|
|
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:04:18 -0800, "blue collar worker" <...@email.com
The second coming of the holocaust:
The next president of the United States will inherit a looming crisis: Iran.
The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called for the annihilation
of Israel on more than one occassion, and has promised to be the man to do
it. In that same breath, Mr. Ahmadinejad's nation is in the process of
developing nuclear weapons. As he has stated his aim is to annihilate
israel, has the power to give such an order, and is developing the capacity
to meet such an end, it is reasonable to take this threat seriously. Very
seriously.
The best solution to this problem will come from careful diplomacy, not
appeasement. Appeasement is a word that is tossed around rather carelessly
these days, so please allow me to explain the distinctions with an analogy:
Scenario A. A man walks into a field with a briefcase where a little girl is
picking flowers. His name is Mr. Nari. He then opens up his briefcase and
pulls out the components for a gun. As he is reconstructing his weapon,
another man, Mr. O, walks up and asks Mr. Nari what he's doing. Mr. Nari
responds by informing him of his intention to shoot the little girl. Mr. O
is alarmed and asks Mr. Nari, "What do you want?" "Just to talk, that's
all," responds Mr. Nari. Mr. O is relieved. All he wanted was to talk! So
Mr. O obliges him and begins delivering a powerful argument against shooting
people. Meanwhile, Mr. Nari nods his head in agreement as he keeps on
working at putting together his gun. Soon he springs the last part into
place, raises his weapon, and shoots the little girl dead. "What did you do
that for!?" demands Mr. O. To which Mr. Nari replies, "You idiot, I told you
that was what I was going to do and you sat here chatting away, giving me
the time I needed to pull it off."
Scenario B. A man walks into a field with a briefcase where a little girl is
picking flowers. His name is Mr. Nari. He then opens up his briefcase and
pulls out the components for a gun. As he is reconstructing his weapon,
another man, Mr. M, walks up and asks Mr. Nari what he's doing. Mr. Nari
responds by informing him of his intention to shoot the little girl. Mr. M
is alarmed and pulls out a gun of his own and points it at Mr. Nari. "Don't
even think about it," warns Mr. M. "Whoa, relax, I just want to talk," says
Mr. Nari. "Throw that away, and then we'll talk," replied Mr. M. Mr. Nari
pauses, stares at the gun pointed at him, then reluctantly obliges. And so
they talk.
Scenario A is appeasement, scenario B is diplomacy with preconditions. Most
tyrants with diabolical ambition have complex schemes that require a lot of
time to acheive. To acquire the time needed, they often use diplomacy as a
stalling mechanism. So long as they are giving up nothing in the talks, they
are getting something for nothing. That is why the word "appeasement" is
used to describe these sorts of situations: the well-intentioned head of
state gives up something the tyrant needs (time) for nothing in hopes he'll
change his mind. History has shown this to be ineffective. That is the
purpose of preconditions. A precondition is something the leader must give
up before formal diplomacy is engaged. In the case of Iran, it would be
their nuclear weapons program.
Of the three most major candidates this election season has seen, only one
of them wants to engage in the sort of diplomacy described in scenario A,
Barack Obama. Ahmadinejad wants the time necessary to complete his genocidal
ambitions, and according to Obama, he intends to give it to him. Obama must
understand that his methods consist of appeasement at some level, because
when Bush gave a speech about appeasers without naming a name, political
party, or even national origin, Obama decided he must've been talking about
Obama.
There are approximately six million jews in Israel today. If Obama's policy
of appeasement becomes U.S. policy, then Ahmadinejad will get his wish.
Never again, is the slogan of Holocaust survivors. If Obama gets a chance to
enact this policy, we will have let them down. Perhaps then, when an entire
nation is wiped off the map with millions dead, people will finally learn
that appeasement does not work. Then again, you'd think we would've learned
that lesson from Hitler and the first Holocaust.
Holocaust deniers often pick up on one fact to stake their claim: Hitler
never issued an order for the Final Solution. This is true. It was actually
the brainchild of one his subordinates. Hitler merely allowed it to happen,
and in doing so, was responsible for it. If Obama follows his stated
position regarding Iran, he will find himself in a similar position -
staring at the annihilation of six million innocent lives and doing nothing
to stop it.
History repeats:
Pop Quiz 2. Name this leader:
The nation was in shambles. A previous ruler had led the country into an
unnecessary war, the economy was failing, and a sense of depression filled
the air. Then, a new leader emerged. He was a powerful speaker, offering
hope, change, and a fix to the economy. He wrote two books about his
experiences and used his literary work to propel him to success. He was an
open christian with some muslim friends. He called for unity and considered
himself an advocate of peace. Some of his political opponents cast him as
naive and inexperienced. He also had alot of radical ties, but the media,
and ultimately the voters, were willing to overlook that.
Who is he?
The answer is Hitler.
|