I never cease to be amazed by the apparent insanity of supposedly serious 'statespersons' and their political partisans who talk what seems to me utter lunacy. The fact that such idiots are influential in our contemporary world is deeply dismaying.
The two worst examples are first, advocacy of 'nuking' anybody, and even the pretence that nuclear weapons have a deterrent effect that makes investment in them, and their retention, a credible policy. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the horrific effects of the criminally irresponsible Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombs of 1945, and of the widespread malign atmospheric and health effects of the Chernobyl disaster, must know that there can be no 'winners', but only a doom-laden future for humanity, if nuclear weapons are ever used again. Therefore, the only sane policy is for them to be universally outlawed, and their dismantling supervised by an international authority. Hearing the gung-ho comments by some [usually American] politicians about the feasibility and even desirability of 'nuking' Iran, North Korea, or anywhere else sends shivers down my spine. These people should be carted off by the gentlemen in white coats, and locked up for life.
The second idiocy is the eager anticipation of many knee-jerk anti-Americans for the withdrawal - or ignominious expulsion - of US troops from Iraq. As someone who fiercely opposed the Iraq adventure before it was launched, on the pragmatic ground that it was bound to be disastrous, knowing the nature of the people of the region, I obviously wish that no US or British forces had ever gone there. But that is an entirely different matter to wishing to see them driven out with their tails between their legs. Such an outcome would have only one result: a weakening of Western influence in the world, and a strengthening of Islamic, bitterly anti-Western, forces. Is that what the Bush-hating, lickspittle Left really want to see?
Thanks to the egregious folly of the most crapulous US administration in living memory - and mine goes back to the 1930s - the West and militant Islam have been put on a collision course which can only be resolved by a combination of [unused] military strength and international diplomacy, probably over a considerable period of time. Churchill's dictum that 'jaw-jaw is better than war-war' was never truer than in this instance. Any other outcome would be so horrific as to be unthinkable. But these days, with the lunatics running the asylum, we are, alas, forced to think the unthinkable.
The two worst examples are first, advocacy of 'nuking' anybody, and even the pretence that nuclear weapons have a deterrent effect that makes investment in them, and their retention, a credible policy. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the horrific effects of the criminally irresponsible Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombs of 1945, and of the widespread malign atmospheric and health effects of the Chernobyl disaster, must know that there can be no 'winners', but only a doom-laden future for humanity, if nuclear weapons are ever used again. Therefore, the only sane policy is for them to be universally outlawed, and their dismantling supervised by an international authority. Hearing the gung-ho comments by some [usually American] politicians about the feasibility and even desirability of 'nuking' Iran, North Korea, or anywhere else sends shivers down my spine. These people should be carted off by the gentlemen in white coats, and locked up for life.
The second idiocy is the eager anticipation of many knee-jerk anti-Americans for the withdrawal - or ignominious expulsion - of US troops from Iraq. As someone who fiercely opposed the Iraq adventure before it was launched, on the pragmatic ground that it was bound to be disastrous, knowing the nature of the people of the region, I obviously wish that no US or British forces had ever gone there. But that is an entirely different matter to wishing to see them driven out with their tails between their legs. Such an outcome would have only one result: a weakening of Western influence in the world, and a strengthening of Islamic, bitterly anti-Western, forces. Is that what the Bush-hating, lickspittle Left really want to see?
Thanks to the egregious folly of the most crapulous US administration in living memory - and mine goes back to the 1930s - the West and militant Islam have been put on a collision course which can only be resolved by a combination of [unused] military strength and international diplomacy, probably over a considerable period of time. Churchill's dictum that 'jaw-jaw is better than war-war' was never truer than in this instance. Any other outcome would be so horrific as to be unthinkable. But these days, with the lunatics running the asylum, we are, alas, forced to think the unthinkable.
9 comments:
Thought is a more powerful weapon than any warhead - humanity must clearly use it.
But do these people WANT to think?
Do they know HOW to?
Does humanity WANT to think ?
No - thinking for ourselves is hard work - we want others to do the thinking for us.
Does humanity know HOW to think ? No - we've lost that ability - especially how to think clearly.
Even for people to talk about using nuclear weapons - with such insane equanimity - shows how much these people have lost their humanity.
Because humanity now doesn't want to think, and doesn't know how to think, we have simply lost the plot - and thus are unable to discern the madmen who control us.
Thought - used clearly, imaginatively and collectively by humanity - is the most powerful weapon against any nuclear warhead.
It is our last hope.
Good to see you back again, Richard, and in such fine form! Hope you had a lovely holiday and are feeling rested.
"As someone who fiercely opposed the Iraq adventure before it was launched, on the pragmatic ground that it was bound to be disastrous..."
Nice to know you didn't oppose the invasion and occupation on any sort of moral grounds.
Withdrawal in defeat "would have only one result: a weakening of Western influence in the world, and a strengthening of Islamic, bitterly anti-Western, forces. Is that what the Bush-hating, lickspittle Left really want to see?"
In a word, yes. The only disagreement I have is with the propagandistic framing. There is only one way to withdraw from Iraq, and that is in defeat.
The only way to win this immoral war is with Nazi- or Soviet-style oppression.
Yes, a defeat will strengthen Islam. But the blame for that does not fall on the "idiocy" of "knee-jerk anti-Americans for the withdrawal," it falls on the assholes who started this war, which would have been utterly immoral even if it had been winnable.
I hear there's a vacancy in the White House now that Karl Rove has resigned. I think you'd be perfect for the job.
I'm all for an ethical foreign policy as long as it is also realistic.
There's no point in doing 'the right thing' if it is self-destructive. There's even less point in doing the wrong thing when it is obviously going to be self-destructive, as was clearly the case with Iraq.
Yes, thanks, BB, I'll take Rove's job like a shot! Only problem is, I'd have to sack everyone else in the White House, starting with Bush and Cheney.
And I never said the blame for the consequences of the Iraq folly rested with the dhimmi Left. I just despise them for fawning on the Islamists because they are so guilt-ridden over what Bush and Blair did.
A plague on all their houses, is what I say.
And, BB, Nazi-style scorched-earth tactics have already been used at Fallujah, and didn't work there.
Talking of Nazis. You reckon the neocons will start a stab-in-the-back legend after the American army finally pulls out?
Makes you shudder when you start to think who may be the next president after next...
THE Point being that it is early days for Islam now, as they enter their 'modern' period; and, rather so, latter days for us as we descend into the senectuous idiocies of 'Viagra' and baby-boom otiosity. In time, islamic historians will perform the retrospective task of analysing this early violent phase; and, our febrile & masturbatory, pleasure-maddened or degenrate, response.
Post a Comment