Yep.
History doesn’t teach that waiting for humans to ascend to some moral plane that the Obamas of the world think they inhabit is a good way to grapple with danger. Obama has bet our future on the notion that the Iranians will cast aside their religious fanaticism and, with it, the nuclear weapons that he has permitted them to have. That won’t happen. Like George W. Bush before him, Obama thinks others want the same things we want. They don’t.
By failing to take forceful action against Iran – yes, even through war as a last resort – to prevent the Mullahbomb, Obama has placed future generations of Americans in mortal danger. These fanatics will build their weapons, and their missiles, and one day either use them or give them to someone else who will. Feel-good moments in Hiroshima notwithstanding.
Or the other possibility: As Iran is coaxed into the international mainstream, it’s citizens could decide they would the country spend its wealth on cell phones and improve sanitation rather than building an expensive nuclear bomb and an expensive delivery system. Consumerism and the market economy have been known to transform hearts, minds and government policy.
There’s a balance to be struck between naivete and paranoia. I hope your post survives 30 years to see if we’re still in “mortal danger,” or if the percentage of the world’s population that dies in acts of war remains at its historic low. I’m betting on the latter.
Northern:
One could also posit that the paranoia and aggression of the cheney/bush regime put us in this situation. gwb is the poster child for dangerous naivete.
Jimmy Carter played this naivete game and lost.
My bet is: we will see the diasaterous consequences of Obama for many years to come…especially on Iran.
kevin:
Just was we are still dealing with the disaster that cheney/bush created in Iraq.
kevin:
Sorry, that should read, “Just like we are still dealing with the disaster that cheney/bush created in Iraq”. My apologies.