Many on the Left argue that it was wrong to attack Saddam - despite his obvious violations of 17 UNSCR's - because he was "contained".
And many of these same people now argue that we can contain a nuclear-armed Iran, too.
They use the containment of the USSR as the foundation of their argument, saying - in effect - that "if we could contain the USSR, then we could've continued to contain Saddam"; and therefore, the war was unnecessary, and unnecessarily upset the Islamic world (creating new jihadis where there might have been none) and diverting our resources away from al Qaeda."
This argument is deeply and entirely flawed.
First, the USSR was never contained. From 1945-1980 Soviet hegemony grew in geographical and demographical domination every single year; in fact, until Reagan, many analysts thought that the Soviet system was proving itself better than the free market.
REAGAN PROVED THEM WRONG, and systematically began the assertive pushback which culminated in the end of the USSR and the liberation of nearly a billion people living under Marxism, (more if one includes China - no longer a Marxist nation during Reagan's time in office). Reagan also revitalized the USA economy - proving that a free market is more efficient and creates more propserity than a centrally directed market.
Reagan did this in a few ways: by ramping up the defense budget to levels the Soviet economy could not sustain, and by preventing the Soviet Union from gobbling up any more nations/economies - in order to use their asset to pay off their debt - (as a mismanaged conglomerate might). Reagan did this by challenging the Soviets in Afghanistan and Granada and Nicaragua and elsewhere. It worked; they caved.
Saddam was contained about as well as we contained the USSR - which is to say, he not very well contained at all. He actively and openly supported Jihadoterrorism in Gaza and the West Bank. He gave shelter to al Qaeda leadership - even publicly offering it to Bin Laden. He shot at US military forces nearly everyday - an act of war. And he committed genocide and torture against millions of Iraqis. And he devasted the marshes. His presence required that we keep troops in Saudi Arabia (to enforce The Carter Doctrine) - a major recruiting tool of al Qaeda, which wanted us out of the Kingdom. And he had completely corrupted the Oil For Food Program. He was in flagrant violation of the Armistice which ended the 1991 Gulf War - his secret missle program, and the 700 sarin and mustard gas shells found there since 2003 prove this beyond any reasonable doubt. Violating an armistice is a casus belli.
In other words, the status quo was not as good as the containment crowd wants you to believe.
Now this crowd wants you to believe that we can contain a nuclear Iran. As if we HAD contained the USSR and Saddam. As if we COULD contain a theocratic tyranny which has direct ties to the worst terrorist organizations in the world, especially to Hizballah - which, until 9/11, had killed more US citizens than any other tterrorist group in the world.
Iran cannot be deterred by M.A.D. - because they love their martial creed more than they love life - and they cannot be prevented from giving their nukes to jihadoterrorist cells anywhere in the world. (BTW: THIS IS A THREAT SADDAM USED IN 1990 - TO TRY TO DETER A US RETALIATION FOR HIS INVASION OF KUWAIT.)
Therefore, arguing that we can contain a nuclear Iran is delusional on every level. It undeservedly aggrandizes containment, and it undeservedly credits Iran with a sense of self-preservation. The mullahs are only interested in the supremacy of their brand of Islam, not in the survival of Iran - or any other part of the world.
That's why we must preemptively neutralize the Iranian nuclear threat - BEFORE it fully matures. When it has fully matured, it will be too late.
That's why I hope Bush doesn't waste too much more time with the UN. Chirac has effectively vetoed sanctions (nevermind war), so there is little the UNSC can really do.
We must ACT. If the USA doesn't act in time, the whole world will suffer for generations to come.
And many of these same people now argue that we can contain a nuclear-armed Iran, too.
They use the containment of the USSR as the foundation of their argument, saying - in effect - that "if we could contain the USSR, then we could've continued to contain Saddam"; and therefore, the war was unnecessary, and unnecessarily upset the Islamic world (creating new jihadis where there might have been none) and diverting our resources away from al Qaeda."
This argument is deeply and entirely flawed.
First, the USSR was never contained. From 1945-1980 Soviet hegemony grew in geographical and demographical domination every single year; in fact, until Reagan, many analysts thought that the Soviet system was proving itself better than the free market.
REAGAN PROVED THEM WRONG, and systematically began the assertive pushback which culminated in the end of the USSR and the liberation of nearly a billion people living under Marxism, (more if one includes China - no longer a Marxist nation during Reagan's time in office). Reagan also revitalized the USA economy - proving that a free market is more efficient and creates more propserity than a centrally directed market.
Reagan did this in a few ways: by ramping up the defense budget to levels the Soviet economy could not sustain, and by preventing the Soviet Union from gobbling up any more nations/economies - in order to use their asset to pay off their debt - (as a mismanaged conglomerate might). Reagan did this by challenging the Soviets in Afghanistan and Granada and Nicaragua and elsewhere. It worked; they caved.
Saddam was contained about as well as we contained the USSR - which is to say, he not very well contained at all. He actively and openly supported Jihadoterrorism in Gaza and the West Bank. He gave shelter to al Qaeda leadership - even publicly offering it to Bin Laden. He shot at US military forces nearly everyday - an act of war. And he committed genocide and torture against millions of Iraqis. And he devasted the marshes. His presence required that we keep troops in Saudi Arabia (to enforce The Carter Doctrine) - a major recruiting tool of al Qaeda, which wanted us out of the Kingdom. And he had completely corrupted the Oil For Food Program. He was in flagrant violation of the Armistice which ended the 1991 Gulf War - his secret missle program, and the 700 sarin and mustard gas shells found there since 2003 prove this beyond any reasonable doubt. Violating an armistice is a casus belli.
In other words, the status quo was not as good as the containment crowd wants you to believe.
Now this crowd wants you to believe that we can contain a nuclear Iran. As if we HAD contained the USSR and Saddam. As if we COULD contain a theocratic tyranny which has direct ties to the worst terrorist organizations in the world, especially to Hizballah - which, until 9/11, had killed more US citizens than any other tterrorist group in the world.
Iran cannot be deterred by M.A.D. - because they love their martial creed more than they love life - and they cannot be prevented from giving their nukes to jihadoterrorist cells anywhere in the world. (BTW: THIS IS A THREAT SADDAM USED IN 1990 - TO TRY TO DETER A US RETALIATION FOR HIS INVASION OF KUWAIT.)
Therefore, arguing that we can contain a nuclear Iran is delusional on every level. It undeservedly aggrandizes containment, and it undeservedly credits Iran with a sense of self-preservation. The mullahs are only interested in the supremacy of their brand of Islam, not in the survival of Iran - or any other part of the world.
That's why we must preemptively neutralize the Iranian nuclear threat - BEFORE it fully matures. When it has fully matured, it will be too late.
That's why I hope Bush doesn't waste too much more time with the UN. Chirac has effectively vetoed sanctions (nevermind war), so there is little the UNSC can really do.
We must ACT. If the USA doesn't act in time, the whole world will suffer for generations to come.
3 comments:
"First, the USSR was never contained. From 1945-1980 Soviet hegemony grew in geographical and demographical domination every single year; in fact, until Reagan, many analysts thought that the Soviet system was proving itself better than the free market."
PLEASE NAME 1 OR MORE OF THESE ANALYSTS (remember they must be sane or they dont count)
peter: i lived throu it all - the sone of card-csarrying commies.
(1) when reagan called the ussr the evil empire the leftyies wined that HE was a bellicoe fool - BECASUE THEY DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THE USSR WAS EVIL. nope, to them eslaving 500 millionj people and slaughtering 50million wasn;t realy that bad; after all, soviet citizens had healthcare and welfare and education and... BS!
(2) the entire unilateral disarmament movement was based on seeing the ussr as benign.
(3) VDH: (from a link above you didn;t even have the honsty to read before questioning me - you ass!):
"By 1980 containment had become détente, which in turn had evolved in the post-Vietnam period into a depressing acceptance that the Soviet Union was simply too powerful ever to be dismantled or perhaps even to be successfully opposed. We would only bankrupt ourselves if we tried, so the conventional wisdom went. The thesis of Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" - not victory over a corrupt and murderous superpower - would later sum up the prevailing judgment of the 1980s about the ‘folly’ of our arms buildup.
In some places a new naiveté had grown up to suggest that somehow Leonid Brezhnev’s autocracy was not all that much different from European-style socialism. In an era of large European communist parties, few had remembered the premier’s 1973 boast in Prague that through détente, rather than military confrontation, lay the Soviet’s best chance to defeat America. Thus later when hundreds of thousands of Europeans went into the street to protest American deployment of Pershing missiles to protect them from even more deadly Soviet counterparts, and when “Gorbymania” swept the continent, Reagan stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate, and shouted in June 1987: “Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” No Europeans - and few Americans - would ever have done so much on behalf of Germany. Reagan knew how to sound noble and somber when saying very radical things—the antithesis to a Gore or a Dean who now sound radical and unhinged when saying something silly or trite."
(4) John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006)
from an article written by Alex Singleton
Sunday, 30 April 2006
"Partly, the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast to the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower." - John Kenneth Galbraith writing in The New Yorker in 1984
http://www.globalisationinstitute.org/blog/announcements/john-kenneth-galbraith-%281908%112006%29-20060430677/
PETER: U ARE AN ASS AND/OR A DUPE OF THE LEFT. U DECIDE.
folks like jkgalbraith praised the ussr for decades before Reagan. the ussr has no shortage of apologists.
sheesh. u r a fool.
wise up.
btw peter: right now, the world is filled with similar apologists for chavez and fidel and che.
open your eyes; the truth will set you free!
Post a Comment