Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: mkjessup

People thought Hitler was a whacko fruitcake in his early speeches too, but he ended up shaking the world for a while.

Admen-a-jihad and his cronies are very dangerous and we should not fail to act against him.

10 posted on 02/03/2006 9:50:53 PM PST by rjp2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: rjp2005
People thought Hitler was a whacko fruitcake in his early speeches too, but he ended up shaking the world for a while. Admen-a-jihad and his cronies are very dangerous and we should not fail to act against him.

OK, your concerns are noted, and nowhere have I ever suggested that the United States should NOT act against the mullah-fascists in Tehran.

The fact is, America has a MORAL obligation to effect regime change in Iran, the sooner the better, because it was BECAUSE of American policy under the treasonous buffoon Jimmy Carter, that a solid U.S. ally (the Shah of Iran) was overthrown and replaced with the Assahollah Khomeini. Carter enabled that entire chain of events by his deliberate and insidious efforts to withdraw all support from the Shah. His justification in his self-righteous mind was that the Shah was not a very good friend of the "human rights" crowd that was shrieking about authoritarian U.S. allies where human rights were limited or restricted, but saying little to nothing about Communist states where human rights were essentially extinct. Carter has long been the butt-boy for any Communist dictator, and his behavior has long proven and validated that.

Carter and Carter alone screwed the pooch in the Middle East and it began with his failed Camp David Accord (and it DID fail, because it wasn't a "peace agreement", it was a contract to pay off Egypt not to attack Israel, and Egypt is one of the largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid in the Middle East and has been since before Sadat was assassinated. Carter's screw up was caused by his foolishly allowing personalities to replace principles in the scheme of negotiating peace between two hostile nations. By injecting himself into the process with Begin and Sadat (and we would see more of this later from Billigula's embrace of Arafat-rat), Carter created a flawed model of negotiation which depended upon the personal sincerity of the political leaders of the negotiating parties, INSTEAD of the professional skills of career negotiators who (prior to the egotistical Carter approach) would spend months and years hammering out details of a proposed agreement, the political leaders would quietly (and out of the public eye) approve, disapprove, or otherwise seek to modify the proposed agreement(s) based on their national interest. Once an agreement was acceptable to all parties, then and ONLY then would the political leaders announce that they had been successful, the usual fanfare would take place, and the papers would hopefully be worth the ink used to sign off on them.

But as the saying goes "alas I digress".

Getting back to that little runt who is the current mouthpiece for the Iranian mad mullahs, yes he is a threat to Israel and the peace of the world, but don't confuse his blabbering with Hitler, who was able to present his arguments regarding the rebuilding of Germany as little more than a nationalistic effort to achieve a better future for Germans. While it is true that Hitler had revealed his intentions for the Jews way back when he authored 'Mein Kampf', he was not continuously calling for the extermination of Jews, his public pronouncements were based on his perceived sense of "what is fair and right for Germany", Liebensraum, and all the rest of that. Hitler always intended to do away with the Jews, but he wasn't front and center every day like Ahmadinejad, calling for the Jews (Israel had of course not yet been re-established) to be wiped off the face of the Earth. Hitler let his subordinates handle that (Goebbels, et al).

The fact is, not everyone automatically consigned Hitler to the "whacko fruitcake" category because he was able to present himself as someone who could be "reasonable", and the best evidence for this is that the British PM Chamberlain bought into it and brought back his infamous "piece of paper" with promises of "peace in our time".

So in my view, Ahmadinejad couldn't carry Hitler's jock strap.

And as I wind up this early morning rant, I might add that Iran is nowhere near possessing the overall military capability that Nazi Germany did prior to the outbreak of hostilities in Europe in World War II. Iran has a whole lot of bluster, but it has very little infrastructure in the way of command and control and their political leadership is in a precarious position, even on a good day. The Iranian people, contrary to the claims of much of the global media, are NOT solidly behind Ahmadinejad and the mullahs who prop him up, they want freedom, and they have not enjoyed the spiraling back to the 9th century begun by the Assahollah and his fascist 'revolution' in 1979.

Is Iran a threat? Of course it is.

Did Carter, during his brief disasterous stewardship of U.S. foreign policy, essentially create that threat? Absolutely.

Are we morally obligated to correct that betrayal of a once-reliable U.S. ally and it's people?

If we have any honor at all, you better believe it.
15 posted on 02/04/2006 3:37:45 AM PST by mkjessup (When will the U.S. Justice Dept begin prosecutions for the blatant treason we see every day?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson