Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Morally Paralyzed
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


"Moral paralysis" is a term that has been used to describe the inaction of France, England and other European democracies in the 1930s, as they watched Hitler build up the military forces that he later used to attack them.

It is a term that may be painfully relevant to our own times.

Back in the 1930s, the governments of the democratic countries knew what Hitler was doing -- and they knew that they had enough military superiority at that point to stop his military buildup in its tracks. But they did nothing to stop him.

Instead, they turned to what is still the magic mantra today -- "negotiations."

No leader of a democratic nation was ever more popular than British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain -- wildly cheered in the House of Commons by opposition parties as well as his own -- when he returned from negotiations in Munich in 1938, waving an agreement and declaring that it meant "peace in our time."

We know now how short that time was. Less than a year later, World War II began in Europe and spread across the planet, killing tens of millions of people and reducing many cities to rubble in Europe and Asia.

Looking back after that war, Winston Churchill said, "There was never a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action." The earlier it was done, the less it would have cost.

At one point, Hitler could have been stopped in his tracks "without the firing of a single shot," Churchill said.

That point came in 1936 -- three years before World War II began -- when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, in violation of two international treaties.

At that point, France alone was so much more powerful than Germany that the German generals had secret orders to retreat immediately at the first sign of French intervention.

As Hitler himself confided, the Germans would have had to retreat "with our tail between our legs," because they did not yet have enough military force to put up even a token resistance.

Why did the French not act and spare themselves and the world the years of horror that Hitler's aggressions would bring? The French had the means but not the will.

"Moral paralysis" came from many things. The death of a million French soldiers in the First World War and disillusionment with the peace that followed cast a pall over a whole generation.

Pacifism became vogue among the intelligentsia and spread into educational institutions. As early as 1932, Winston Churchill said: "France, though armed to the teeth, is pacifist to the core."

It was morally paralyzed.

History may be interesting but it is the present and the future that pose the crucial question: Is America today the France of yesterday?

We know that Iran is moving swiftly toward nuclear weapons while the United Nations is moving slowly -- or not at all -- toward doing anything to stop them.

It is a sign of our irresponsible Utopianism that anyone would even expect the UN to do anything that would make any real difference.

Not only the history of the UN, but the history of the League of Nations before it, demonstrates again and again that going to such places is a way for weak-kneed leaders of democracies to look like they are doing something when in fact they are doing nothing.

The Iranian leaders are not going to stop unless they get stopped. And, like Hitler, they don't think we have the guts to stop them.

Incidentally, Hitler made some of the best anti-war statements of the 1930s. He knew that this was what the Western democracies wanted to hear -- and that it would keep them morally paralyzed while he continued building up his military machine to attack them.

Iranian leaders today make only the most token and transparent claims that they are building "peaceful" nuclear facilities -- in one of the biggest oil-producing countries in the world, which has no need for nuclear power to generate electricity.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and its international terrorist allies will be a worst threat than Hitler ever was. But, before that happens, the big question is: Are we France? Are we morally paralyzed, perhaps fatally?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Again Dr. Sowell, you have nailed it...
Leaders in both parties are too weak to take action against Iran. I know folks hate President Bush, but he had the moral courage to take on the Taliban and Al Quida. Perhaps the war on Iraq was a mistake, but we need to finish what we started.

C'mon,
we can trust the liberals. If they say we can sweet talk the terrorists, surely we can believe them. If they say fire can't melt steel, surely they know what they're talking about. If they say we can't win, who are we to challenge their long history of experience? If they say Christians are evil, surely they are the good ones. After all, these are the nicest, most honest, unbiased, most patriotic, noble, courageous, high class people on the planet!

Fire and steel
If fire can't melt steel, then we have nothing to worry about from Iran. And Iran is an Islamic Republic, and Islam is a religion of peace. A peaceful people would surely never harm anyone. Liberals are smart enough to know these truths. It's us stupid conservatives that have to get out of the way and let them fix everything. As Hillary said in the debate tonight, any one of the Democratic candidates would be a better president than whoever ends up being the Republican nominee. And if Hillary says it, surely it must be true.

Morally Paralyzed
I doubt if moral paralysis has set in. At this point we do not have a boots on the ground option that we can execute. The troop levels needed to invade Iran would need large draft. At the present time that is untenable.

it is a mistake to preume that Iran will react like Germany might have reacted. If we attack them now they will not back down.They will come after us with gusto. If we wish to go that route we need to debate the issuse fully and make sure that we are willing to pay the cost before we initate open hostilty. One day we may need to bomb there nuke sites; but make no mistake about the conquences. At that point we may be in a position that no matter how much we hurt them they will not be rational. The Germans in WWII finally gave up.Even facing total distruction I don't think the Iranian goverment would do the right thing. They would fight to the last man.

They have not yet crossed the line where such a terrible war can be justfied; but the year is not yet over


Another home run
Mr. Sowell is one of my favorite commentators. He can be depended upon to hit the ball out of the park every time he steps to the plate.

To answer his question, "are we morally paralyzed, perhaps fatally?" I would answer, "It would appear so."

Solomon first said it: "there is nothing new under the sun."

Today's "progressives" love to think of themselves as advanced, enlightened, and compassionate. The trailblazers.

But instead of progessive, they are merely the reincarnation of Chambelain and his band of merry jellyfish.

Why is it that Churchill's name is synonymous with courage, perserverance, and leadership, while Chamberlain's is synonymous with gullibility and spinelessness?

Will we never learn? Had today's Liberals been our forefathers, there never would have been a Revolutionary War and the South would still be based on an economy of slavery. We'd still be "negotiating."

We have been sensitized to death - led to believe that there is no difference that cannot be settled though photo ops and handshakes and platitudes. That truly nothing is worth fighting about because there are no enemies, no mutually exclusive ideologies, only misunderstandings.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

--George Santayana, 1905

Heh heh. Well...
I could point out that Hitler's aim was always actually to attack the USSR, not France or Britain, but that would take away from the real point.

Our nutty, illegal, unprovoked toppling of one of the few secular regimes in the Arab world, one bordering on Iran, one that had proven its willingness to fight Iran (at our instigation!) is the main factor that's made us impotent against Iran--in military terms, and in terms of credibility for another war with the public.

So, Dr. Sowell, you can thank the lying redneck-in-chief for the current pickle we're in--rather than your usual "liberal" scapegoats.

Scary Thought
I agree that they are danagerous. I as agree with Khan, That we better count the cost and be prepared to see it through.

Action Against Iran
Well certainly not from the people that still believes Jimmy Carter is a respectable foreign policy heavyweight.

Mainly as the creator of the modern Iran.

And, certainly not from the party that bases all decisions on the possible fluctuation of future oil prices.

The term "moral paralysis" is deceiving, inmoral paralysis is more descriptive.

I think the future world would be one with a shortage of Jews.

Exactly why do we need to commit troops
to Iran? Not to point out the obvious or anything, but we have the ability to bomb them back into the Stone Age without one American soldier ever crossing the border. We don't have to use nuclear weapons. Our conventional arsenal is more than able to do what we need it to do. My pastor is a former Army spook and I asked him if we have any idea where the nuclear bomb operations are in Iran and he just smiled at me in a way that says "Oh, yeah, but I have to kill you if I tell." We don't even have to hurt the Iranian people very much -- just target their nuclear capabilities, government centers and military strong-points. Once those are taken out, I think a new Iranian civilian government will be much more interested in negotiating on polite terms. Why do we, as the greatest technological military force in the world, always assume we have to put boots on the ground in order to facilitate a solution? Sometimes there are simpler methods that involve primarily the loss of enemy lives rather than our own.

Khan - - - - -
You better get out that ol' history book, dust it off and give it another look. When, exactly, did Germany "give it up"? After its entire army was decimated, its capital destroyed and it leader dead. And, after over 60 million citizens of the world died in the process.

Dr. Sowell's very excellent point is that, had Roosevelt had the brains and guts to listen to Churchill, much, if not, all of this could have been avoided. We are at that juncture now with Iran. If we wait until they develop nukes, it will be too late. The soft democracies of Europe will fold first, then the threat will face us, and we will have to capitulate or face a nuclear exchange.

As the King said, "It's now, or never."

booboolane
Weren't you among those in the 50's and 60's who kept saying "better Red than dead"? I thought so.

The Dems of today are
ALL Neville Chamberlains and recently some of the RINO Republicans are joining them. Although the two countries are not the same there are similarities in the way the Dems are treating the problem. The Dems have been largely pacifist since the late 60s unless it was to attack Republicans. The only time they vote for any military action is when an election is near and the polls show they will lose if they don't.

There lies the rub. The only thing that really scares Dems is being voted out of office.

Paralysis
It is no accident, indeed, that Neville Chamberlain's, "Peace in our time!" has become synonymous with cowardice, just as "quisling" has become an perjorative adjective: History judges these men very, very harshly. Anyone out there really believe Peanut Jim could have released the hostages in Iran with a single sentence (e.g. "I consider that an act of war." R. Reagan ca. 1979)

The bloodiest war ever fought by Americans, our Civil War, featured some very bloody-minded generals and politicians (esp. R.E. Lee, U.S. Grant, W.T. Sherman, P. Sheridan, T.J. Jackson, J. Hood, A.P. Hill; J. Davis and A. Lincoln). However, General Lee, deafeated in an "all-out" campaign, swallowed his enormous pride and accepted Gen. Grant's terms of unconditional surrender, that lives might not be foolishly squandered. Gen. Grant, with almost an afterthought ("Well, of course these men must return to their farms and plant"), pardoned (paroled) every soldier (including officers) of The Army Of Northern Virginia and sent them home with their mules and horses.

W.T. Sherman often repeated words to the effect, "War is a terrible, bloody monster! Let us make it even more terrible, that it will be finished the sooner!"

The point: If a war is to be commenced, it should only be with the understanding that it will be forever finished. Negotiations have their place, but seldom do they yield a true and lasting peace once hostilities have commenced. God save the world if America has lost its willingness to effectively wield its very big stick.

Thanks, Professor
That would include both of you - Dr. Sowell and Professor. Yes - if you are going to prosecute a war, go at it totally with the view of complete anihilation of the enemy. Anything less is negotiation in disguise. When a surgeon goes after a tumor, does he only lop off those parts that cross a certain line or does he attempt to eliminate the entire tumor?

Iran has demonstrated an audacious intransigence. We can deal with the tumor now or we can deal with it after it has spread and grown stronger.

In case you missed it...
...Dr Sowell was not talking about historical figures like Chamberlain,Churchill,Roosevelt,or Hitler.He was talking about free people in Democracies.THERE is the weakest link in a free country!If a democratic government reflects the will of it's people (and I believe it does),then it is THEY who are ultimetly to blame."We have met the enemy,and it is us".

Nam65-66
is right, if there is moral paralysis, like Sowell thinks, it is in us as a people. It's not Bush's war or the Dem's, but ours. If we're lacking in the leadership to move us morally, then we need to find it.

I'm not altogether sure we're paralyzed. America has always been a reluctant warrior but when moved to action is fierce and unafraid. America is like Shane.

To Nam65-66
One thing that was recognized by the founding fathers early in the life of the republic was that the people could not be any better about the way they voted than how they were educated. In those days voting was restricted to those people who owned property and who were generally educated.

In today's invironment it is the responsibility of the school systems to educate the people in general and the press to educate the people regarding their politicians. When both of these institutions are overwhelmingly liberal, the prognosis for the voters is not good.

Armchair Generals
booboolane loves to be sarcastic. I would ask this critic, what is your solution? You seem to have all the answers. Save us all from ourselves, booboolane. Tell us what to do! What's the solution! What, no great plan to save the planet? I guess you just like to criticize.

Very funny
It's going to be really funny seeing all these atheist democrats being forced to bow to Allah.

Send in Jiminy Carter
As a ploy the USA should send Jiminy Carter to Iran as our envoy of peace. At the same time send Delta Force teams into Iran to do the real work that needs to be accomplished.

Sowell
"The Iranian leaders are not going to stop unless they get stopped. And, like Hitler, they don't think we have the guts to stop them."

LMAO get real Sowell! Accusing the American people as loath to go to war, which is what you really mean, is over the top way, way over. What percent of Congress and the Citizens approved of our willful invasion of Iraq????

"Incidentally, Hitler made some of the best anti-war statements of the 1930s. He knew that this was what the Western democracies wanted to hear -- and that it would keep them morally paralyzed while he continued building up his military machine to attack them."

Iran is now WWII era Germany? Well let me point out that the Iranian government would almost certainly have changed if Bush had not threatened Iran and invaded countries either side of them. You cowards wanted war on the cheap and that is exactly what happened. Now that you have ground our military down, you want to what? With what?

www.nukethemuslims.com
By divine providence America discovered the secret of nature before Hitler in 1945. By divine providence America and Israel have nuclear arsenals today, while the enablers of radical Islam have pools of oil.

What the Islamic savages understand is raw power, and sooner or later that is how we must deal with the plague of radical Islam.

To Hal
Of course everyone knows it's Bush's fault. So what is your solution to Iran and it's undeclared war against us and it's play for Nukes?

Not so funny
because we'll all be bowing along with them. The athiests, like the Islama-bama-ding-dongs, live in a dream of how they would have the world to be, not in reality. Personally, I wouldn't give a tinker's dam, but they want me and mine to play major roles in this nightmare.

I hate to ask, but...
...exactly what are we to do about the development of technology - for good or evil - by other countries? Yes, we all know that Iran has professed ill-will toward the United States and, even more vehemently, Israel. But what are the options, really? Are we to raise the battle flag, sing the National Anthem and charge at every windmill that rears its ugly head on every distant horizon? If that is the proposed solution, I fear we are going to have our hands full (and our pockets empty) for some time to come.

North Korea has been baying at the moon for decades and what, precisely, have they accomplished in their faux rage against the West? Not much, as far as I can see. And they, as opposed to Iran, have a delivery system that, if not entirely accurate, at least can get their primitive nuclear devices airborn.

If we, as a nation, are to strike out against any threats that could possibly disturb our national respose, we are in for a very difficult and busy time. It is rare that I take issue with the learned and much-admired Dr. Sowell. But, reluctantly, I must now. I freely admit that fanaticism exists in this world. Equally, I admit that much of this fanaticism is aimed squarely at us. I do not, however, believe that engagement and discourse is equivalent to Chamberlain-ism.

We, as country, have assumed, egocentrically, that negotitation and statesmanship is equivalent to appeasement. It is not. Likewise, I do not believe that, just because we have the power to "bomb Iran back to the Stone Age," that should be the position of our national policy.

I am not a liberal. I am quite conservative in my thinking, politically and personally. I do feel, however, that war - as espoused by some of the greatest conservative thinkers from Burke to Kirk - is to be avoided at (almost) all cost. It is disruptive to national order and almost always leads to augmentation of central governmental power.

We must be statesmen first and Generals only as a last resort. Appeasement be damned; but statesmanship Should be foremost as a conservative republic.

Cheers,

Ron Albright

http://www.ronalbright.com

Choose life
Excellent article. Tomorrow we may well wish we had acted today. A friend was recently diagnosed with cancer. Initially she denied that it could be true. A second opinion confirmed her worst fears. Facing death, she chose to have the malignancy surgically removed. No sane person wants surgery or war, but survival eventually makes the difficult decisions for us. Chamberlain was in denial and then thought he could make an end-run around the problem. History proved him wrong and gullible. Today's Chamberlains repeat that same error of arrogance, thinking they can use their superior intellect to make it go away.

A solution
One solution might be to support the Iranian middle class in their desire for regiem change. Support them with money, weapons, media support similar to Radio Free Europe, much like Reagan did the Polish labor unions, leading to the end of the Cold War.

Also, they import the vast percentage of their gasoline, as they have only one refinery. Bomb it, blockade tankers, and tell them they can have their nukes, but they will have to walk to get to work. Allow them to repair it ONLY after it can be reliably determined they have given up their nuclear development capability.

Hal Donahue says
"Well let me point out that the Iranian government would almost certainly have changed if Bush had not threatened Iran and invaded countries either side of them"

It would be pretty if that were true - but it's not. This is a country who back on November 4, 1979 took over our Embassy and held 63 Americans hostage for 444 days. One of the state holidays in this very same hostage taking country, is "Death to America Day."

Iran may have been quiet for a number of years, biding their time - prefering to use Syria, Hamas, Hezbullah and other terrorist organizations to do their dirt work. They've been watching our country's behavior both governmental and populist. They see our inability or lack of will to act desisively and definatively. Iran is evil, not stupid.

I guess we really didn't learn anything from WWII. We are now doomed to repeat it.

Vic
"Vic writes: Tuesday, July, 24, 2007 8:05 AM
To Hal
Of course everyone knows it's Bush's fault. So what is your solution to Iran and it's undeclared war against us and it's play for Nukes?"

You know it used to be that conservatism and responsibility meant the same. Then the fundies took over and NEVER accept responsibility well so be it but now everyone knows it. What to do? I really don't know at this point but after the past years you guys have been in power I would never trust you folks to come up with an answer..


Now, Now Sowell.
The comment that "if Roosevelt had listened to Churchill WWII could have been avoided" ignores the fact that Roosevelt did listen. However, the American people did not listen. The military prior to WWII was smaller than the one we have today, and Roosevelt's lend lease program passed the house by exactly one vote. He didn't have a prayer of getting the authorization from Congress for the funding, nor the support of the American people, to gear up and fight Hitler. He had to wait until Pearl Harbor woke Americans up.

As far as over-stating the threat of Iran, we have three to four years to deal with it before they have their first bomb. Then, they have to develop a delivery system to send it anywhere. Then, they'd have to have enough to represent a credible threat outside of the ME. Sowell is dealing in hyperbole. At any time, we can knock them down and we have time to do so. Comparing Iran to Germany is simply more hyperbole. Germany launched 112 divisions into Russia. Iran can't launch any divisions anywhere outside of the ME, and as we demonstrated when we drove the Iraqi's out of Kuwait, we can destroy such troop movements on the ground before they get very far if we choose to do so. Iran will never have a first world army, let alone a Navy or the tranportation system covered by air power necessary to present a credible threat to America or Europe - for that matter. They can threaten Israel and the ME - but, as I said, we have the time to first see if we can deal with this diplomatically, and only then use the war option as the last resort.

As far as our ability to bomb Iran effectively to eliminate their nuclear capability, the CIA has said repeatedly that we don't know where much of their infrastructure is because they dispersed it and buried it.






liberals running from history again
as Doctor Sowell reminds us...

Yet another excellent commentary!

tearing down the house
Somebody wiser than I has said, "If you tear down your house, make certain you have another place to live afterward."

If we bomb Iran, or any other major oil producer, we will tear down the "house" of our current gas prices, and we had best be prepared to move into the "new house;" which is to say, either:
1 - Drill in ANWR and other untapped oil deposits, and let the moose lovers deal with it;
or
2 - Go back to the 55 mph national speed limit (and quintuple the current fines for speeding); or
3 - Build more power plants of the kind whose safety record is the envy of the industry, the kind which has no carbon emissions and has never caused one drop of acid rain to fall -- I refer of course to nuke plants; or
4 - Some combination of the above; or
5 - Celebrate Earth Day every day while we freeze in the dark, driving our hybrid cars with their tinfoil bodies at 30 grand apiece, running ethanol in our larger vehicles in spite of ethanol costing more energy to produce and deliver than ethanol is capable of providing, paying what Europe pays for a gallon of gas or fuel oil, soothed to sleep nightly by the broadcast wisdom of Al Gore, "coming to you in your hovel live from his [carbon-bootprint-the-size-of-Texas] mansion" all paid for with offset credits.

Your call.


{The above has been thoroughly checked and is certified by L1340 to be completely insult-free, on the basis that the person who resorts to abuse is the one who has run out of ideas.}

Bess2728
"It would be pretty if that were true - but it's not. This is a country who back on November 4, 1979 took over our Embassy and held 63 Americans hostage for 444 days. One of the state holidays in this very same hostage taking country, is "Death to America Day."

That was nearly 30 years ago. This is NOTHING like WW II and you are very wrong

Hal
"the Iranian government would almost certainly have changed if Bush had not threatened Iran and invaded countries either side of them."

You really think this? Based on what? Honestly it is fun at times reading your nonsense but, this is just Bush derangement syndrome. Better watch out.. Bush is coming to get you wwooooaaaaaa.

libtards running from history again
as Doctor Sowell reminds us...

Yet another great commentary from the Doc!

AreDNmYheaD
"You really think this? Based on what? Honestly it is fun at times reading your nonsense but, this is just Bush derangement syndrome. Better watch out.. Bush is coming to get you wwooooaaaaaa."

First point, I would feel extremely safe if Bush was coming after me. Who has he caught? Osama? The anthrax guy? The man is grossly, if not criminally incompetent.

Second point: Our own State and DOD press releases talked of how wobbly the Iranian government was and is. Critical press stories from within and without Iran detail the turmoil inside the country and how the outside threat poised by Bush is helping keep the people behind the government. For a start read the Economist stories. Hmm perhaps Bush is using Iran the same way?

Most likely
War with Iran is unlikely to be necessary if our current diplomatic efforts (putting economic squeeze on) are continued or even ramped up (with cooperation from other countries like Russia). One can see signs within Iran that it's working, no matter what Ahmedine-nutjob says.

Hopefully, a democratic president would continue those policies, rather than the diplomacy that's about talking, hugging and feeling good, which would undoubtedly enable Iran to continue with its bomb development; in that case, war would probably be necessary in the future. (Most likely after said demo pres has left office, having kicked the can down the road.

Here's a aolution
Take Ahamadinejad and Kim Jung (mentally)Il for a guided tour of a Trident missle submarine. While below decks, I'd lean up against a missle tube and say "Gentlemen, inside the tube I have my hand on is a missle that can all by itself reduce either of your sorryass countries to radioactive rubble before you even knew it was coming. Now, if you just look down the way, you'll see that this sub has 23 other missles exactly like it and we have at least half a dozen other subs identical to this one. I won't bore you with details of our ICBM an bomber capabilities, but I hope you get the point. The US respects you as leaders of soverign nations, but if you think you can screw with us, you should realize what you're up against.

Hal Donahue
seems to believe that are no parallels in history to this current conflict - that we cannot learn from WWII. That's absurd and wrong.

Yes, I am aware that the hostage crisis will be 28 years this November. My point was to attempt to show you that Iran would not have changed it's government/ideology/beliefs etc based on our actions. And the hostage action may have happened only 28 years ago, but the ideology to make that happen was planted and cultivated much longer than that.

I am not fond of the Bush administration - but one cannot simply blame everything on them. Do you blame Clinton for the 1993 Trade Center bombing, or the Okalahoma City bombing? Maybe it was Hillary driving that Ryder truck!

give me a break.

Moonbat Exterminator
DUH! I think they just may be aware of that

Thank you Dr. Sowell
Hal0, change your name to Neville, you sir are in complete denial and it would be funny, but as someone else said, you libdolts want to take everyone else with you on your ride to disaster. I would admonish you to wake up, but I have come to conclude that you have no brain cells to awaken.

Hal
First Point: You do not live in a vast wilderness half a world away. I doubt you would be too hard to find.

Second Point: You take some press releases and automatically deduce the Iranian Government would of fell or that it would have for certain? Thats so silly it barely deserves comment. I could find press release on how Hugo Chevez believes in free speech as well. hahaha




Nam
"America has always been a reluctant warrior but when moved to action is fierce and unafraid. America is like Shane."

Maybe, but unlike the past, this is no longer an homogenous nation but rather one riddled with enemies and 5th columnists amongst us.

Take good ole Hal D, the leftist lib/commie who's always ridiculing TH columnists, popping off inane stupidities to their supporters and always 'laughing his arse off'. Dr. Sowell is making a deadly serious point and it's only a source of amusment to fools like the arseless Hal.

The point is that there may not be enough time to galvanize the population the next time we're surprised, if it can indeed be at all. After all, two buildings down doesn't seemed to have done it this time.

Another oracle
Oh dear, oh dear, another resident pacifist oracle speaks.
HD states:

"That was nearly 30 years ago. This is NOTHING like WW II and you are very wrong."

History will prove to what extent our current dilemma is akin to the build-up to WWII.

But being a student of that period, I can attest, as Dr. Sowell here has done, that the contemporary pacifist climate is very much the same as it was then, though perhaps for different reasons.

Moreover, I'll tell you from whence our present pacifism arises, in large measure. And that is from the faulty notion prevalent among our academic and political elites of the overall goodness of mankind.

Such a view of human nature assumes -- despite evidence to the contrary -- that man is on the march to some utopian goal, an inexorable ascending to a life of peace among the nations of men achieved through reasoned and enlightened debate and diplomacy, aided by technological advances. No less, perhaps, a one-world government?

The worldview that ascribes to men the utter depravity of human beings is alien to these utopians and rejected in the face of contrary evidence as just witnessed in the bloodiest century in human history. Indeed, as Theodore Dalrymple writes, "The benefits of technological advance will be as nothing . . . by comparison with the evil ends to which man will put it." The 21st Century may rival or exceed the bloodbath of the 20th.

In short, soldiers understand the depravity of man and prepare themselves to protect freedom; pacifist utopians assume the goodness of man and are caught unawares and unprepared when the sword descends.




AreDNmYheaD
I doubt the anthrax guy does either and I am in the phone book

AreDNmYheaD
"Second Point: You take some press releases and automatically deduce the Iranian Government would of fell or that it would have for certain? Thats so silly it barely deserves comment. I could find press release on how Hugo Chevez believes in free speech as well. hahaha

No actually I have some experience in the area and with Iran and Iranians but I doubt you would accept that as proof and the Economist is conservative and indepth if you read it

my goodness
We are not morally paralyzed. We are not riddled with internal enemies or weakness. The situation in the Middle East today is not like Europe before WWII. Certainly there are some parallels, but the differences are greater and more defining. Such comparisons are more than just inaccurate. They are rhetorical distractions.

RE: BlueStateLibertarian
"I could point out that Hitler's aim was always actually to attack the USSR, not France or Britain, but that would take away from the real point."

And I could point out that the moon is made of cheese, but that would be just as much a lie as your statement. At the outset of WWII, Germany and the USSR were allied with one another.

"Our nutty, illegal, unprovoked toppling of one of the few secular regimes in the Arab world"

Illegal? Tell me, what law was violated?

Unprovoked? We were as "unprovoked" by Iraq as we were by Germany in WWII. Or do you actually believe Germany bombed Pearl Harbor?

"one that had proven its willingness to fight Iran (at our instigation!) is the main factor that's made us impotent against Iran--in military terms, and in terms of credibility for another war with the public."

The mass media dammaged our credibility. Had we had the, LITTERALLY, treasonous media of today back in 1939, every single one of us would be goosestepping and speaking German, and that is a fact that can't even be credibly disputed.

"So, Dr. Sowell, you can thank the lying redneck-in-chief for the current pickle we're in--rather than your usual "liberal" scapegoats."

And what have the kookie commies done to defend this nation since....well, ever? Capitulate? Surrender? Coddle the enemy? Actively aid the enemy?

L1340
Love your post. Nice, light touch -- much needed, given the topic.

And all your point: ditto, ditto.

I especially enjoyed this:

{The above has been thoroughly checked and is certified by L1340 to be completely insult-free, on the basis that the person who resorts to abuse is the one who has run out of ideas.}

darcy
"In short, soldiers understand the depravity of man and prepare themselves to protect freedom; pacifist utopians assume the goodness of man and are caught unawares and unprepared when the sword descends."

First, we are not now nor have we as a nation ever been pacifist. As an old soldier you under estimate us. We understand depravity but we understand the joys of life, the beauty of nature and the wonder of the world. That is why we fight reluctantly but fiercly.


RE: booboolane
"Now, Iran knows if we don't nuke it, we can't whup it--it's just a wee bit bigger than Iraq."

Obviously you haven't been paying ANY attention.

FACT: We aren't fighting the Iraqi military right now. We defeated the Iraqi military, which, compared to the Iranian military was far more advanced in its technology, in about 2 weeks with barely 200,000 troops on the ground. Right now we have 3/4ths that number just over the Iranian border, and have more naval power, in terms of aircraft carriers, in the region than we had at the outset of the Iraqi war.

If you think we couldn't defeat the Iranian military in about the time it took us to defeat the Iraqi military, then you are an ignorant fool.

Actually ....
if we could convince the Jews to relocate to New Jersey, we could tell the Arabs to shove the oil and develop our own resources.
We really do need more smart people, not laborers.

Hal
The problem is you are equating someones educated guess to how thing would have been.

Who predicted that Libya would do an about face on their nuclear aspirations? No one new Russia was about to collapse when it did either. In both cases these events in hindsight were highly predictable but, we didn't.

Trying to predict the inner workings of Iran and deducing when and where particular event like a revolution will occur is a foolish. You may say the condition are their for one and they still are but, so are the conditions to stop it.

There is and was little possibility for any peaceful revolution in Iran like in Eastern Europe because in Iran you are dealing with fanatics. The Ayatollahs and there militant followers will not just rollover no matter what anyone does. The Ayatollahs are the real power in Iran and they are not elected.

Dr. Sowell is correct, again.
The Iranian government is clear in its stated goal of destroying Isreal and the United States. Both goals can only be accomplished by Tehran through the use of nuclear weapons. Iranian arms are killing US troops as this is written. However, just as America did not act in the forties until it sustained a devastating attack, so it will be in our time. We will take the first punch, not deliver it. Only the overthrow of the current Iranian regime will prevent this inevitable confrontation from occurring.

In the meantime I've bought the tin foil hybrid and plan to move to a thinly populated region of the Country. Maybe I need a tinfoil hat to go along with the car. I hope I'm reading events incorrectly.

To HalD
Somehow I knew that you would have no solution. Like all the rest of the Dems your constant whining is only good for one thing, attacking Republicans. There are some Dems with a solution, it's called run away and place their head in the sand. I guess that's better than the rest who have their head somewhere else.

Too bad the Iranians and other Mullahs don't love socialism and communism the way you Dems do. Then ya'll could all get together and have one big love fest, while bowing to Mecca.

The problem with Iran
is they wrote the book on suicide bombing and they will release the dogs of hell on us if we do a conventional attack. They have hundreds if not thousands of young women that have been trained to do just that when their called upon. As South Park's Cartman would say "it's a sticky situation".


Hal
We are not fighting as fiercely as we should. Unfortunately everyone sees it also. People in Iraq (locals) find it hard to risk there lives and families by helping us if at any moment we may leave them to fight alone. We may teach the Iraqi government a lesson by threatening to and pulling out but it's hurting us on the ground.

politics
Reagan and his advisors fearing the potential loss of moderate Republicans, and never realizing the extent to which "blue collar" Democrats would desert, in 1980 accepted Bush1 as his "Vice", and this single political decision changed everything because by the time the new millineum arrived it was already too late to do anything about the "mad mullahs" of Tehran without great costs.
You can not fail to react to a changing globe for over a decade, and this is exactly what the "leadership" of the USA did following Reagan's (laying the foundation) ending of the "Cold War"! As soon as the Soviet Union had been neutralized on the world stage, the USA should have moved against Iran, in conjuction with Saddam or without him. By this time, a sizeable number of Iranians had already become disillusioned with their theocracy, and Iran was, even given the religious oppression, the most capable of embracing freedom and democracy. the entire global picture would be different today with a solid, free and democratic Iran plopped in that area of the world. Saddam would never have been a problem and could have been "lead" into allowing Iraq to become democratic (it was already secular), and there would never have been a 09/11/2001 attack on this nation. after the loss of the Shah and owing to total incompetence of the Carter administration, we simply gave up on Iran and its people. Reagan concentrated on his goal of ending the "cold war". Bush1 talked a good game, closed off Saddam previous foreign aid payments, and allowed Saddam to reach the point where he felt he could invade Kuwait. Clinton diddled in te Oval Office "while Rome burned"...oh, pardon me, in concert with NATO, he beat up on Christian Serbia which was desparately trying to preserve a Christian Yugoslavia (greater slavia) which had a long history of being forced to fight Muslims to survive!

Let's get on with it!
Enough with the political schmoozing. Stop trying to discuss Churchill et al and start trying to change the culture toward self-sufficiency.
Since Nature's immutable first law of economics is "whatever you tax you get less of, and whatever you subsidize you get more of," stop taxing such items as honesty, initiative, ingenuity, industry, generosity, strong work ethic, etc., and stop subsidizing dishonesty, corruption, apathy, laziness, greed, single motherhood, general jerkness, etc.
Somebody on the string wanted solutions. The moron you were talking to isn't going to provide them. I will. Here's a point-by-point plan:
1. Build the Great Wall of Mexico NOW, cut off ALL govt benefits to illegals NOW, and give free market forces time to take care of the rest. Deport illegals as it is possible to do so.
2. Repeal Title 26, the Income Tax Code NOW, abolish the IRS root and branch NOW, and immediately implement the so-called "Fair Tax." Unbelievable prosperity would happen at an astounding rate.
3. Immediately terminate the wealth transfer fraud (aka Ponzi scheme) known as "Social Security" NOW, and let the individual benefit from privately owned individual retirement accounts which utilize the power of compound interest and the long-term economic activity of the stock market. Each individual should own his own account and be able to bequeath it to whom he pleases along with the rest of his estate.
4. Abolish the NEA along with "compulsory education" (an oxymoron). If there is going to be publicly funded education, it is morally imperative that voucher systems be implemented so the money can follow the child and competition can be encouraged, thereby stimulating improvement in the educational product.
4. Eliminate all property taxes on primary place of residence.
5. Completely deregulate the legal and medical industries (aka "professions"), the latter of which has led inflation for several decades. Abolish "unauthorized practice" of both law and medicine.
6. Because the autonomous law profession culture's judiciaries will use "separation of powers" arguments to thwart any meaningful legislative reforms by "the people," in order to effectively repudiate narcissistic judicial anarchy (see the Kelo decision, etc) by implementing a long term political solution to eliminate the lawyer monopoly over the courts, I propose an amendment to the US Constitution — titled “An Amendment for Judicial Reform to Restore Justice” —containing the following provisions:
a. It is the wisdom of the people that the U.S. Constitution is a binding specific-performance social contract, not a “living, breathing” document facilitating undemocratic social engineering and judicial activism.
b. It is the wisdom of the people of the United States that it is far more important for judicial officers to obey the rule of law than it is for them to have absolute liability-immune discretion to “obey their consciences” and engage in judicial activism under a “living, breathing” theory of the U.S. Constitution.
c. Election of all judicial officers by the voters in their district (especially US Supreme Court, the policy court). the term of office of all US Supreme Court justices and US Circuit Court of Appeals judges shall be limited to one eight-year term. It is the wisdom of the people that hindsight has clearly proven that life-tenure judicial appointments not only do not operate in favor of protecting the US Constitution as a viable social contract, but actually operate in favor of violating the social contract, under the unwritten rule that “the judge can do whatever he pleases.” It is the wisdom of the people that too much discretion vested in a judge subjects that judge to greater vulnerability to temptations of bribery and corruption.
d. Elimination of judicial (and all other forms of “official”) immunity. In addition to liability for actual and monetary damages, attorney fee sanctions shall be assessed against judicial officers (and all other government officers, except Presidents in time of War formally declared by Congress pursuant to Article 1, Section , Clause) in appropriate cases for the express purpose of deterring willful violations of the cornerstone social-contract principle of rule of law. In all cases of judicial liability, a jury containing no judges or lawyers, shall decide both the facts and the law.
e. Complete elimination of "unauthorized practice" of law, including revocation of all relevant statutes and court rules. It shall be deemed commercial fraud for any judge or lawyer to lie about his educational qualifications.
f. Require all judges to set forth in writing complete findings of fact and conclusions of law for every judicial act they execute, with attorney-fee sanctions imposed against noncomplying judges, and treble attorney-fee sanctions imposed in all cases of willful noncompliance. The express purpose of this point is to deter judicial officers from manipulating the record in any way that would make an appeal by a litigant more difficult or expensive.
g. Except in cases of legitimate national-security concerns, require all such written judicial findings and conclusions to be open for examination and copying by the public, with attorney-fee sanctions imposed against noncomplying judges, and treble attorney-fee sanctions imposed in all cases of willful noncompliance. All cases contesting the legitimacy of a national-security claim shall be tried by a jury containing no judges or lawyers, shall decide both the facts and the law.
h. Prohibit bar-member lawyers from serving as either judges or legislators, due to self-evident conflict of interests. It is the wisdom of the people that ambiguous laws/regs facilitate profit-enhancing, individual-disempowering