Posted on 06/29/2011 10:27:29 AM PDT by Amerisrael
Libya's Qadaffi, or the Syria-Hezbollah-Iran alliance?
Common sense insists that the most urgent and dangerous threat be dealt with and nullified first in terms of priority.
A hypothetical example simplified and made easy to understand:
"Suppose you are standing at he end of a 100 yard field. At the opposite end of the field you notice two evil monsters that want to harm you. One of these monsters is holding a knife, the other monster has a loaded gun pointed directly at you."
The evil monster with the knife has to take time to cross a field 100 yards long to do you harm. The monster with the loaded gun poses a clear and immediate threat to your existence without having to cross the field.
Common sense insists that the evil monster with the loaded gun is a much more serious threat that requires the most urgent and immediate response.
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration and NATO are not exercising common sense.
Back to our example:
Libya's Qadaffi is a evil monster whose malice towards America is historic fact.
It is also fact that Qadaffi gave up Libya's nuclear-weapons program concurrent with the U.S. take-down of Saddam Hussein.
Qadaffi is like the evil monster holding only a knife a 100 yards away.
The Syria-Hezbollah-Iranian alliance is like the evil monster with the loaded gun. Clearly the most dangerous and immanent threat to America and Europe's security.
A threat that in terms of priority requires the most urgent response.
Talking, sanctions, and diplomacy has not-will not stop Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
The Syria-Hezbollah-Iranian alliance is a evil snake monster. And the head of the evil snake monster is the Iranian Islamist regime.
The U.S. and international leaders have seriously bungled their response to this horrendous threat. And the bungling goes all the way back to the Reagan Administration.
In 1983 the Iranian backed Hezbollah was responsible for perpetrating the Marine Barracks truck-bomb attack in Beirut, Lebanon that killed over 200 U.S. marines.
The U.S. response was to retreat.
Interpreted as weakness it further emboldened the Iranian-Hezbollah Islamists and other jihadists around the world.
The other most serious bungle occurred a year prior in 1982, when the Reagan Administration sent State Dept. diplomat Phillip Habib to pressure Israel into allowing safe passage for Yasser Arafat and his PLO jihad terror buddies out of western Beirut.
The U.S. Must Stop Undermining Israel's War on Terror:
["For years the U.S. government has pressured Israel into suicidal negotiations with Palestinian terrorists.
Israel had Arafat and the PLO surrounded south of Beirut in 1982, and was ready to eradicate them, but was restrained by President Reagan, who pressured the Israelis to allow Arafat and his organization safe passage to Tunisa"]--read the rest here.
This was the same as if the U.S. would have been pressured to allow safe-passage for Bin Laden. Outrageous.
But the Reagan Administration had embraced a foolish agenda:
They wanted to "moderate" Arafat and the PLO. Find a way to make them a legitimate "political" peace-partner for Israel.
Does this sound familiar as the current Obama Administration and European leaders are now engaged in talking with the Taliban in Afghanistan?
["Should the United States negotiate directly with the Taliban in order to bring about an end to the war in Afghanistan?
More to the point: is it even possible to do so and be successful?
The answer to the first question was given by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates when he confirmed that the US had already established “preliminary contacts” with the Taliban in order to facilitate negotiations. The talks, thought to have been initiated at the beginning of this year, parallel the ongoing talks with the Taliban that are being conducted by the Karzai government."]--read the rest.
All this sounds so deja-vu.
The right response of the Reagan Administration at that time in regards to our ally Israel should have been--
"What can we do to assist you in totally destroying Arafat and this PLO jihad terror organization?
The Reagan Administration and succeeding U.S. Administration's view towards Arafat and the PLO should have been, and still ought to be, no different than their view of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.
These earlier diplomatic blunders by past U.S. Administrations, as well as the dhimmitude of NATO leaders, has served to embolden the Syria-Hezbollah-Iranian alliance.
The evil snake monster alliance.
The head of this snake monster, the Iranian Islamist regime, needs to be cut-off.
Unfortunately, our government, as well as NATO, have their threat priorities out of wack.
Choosing instead to focus on Qadaffi, -a low-level evil monster.
Has time run out?
Obama!
The enemy within.
The most imminent threat to America is Obama and his supporters.
Obama..yes, and all liberals....eliminate them and 99% of our nations problems could be history.
oh wait, was this just a rhetorical thing ?
BARACK OBAMA!
Bud Selig?
The main stream media is the biggest problem. BO wouldn’t be President if it wasn’t for the media. Some for other problems in this country.
Overwhelmingly, it is Obama, purposefully driving us into ruin, he is filled with many demons, hate for the USA and for the whites and the people working hard to be independent and succeed. Be gone, Obama, you are trying to render us hopeless and helpless.
I would say the threat of cultural Marxism, actively imposed on us gradually by tyrants and useful idiots for many decades.
And their greatest fear is Sarah Palin, because Palin is the only presidential contender they can’t sway.
A nation without Jesus Christ.
Now that would be a thing of beauty, would it not? Then we’d all know the reality of freedom to manage our own life!
Anthony Kennedy.
Anyone who would support the likes of FUBO
Obama and the democrats.
OBAMA!
- Libya: the monster 100 yards away with the knife
- Iran: the monster 100 yards away with the gun that may or may not be loaded
- or -
- Obama: the monster sneaking up from behind preparing to sink its fangs into your neck
IMO, the author presented insufficient options: the 3rd choice is most obviously the correct one.
Depends on which side of the bed he got up from this morning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.