Posted on 09/01/2006 12:30:30 AM PDT by RusIvan
DEFEAT IS NEVER pleasant, but often it is better to lose than to win. Defeat in the Second World War was the best thing that ever happened to Germany and Japan in their thousand years of recorded history. For America, losing in Vietnam was also a blessing in disguise. While defeat seemed to shatter the illusion of an American century of global dominance, it was followed by 30 years of almost uninterrupted prosperity, a political renaissance for conservative values and Americas total victory over communism in the Cold War. Such thoughts may not offer much consolation to George Bush, Tony Blair and Ehud Olmert as they contemplate their defeat at the hands of Iran and its Hezbollah allies. But the ordinary citizens of America, Britain and Israel should try to draw some constructive lessons from history, even while their leaders make ever greater fools of themselves with their idle threats against Irans nuclear ambitions.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
The Times Paradox: to gain sanity, Anatole Kaletsky must first concede insanity.
So, let me see if I understand this right - It was great for America to defeat Germany and Japan, but it just wouldn't be right for them to defeat Iran, because it offends them because they can't get off their lazy rumps and do the work that has to be done?
Have I got that right?
Or are we supposed to put our heads between our knees and defy anatomy by putting our heads up our rumps like most of Europe has done, while at the same time suffering whole regions being taken over by 'immigrants' who, like our Mexicans, treat it not as immigration but as a new place to start up their culture?
These Europeans. Every time I turn around, they make me ask questions.
Just lay down and die... Thank you for this valuable advice, Mr. Kaletsky! Here is hoping you can use it one day too.
Who is this moron Kaletsky? He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Iran is not going to build nuclear weapons under any circumstances. The entire world is opposed to that idea even if some countries appear to be neutral about this issue. If necessary, there will be a regime change in Iran caused by a number of interested nations, before Iran ever acquires nuclear weapons.
This time you will face a delusional Islamo-fascist with nukes and rockets to carry such weapons.
Please tell me what you expect to happen if we pull out of the young democracy, Iraq which is next-door to terroristic Iran.
Do not bet big money on that. Iran's nuclear development program is already underway with technical assistance from North Korea.
Like many people, I think you're underestimating the power of all the nations that are opposed to a nuclear-armed Iran, and that is because so far these nations have only used a very small fraction of that power. But they will use whatever power they have to use to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Nobody wants Iran to build nukes except Iran and a few little two-bit dictatorships in the UN.
Ah, the European solution.
Nuts.
Ah yes, the compassion of the left.
The left fakes horror at our servicemen's deaths and ignores their bloody hands.
"The Iranian paradox: to gain victory the West must first concede defeat.
Well, with France and Americans Democrats they are already off to a good start.
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.