The toughest little flashlight you'll ever buy for two bucks!
100,000 hour, super bright LED torch is perfect for camping,
travel or home emergency kits.
http://pd.gophercentral.com/u/14385/c/186/a/541
------------------------------------------------------------
THE CONSERVATIVE REVIEW - August 31, 2010
Prelude to Appeasement
by: Tony Blankley
Neoconservatives, Reaganites and other militarily assertive
factions in the United States are sometimes accused of
thinking it is always 1938 (Britain's appeasement of Hitler
at Munich) -- that there is always a Hitler-like aggressor
being appeased and about to drag the world into conflict.
There is sometimes merit in that charge.
As, likewise, is there sometimes merit in the charge
against isolations and other doves that they always see
1914 (start of WWI) or 1964 (beginning of escalation of
troops in Vietnam) -- the imminent and foolish entry into
or escalation of a war that can't be won -- or even if
victory were to be gained, it would be Pyrrhic.
Knowledge of history can be as much a snare as a guide --
if it is wrapped in a dogma that distorts the current
facts to match the preferred historic lesson.
Our actions -- if any -- in the Iranian nuclear weapons
development controversy cry out to be based on a careful
assessment of facts -- and a heartless rooting out of
assumptions, hidden or otherwise, that may be driving
policy.
Those who are or will be calling for U.S. military action
to damage and delay Iran's ability to develop operational
nuclear weapons -- that is those for whom it is now 1938
-- make a number of assumptions: 1) The Iranian regime
intends to develop nuclear weapons; 2) once it has them,
being fanatics, they may actually use them against Israel,
as they have repeatedly threatened; 3) even if they doesn't
use them, it will change the dynamics of the Middle East
by inducing a nuclear arms race between Sunni Muslim
countries and Iran, and by giving Iran a huge capacity to
intimidate and dominate the region; 4) both Europe and
the United States will eventually fall within the missile
shadow of a nuclear Iran -- thus giving Iran capacity to
be a world player and possible precipitator of nuclear war
even beyond the Middle East; 5) the regime is inherently
hostile and aggressive, particularly against the U.S. and
Israel, and will keep pushing until pushed back; and 6)
even tough sanctions will not deter Iran -- moreover,
Russia is too invested in Iran to truly cooperate with us,
and even Europe will not enforce tough sanctions.
The 1938'ers further believe -- or claim to believe -- that
while Iran can create havoc in response to our military
action (threaten oil transport out of the Gulf, terrorist
attacks in the Middle East, Europe and probably the United
States, further harm to our efforts in Iraq and Afghani-
stan), they would be even more dangerous -- and just as
ill intentioned -- if nuclear armed. And they make the
factual assumption that the threat will emerge sooner
rather than later. John Bolton warned last week that we
have only days.
The Obama administration, on the other hand, holds vastly
different assumptions: 1) Iran may actually not want
nuclear weapons. 2) If they do want them, Russia will help
us stop them. 3) If we settle the Israeli/Palestinian
dispute that will reduce any nuclear aspirations Iran may
have. 4) If we were to attack Iran, Iran could create more
chaos than we can manage. 5) But if Iran did develop their
nuclear weapons, we can deter their use by providing a
nuclear umbrella for both Arab and Israeli.
And, factually, they assume the danger is off by at least a
year -- and that Iran is running into technical problems.
Of course, predicting when Iran reaches its nuclear thres-
hold is usually driven by policy goals. The CIA in 2007 --
which did not want war -- actually concluded that Iran had
given up its objectives. Now they technically claim we have
a year.
Back in 1938, British Prime Minster Neville Chamberlain
could have gone down in history as the greatest diplomat
of the 20th century -- IF he had been right that Herr
Hitler had limited ambitions that could be appeased. There
is nothing wrong with appeasement if the aggressor can be
appeased at acceptable costs. But as we know, Hitler could
not be appeased -- he had to be defeated.
So the question today is not whether to appease Iran or not
-- but whether Iran is appeasable. And if not appeasable,
whether its threat can be defeated with acceptable costs.
Those are factual questions -- although all the facts
cannot be known before the event.
For me, having observed the Iranian regime, as we all have,
I find the Obama administration's factual assumptions to
be mostly wishful thinking, at best. Although, the almost
certainty of Iran's terrorist response to a military attack
by the United States is a factor to sober the mind and
hesitate the hand. Nonetheless, the grim assessment of the
1938'ers seems sadly more realistic.
------------------------------------------------------------
YOUR VIDEO SNACK BAR
Top Viewed Videos...
1. Celebrities: Before and After Make-Up
http://c.gophercentral.com/jP4l
2. Alfred Hitchcock Montage
http://c.gophercentral.com/SHLM
3. Amos N´ Andy - In the IRS Office
http://c.gophercentral.com/i5LV
4. Myths about alcohol you may not know
http://c.gophercentral.com/DWlI
5. The D-Day Invasion
http://c.gophercentral.com/YZIx
6. Parrot Talk
http://c.gophercentral.com/cWrW
------------------------------------------------------------
Follow Your Favorite GopherCentral Publications on Twitter:
http://www.gophertweets.com/ More Coming Soon!
------------------------------------------------------------