Posted on 05/22/2008 11:13:51 PM PDT by The_Republican
At the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had some 45,000 nuclear warheads. At the moment, Iran has none. But when Barack Obama said the obvious -- that Iran does not pose the sort of threat the Soviet Union did -- John McCain reacted as though his rival had offered to trade Fort Knox for a sack of magic beans.
"Such a statement betrays the depth of Sen. Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment," exclaimed McCain. "These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess."
But if Iran is the Soviet Union, I'm Shaquille O'Neal. There is nothing reckless in soberly distinguishing large threats from small ones, and there is something foolhardy in grossly exaggerating the strength of your enemies.
As military powers go, Iran is a pipsqueak. It has no nuclear weapons. It has a pitiful air force. Its navy is really just a coast guard. It spends less on defense than Singapore or Sweden. Our military budget is 145 times bigger than Iran's.
By contrast, the Soviets had far more nuclear weapons than we did, a blue-water navy, formidable air power and ground forces that dwarfed ours. In a conventional war, it was anything but certain that we could prevail, and in a nuclear exchange, it was clear they could destroy us.
Iran is a very modest adversary. Of course, even a Chihuahua can bite. The U.S. government claims Iran has provided arms and training to Iraqi insurgents -- never mind that it is allied with the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
The author is wrong, but presuming the author is right, or at least believes he is right, will he write a story today castigating Obama for claiming that Iran is a “grave threat”?
After all, Obama is on both sides of this issue.
The problem is that after 40 years of the liberal push to “fix” the public education system, Obama’s lack of real understanding of how things work is mirrored in an entire generation, as represented by this reporter.
Was Obama right when he said Iran is a tiny threat or a day later when he said they were a “grave threat”?
Sent this email to Chapman:
Mr. Chapman:
Your latest essay’s reasoning on Mythmaking is seriously flawed because it sets up a straw man scenario.
Threats shouldn’t be assessed simply by population size or military capability vis-a-vis the superpowers like China, the US, Japan or Russia. Do you really think these governments are not concerned by the potential for harm that rogue states like Iran can cause?
Why then are these and other governments all so worried about Iran and N. Korea? Why are you not as worried?
Let me give you an analogy that you can easily relate to:
Would you be more worried for your safety If you are confronted in the subway by two professional robbers with guns or by a single madman who thinks it is God’s will that he kill you and that his murderous act will send him to paradise.
The professional robbers have guns that they believe will protect them from retaliation so they have no reason to kill you.
The religious lunatic on the other hand not only finds sainthood by killing you, he sins against his religion if he fails to do so.
Why can’t liberals see this deadly and dangerous distinction?
Yep thats what I was thinking ... the people lost in the wars after the attacks is a whole other ball game. Iran just needs to spend a bit of that oil money "helping" Islamic jihadists and we are in a world of trouble. Thats part of the reason the war in Iraq is being fought as they were just as capable as Iran of causing massive harm. The anthrax attack killed only a handful but I know an expert who still thinks the anthrax was weaponized in Iraq
see # 25
the comparrison is of the initial attack (Pearl Harbor and 9/11)
You gotta believe that Iran is more afrain of our tens of thousands of nukes than we are of its two or three.
Just nuke them, ride our the criticism and anger of the Euro-weenies and then we have re-established ourselves as a credible threat to be listened to.
I think you are right. The other unspoken truth is that the U.S. will not allow nuclear proliferation into the other Middle Eastern countries. This is something that Rice and Bush cannot state or put on paper without losing allies, but it is tacitly understood by all [except perhaps the liberals].
That’s what I get for posting late at night. Makes sense now.
It's a little more than a dogbite, as the 283 dead Marines in Lebanon or the 17 dead sailors on the Cole can attest. And there was essentially no reply to either one, at least that anyone has cared to talk about.
The real problem here is that Chapman and other analysts of his leaning are attempting to reduce the problem to one of conventional military lineup. Not even the Cold War was like that. And to a great degree the current system of international state-sponsored terror evolved as a means of making war safely under a nuclear umbrella, which is precisely what Iran is after. The issue isn't nuking Tel Aviv (at least not as a first resort), it's providing nuclear cover for a conventional push by Iran's proxies and allies.
Stating that Iran isn't as dangerous as the Soviet Union is correct but entirely beside the point, as irrelevant as comparing it to a Chihuahua. It is neither, it is what it is, and needs to be considered in that light and in that light alone.
You’re just assuming that’s the comparison. He makes no specific implication to suggest that, other than that’s the only comparison that comes close to making sense. Still, when the statement is “damage done by imperial Japan”, I don’t see how you can just throw out everything they did after Pearl Harbor (which still had 2,350 deaths alone). Don’t mean to harp, but if we don’t have our facts straight, we really have no business attacking other for their misstatements. I also believe people throw around historical comparisons a little too comfortably, i.e. every politician comparing the holocaust to an issue they oppose, etc. I’d say a very significant difference, which begs Peral Harbor and 9/11 NOT to be compared in a vague and uninformed context, is the loss of servicemen at Pearl Harbor. Not to discount civilian deaths of course, but truly these are two completely different scenarios.
Also a heavy majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, yes? Yet it seems no presidential candidate speaks of the need for change in U.S.-Saudi relations. Have I just not been listening enough?
Well I see ya got banned so you dont deserve a response but
Peal Harbor and 9/11 were the 2 major attacks on the US mainland so its an easy thing to compare...(The point of the article was that we dont need to worry about the little guys...you might want to read it as it fits with liberal doctrin) As to your your comments on Saudi Arabians that says where you are coming from and its silly
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.