Kim Jong-un. (c) New York Times
Somehow folks seem to think I can be easily labeled as "liberal" but that is typically from those that really do not know me well. In fact, those that know me well, know I abhor labels altogether. I might be "Liberal" because I believe in the American Dream where all citizens have a Natural Right to be exposed to all opportunities to succeed, but I might be "Conservative" if that means I want to reduce wasteful spending at all levels of government, including trimming a bloated military and subsidies to oligopolies like petroleum and chemical companies. I also like drones and think they are our military's future, but common sense tells me we need to create proper legal protocols for their use both internationally and domestically. What side of the ideological spectrum does that belief fall on? Better yet, am I acting "libertarian" to say I believe what goes on in one's "Castle" remains private and outside the concern or purview of the government? And what if I believe in local control of education (and not at the State level either)?
So where do you think I sit on the "spectrum" when I tell you I am adamantly opposed to Iran obtaining nuclear capabilities, no matter if it is even for "domestic energy?" Where does that put me if I tell you I believe all steps must be taken to ensure Iran does not gain nuclear capabilities, even if that includes military action? Certainly not on the "left" side of the spectrum right? But I do feel this way and I will tell you why.
Iran has voiced repeated rhetoric that includes using nuclear weapons to destroy the State of Israel ( as if the very existence of Israel is provocative enough for Iran to strike). Iran, including its allies in Hamas and Hezbollah have threatened to strike its neighbors, including assets belonging to the United States. So should we take a "wait and see" position to see if they follow through with their threats, or do we take their word for it and stop them from having any nuclear capabilities to strike at all? I know, it is difficult for most to come to an answer, but not me. Let's just take North Korea as an example.
As everyone knows (or should have), before North Korea obtained nuclear capabilities, it voiced similar rhetoric about destroying South Korea, or Japan, or American interests in the Pacific Rim. As we all (should) know, America instigated sanctions against the "Hermit Kingdom" in an effort to dissuade them from developing nuclear capabilities. But North Korea, like the "Little Engine that Could" survived the sanctions and developed their nukes. What did the World do? It did nothing, except further isolate North Korea as a "Rogue Nation" with additional crippling sanctions. The net result? The people of North Korea continue to suffer from untold human rights violations while the ruling class lives in relative comfort. The ordinary people of North Korea live mainly in concentrations of work camps, isolated from one another without any understanding that most of the civilized World lives in relative peace without oppression. But North Korea, despite the sanctions, continues to antagonize South Korea and the United States with heated rhetoric filled with a surreal militancy. With a new leader in Kim Jong-un ascending to the regime's throne, a certain air of unpredictability has emerged. And that has genuinely begun to worry leaders around the World. At what point will North Korea stop using its tired rhetoric and act? Will it "stand down?" Can it without "losing face?" How close will the inexperienced Kim come to making a mistake that leads to the firing of a missile at South Korea? Japan? America? Is he even in charge of his government or is he a puppet being manipulated by their military?
By now you should catch my point. In the event North Korea stumbles into a mistake and fires a missile at an ally, or even us, aren't those affected by that missile expected, even required to respond? How close can we get to another tragic war started wholly by a mistake? And if North Korea can put the threat of a mistake of an attack with nukes on everyone's mind, how can we expect Israel to "stand down" if Iran obtains nukes? They already have the rockets capable of striking her! And what if Hamas continues to shoot rockets into Israel, how can the World expect her to stand down while expecting and/or demanding South Korea defend itself if attacked by a rocket from North Korea? The World is already a dangerous place, and but we cannot afford to allow it to become more dangerous should Iran go nuclear. It's time to "show our cards." Iran must be convinced to step back from their ambitions to join the club of nuclear nations. China must corral its ill-mannered puppet state commonly known as North Korea, and the United States must convince China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and the World that we will all be better off for it. Is it too "Conservative" or "Liberal" to demand nothing less?
As President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, "This World of ours...must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect." Now if we can only get that translated in Korean, Persian, Farsi, Mandarin, Arabic and Russian. Otherwise, I am afraid it will be Deja Vu all over again!
So where do you think I sit on the "spectrum" when I tell you I am adamantly opposed to Iran obtaining nuclear capabilities, no matter if it is even for "domestic energy?" Where does that put me if I tell you I believe all steps must be taken to ensure Iran does not gain nuclear capabilities, even if that includes military action? Certainly not on the "left" side of the spectrum right? But I do feel this way and I will tell you why.
Iran has voiced repeated rhetoric that includes using nuclear weapons to destroy the State of Israel ( as if the very existence of Israel is provocative enough for Iran to strike). Iran, including its allies in Hamas and Hezbollah have threatened to strike its neighbors, including assets belonging to the United States. So should we take a "wait and see" position to see if they follow through with their threats, or do we take their word for it and stop them from having any nuclear capabilities to strike at all? I know, it is difficult for most to come to an answer, but not me. Let's just take North Korea as an example.
As everyone knows (or should have), before North Korea obtained nuclear capabilities, it voiced similar rhetoric about destroying South Korea, or Japan, or American interests in the Pacific Rim. As we all (should) know, America instigated sanctions against the "Hermit Kingdom" in an effort to dissuade them from developing nuclear capabilities. But North Korea, like the "Little Engine that Could" survived the sanctions and developed their nukes. What did the World do? It did nothing, except further isolate North Korea as a "Rogue Nation" with additional crippling sanctions. The net result? The people of North Korea continue to suffer from untold human rights violations while the ruling class lives in relative comfort. The ordinary people of North Korea live mainly in concentrations of work camps, isolated from one another without any understanding that most of the civilized World lives in relative peace without oppression. But North Korea, despite the sanctions, continues to antagonize South Korea and the United States with heated rhetoric filled with a surreal militancy. With a new leader in Kim Jong-un ascending to the regime's throne, a certain air of unpredictability has emerged. And that has genuinely begun to worry leaders around the World. At what point will North Korea stop using its tired rhetoric and act? Will it "stand down?" Can it without "losing face?" How close will the inexperienced Kim come to making a mistake that leads to the firing of a missile at South Korea? Japan? America? Is he even in charge of his government or is he a puppet being manipulated by their military?
By now you should catch my point. In the event North Korea stumbles into a mistake and fires a missile at an ally, or even us, aren't those affected by that missile expected, even required to respond? How close can we get to another tragic war started wholly by a mistake? And if North Korea can put the threat of a mistake of an attack with nukes on everyone's mind, how can we expect Israel to "stand down" if Iran obtains nukes? They already have the rockets capable of striking her! And what if Hamas continues to shoot rockets into Israel, how can the World expect her to stand down while expecting and/or demanding South Korea defend itself if attacked by a rocket from North Korea? The World is already a dangerous place, and but we cannot afford to allow it to become more dangerous should Iran go nuclear. It's time to "show our cards." Iran must be convinced to step back from their ambitions to join the club of nuclear nations. China must corral its ill-mannered puppet state commonly known as North Korea, and the United States must convince China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and the World that we will all be better off for it. Is it too "Conservative" or "Liberal" to demand nothing less?
As President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, "This World of ours...must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect." Now if we can only get that translated in Korean, Persian, Farsi, Mandarin, Arabic and Russian. Otherwise, I am afraid it will be Deja Vu all over again!
RSS Feed
