America's proxy, Israel.

The danger for us is that, in seeking to avoid an unavoidable war with Iran, we have allowed Iran to start the conflict on terms that it believes will be most favorable to it...

Bold emphasis mine. Does anyone still think this is just going to go away if we just use "restraint"? Restraint has gotten us nothing but repeated attacks for decades. Do we have to wait for Iran to get the bomb, and use it gainst us, before we even wake up to reality?

Is it even possible that someone like Russia has already sold them the bomb? Is this a trap, to start a nuclear war? Sure that sounds nutty, but so do the statements made by the Iranian President. If they have nukes, that might be cause for restraint, but there is no easy way out of that either; the situation is not likely to get better by ignoring it. That's how we got where we are today.

Hat tip to Cox and Forkum for the cartoon. You can read their related commentary and links HERE. Here is one of their excerpts, from Yaron Brook: World Leaders Encourage Hezbollah and Hamas:

"The worldwide condemnation of Israel's retaliation against Lebanon is morally obscene," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "The calls effectively demand that the innocent victim be sacrificed to the aggressor."

"Instead of excoriating Hezbollah and helping Israel to annihilate it, President Bush and other leaders urged that the victim, Israel, not cause 'excessive' damage to the aggressor--and begged that no harm come to Lebanon's terrorist-supporting government. Were Israel to follow such calls, it would have to leave in place the terrorist leadership and infrastructure that works to abduct, blow up and slaughter Israelis.

"The obscene premise governing so many of the West's leaders is the belief that we have no moral right to defend ourselves against the forces of Islamist barbarism.

"All of this can serve only to encourage Islamic totalitarian groups to intensify their war on Israel--and the West."

(bold emphasis mine) Duuh. We are far too good at encouraging the enemy. Shouldn't that be obvious? You can bet it's obvious to THEM.

Related Links:

From Nealz Nuze:

...It's been said that this World War, sometimes called the War On Terror, has an enemy that is difficult to define. Nothing could be further from the truth. We know who the enemy is in this world war: it is the savages who practice radical Islam. We know exactly who they are and we know exactly where to find them: Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza strip. Let's also be sure to mention the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia and a good number of professors in American colleges and universities. This isn't rocket's never been more clear exactly who the enemy is and where to find them.

So what should we do? It's time for the United States, Israel and whoever else values freedom and our way of life to eliminate radical Islam once and for all. The time to speak of toleration, negotiations and appeasement is past. Israel tried this route, and we clearly see what it bought them. Nothing but misery and death at the hands of the wonderful, peaceful religion of Islam...

...Inside Israel we have leftists marching and demanding an end to Israel's military moves. The appeasement left is pulling out the same mantras perfected by the left in this country. They're detailing the deaths of women and children, and calling for even more negotiations. Never mind that the negotiating has been going on for more than 50 years. Any rational observer can quickly see that the radical Islamist position on negotiations is that you negotiate to buy time, you kill to take the advantage...

From Tammy Bruce:

STRATFOR Lays Out the War's Current Big Picture
Courtesy of David Horowitz's blog, here is a link to a Strategic Forecasting comprehensive analysis of the situation in the Middle East. One of your Must Reads for the morning...

Annan & Blair on Protecting Hezbollah
...Why anyone would want to stop the crushing of an armed Islamist terrorist group is beyond me. The only time Israel should stop its attacks on Hez is when that enemy of civilized people everywhere has been destroyed.

And what planet is Kofi Annan on? He thinks there is going to be a "ceasing of hostilities?" Terrorists never cease and Israel has been under regular attack for over 50 years. What a plan like this means is that Israel, and only Israel, is stopped from defending herself.

And who, really, are we kidding? A UN force deployed at a border where there's actual shooting as opposed to just sex-for-food? Last time the UN experienced the horrors of an Islamist attack they ran away. Just ask the people of Iraq.

(bold emphasis mine) HA! Tammy does not mince words.


1 comment:

Walker said...

Scares the crap out of me.

But, you know, I don't think we can go to war if one of the requirements on our side is that none of our guys die and we don't kill any civilians on their side.