October 22, 2012

Obama To Romney: "We Also Have Fewer Horses And Bayonets"

Romney = Big, Clumsy Power.
Obama = Smart, Efficient Power.
Romney's ignorance about the dramatic changes in warfare and the economic consequences of military overspending speaks volumes. I'm not defending Obama, but at least he knows enough to say that building more ships will not strengthen America. At least he shows common sense about this issue. America needs new underwater drones to deal with Iranian mines if a war breaks out, not more ships.

Both candidates would've served America and the world better if they laid out the consequences of a war between USrael and Iran. They did not discuss the limits of U.S. military power. 99% of their remarks were talking points and prepared bullshit.

And why are both Obama and Romney so anti-Iranian? We know it's not about the nuclear issue because Iran is not interested in acquiring nuclear weapons. Do they want war with Iran? Are they sure America will emerge victorious in an apocalyptic clash with Iran and the world of Islam? What will it take to achieve such an outcome for USrael . . . nuclear bombs on Iranian cities?

You can't just say, "Iran is the greatest national security threat," and leave it there. The American people and the world deserve better from American leaders. Ultimately, we're talking about the possibility of nuclear war. Bob Schieffer referenced at the beginning of the debate the Cuban missile crisis, reminding both candidates what is at stake at the end of the day.

But nuclear war doesn't seem to phase Obama and Romney. Both men piled on Iran during the debate and bowed down to Israel like slaves. Obama talked about a "nuclear arms race" in the Middle East if Iran builds a nuclear weapon ---- but what about Israel and Pakistan? Why is Iran being singled out? Obama said he will make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon at all costs. Really? So, will Obama blow up Iran to stop Iran from attaining the means to defend itself from aggression? This is backwards logic.

Both men also repeated the fallacy that Iranian President Ahmadinejad said he will wipe Israel off the map. What he said was that the current government in Israel will be gone from the page of time, quoting Khomeini. Obama says the exact same thing when he says Assad must step down. Gaddafi's regime also disappeared from the page of time, due to U.S. efforts. It was a political statement, not a genocidal statement.

What is so controversial about calling for greater openness, democracy, and human rights in Israel? Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter and other world leaders stand with the Ayatollahs on this issue. If change must come to Syria and the Arab world, then why not also Israel? Israel is not a beacon of democracy and freedom, it also must undergo democratic changes and join the community of civilized nations.

By the way, there are no "civilized nations" in the world today. Maybe some states in Latin America, but that's it. The states in America, Iran, and Israel are not "civilized." That is the truth.

From an amateur historian's perspective, threatening Iran in so cavalier a fashion was not wise. I'm not defending the Islamic regime, but the talk of war and sanctions is stupid and repulsive. Romney said that a "nuclear capable" Iran provides enough justification for U.S. military action. Does this mean he will commit to an American invasion of Iran? This is dangerous and foolish rhetoric. When will it end?

If not now, when? If not by American leaders, then by who? Russia? China? Will these enlightened countries lead humanity to world peace? Is the era of American leadership over?