Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Obama's Apology

The question is, what would Newt do? He is clear that to apologize to the Muslim world is “astonishing” and embarrassing, or any other word he can think of to belittle the actions of Barack Obama. But, what would Newt do?

If apologizing to those who already see us as arrogant, at war with Islam and occupying their country will lead to one more step toward peace and understanding with Islam, then I, for one, am glad to have a president big enough to say, “I am sorry for what happened.” Being sorry does not mean that we were all wrong or that they are all right. It simply means, let’s try for a better relationship.

One thing has been demonstrated without question. Violence only produces more violence. Are we not getting tired of war after war trying to force other people to do it our way? What does it hurt to try something new? The president’s apology did not cause the death of Americans but it may have prevented more bloodshed. There is no way to know. What we do know, is that his apology strengthened the hands of those millions of moderate Muslims who are pleading for peace and a better expression of Islam.

Newt wants to come across as a military tough guy, but he sounds more like a moral mosquito. If what we want most in the next decade is more and more violence, any president can provide that, even start a war. It takes leadership to prevent one.

Thomas Are
February 28, 2012

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Is It Moral to Murder?

My lands, have we come to that? A national magazine’s cover story feature is entitled, IS IT MORAL TO KILL IRAN’S SCIENTISTS?

When Hamas does it, it is terrorism. When Hezbollah does it, it’s terrorism,” said Tod Robberson in The Dallas Morning News. So presumably, it was also an act of terrorism last week when two men on a motorcycle raced through morning rush hour traffic in the streets of Tehran and stuck a magnet bomb to a car carrying Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, deputy director of Iran’s nuclear enrichment plant. Roshan, 32 was killed, along with his bodyguard, becoming the fifth Iranian nuclear scientist to die a violent, mysterious death in recent years. No one doubts that Israel’s Mossad is behind these sophisticated assassinations, probably with U.S. help.[1]

Do we have to vote on murder? Assassinations are not only immoral, they are stupid. You can’t stop intelligence with a bomb.

Does anyone think that Iran will suddenly say, “Oh my. We would like to build nuclear capabilities such as that of our neighbors, but we must not upset the Americans or the Israelis?” Or, will killing a scientist or even bombing a reactor only increase their determination to speed up their progress? It might set them back a couple of years, but does anyone think that this is going to be the end of it? It is only a matter of time before the rage in Iran will strike back. Of course, our media will cry about the lack of Islamic morality and report the retaliation as a naked act of hostility. Killing top scientists will increase their determination to strike back at Israel and the U.S. Can you imagine the outrage if Iran started killing American scientists?

There are three reasons why the hawks are willing, or even eager to go to war with Iran. One: they will not have to do the fighting and dying. Two: they will not have to pay for it. And three: they are certain that we will win it. Let the politicians talk about imposing a universal draft, including their own sons and daughters, talk about raising taxes immediately to pay for it, and admit right up front that a war with Iran will not be a cake walk and would probably drag on for decades with no certain outcome, and suddenly we might start hearing different rhetoric coming from our leaders.

Before we allow Israel to drag us into another war, someone needs to ask whose army is going to fight it, how are we going to pay for it, and how in the world are we going to get out of it.

Thomas Are
February 9, 2012

[1] The Week, A Death in Tehran, January 27, 2012, p.4.