|
Nuclear weapons in the hands of responsible, rational, peace-seeking governments who truly care for their citizens aren’t as dangerous as when these WMDs are owned by extreme hot-headed, hate-dipped dictators. This was the case with Saddam Hussein, and this is the state of play with Iran. Furthermore, this is the reason why concerned leaders of the world are terrified by the prospects of letting the Ayatollah possess that kind of colossal venom. They know that the Iranian leader is capable of using his nuclear bomb, not simply as a deterrent, but either for intimidation of his neighboring states or as a weapon of war, designed to wipe his chosen nemeses off the map.
While nuclear weapons in the hands of responsible governments may never be set off in advancing their political goals, these weapons will likely be deployed by ruthless fanatics whose hate-filled souls take precedence over their love for their own citizens. The Iranian leadership is packed by suicide bombers whose belts could be replete with fissile material ready to detonate at the sight of a Zionist—only if we let them have it. The same applies to the Tea Party members of the US Congress. The debt Ceiling instrument is potentially a financial weapon of mass destruction. However, as long as Congress included a majority of reasonable legislatures, willing to compromise for the sake of the country, the debt ceiling instrument served only as a reminder that government debt needed to be regulated. On the other hand, once Congress grew into a house controlled by extreme ideologues, whose hate for their president dwarfed their love for their country, they bullied, intimidated, then tried, could and would deploy that weapon in their attempt to destroy the president and his accomplishments. They would try to prevent the debt ceiling from rising; they didn’t and wouldn’t mind if the US defaulted on its debt and the world economy collapsed in consequence, as long as the “black, African-born, communist, fascist, Muslim dictator with the alien name, Obama,” is damaged beyond repair. These Tea Party aficionados do not even realize the fact that they are potential suicide bombers whose belts are stuffed with financial weapons of mass destruction; they are quite comparable to the Iranian leadership. The only way going forward—if world security bears any merit—is to prevent extremists from employing and producing WMDs. This conclusion applies to the Iranian regime outside the US and to the Tea Party domestically. The most effective way of preventing the Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear bombs is to keep applying economic pressure along with potential military threats on them. The best way to prevent the Tea Party from replaying the default scenario is to abolish the debt ceiling once and for all, preventing it from becoming a weapon of mass financial destruction in the hands of ideological extremists. The US is the only country in the world with a debt ceiling. (Denmark is the only other country which has a debt ceiling, but it is set far above the country’s actual debt; it is not a real constraint on government spending). Defaulting on US government obligations is unimaginable. It should never take place. Any time the US government approaches the debt ceiling it must raise it. It makes no sense to have a non-constraint constraint while letting it become an instrument that can be used by Tea Party-like enthusiasts to spawn a worldwide financial disaster. The US debt ceiling must be abolished. Instead, the discussion concerning government spending should focus on the annual budget, and once it is determined; once it has been agreed upon, the effected government obligations must be honored. Let’s prevent fanatics from bringing about massive damage when their hate for their adversaries exceeds their love for their country. Let’s prevent them from having access to WMDs. It’s time.
0 Comments
During a well-publicized interview in 2002, Samantha Power reflected on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. She advocated a diversion of funds committed by the US Administration to Israel—for its defense needs—to the Palestinian Authority. She called for a US military intervention aimed at imposing a solution on the Palestinian question. She appeared to portray the Palestinians as victims of Israeli oppression.
In a radio interview in 2008, she doubled down on her extreme leftist’s views, responding to a question by complaining that "So much of it is about: 'Is he going to be good for the Jews?" In a 2011 interview with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, she seemed to have changed course. Boteach reported that “Samantha Power seemed genuinely and deeply pained by the perception that she was not a friend of Israel.” She rationalized her 2002 comments by explaining that she was asked to respond to a “thought experiment”, a trick question— “what she would advise an American president if it seemed that either party in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict were moving toward genocide”—and that she stumbled, nose-diving into that trap. Had she had more media experience, she should not have responded. She alluded to the fact that her words were taken out of full context. Given the multi-colored picture painted above, the question of whether or not Ms. Power’s new appointment is “good for the Jews” is not a trivial one. Still, the answer, in my opinion, is fairly obvious. Samantha Power’s earlier views concerning Israel will not be pertinent to her job in the UN. Here is why. The UN ambassador is merely a messenger. He or she serves at the pleasure of the president of the US. Although ambassadors write their own speeches, they follow talking points consistent with US policy determined by the president. Regardless of their brilliance or points-made, speeches in the UN do not sway opinions. All ambassadors follow voting choices inspired and determined by their bosses, the top leaders, the true policy makers in their country. Ethics and justice are as dead as Latin. Politics and venal national interests rule the roost in the UN. Samantha Power will follow directions, passed on to her by President Obama when it comes to voting choices and dealings with other diplomats, regardless of her personal preferences or emotional brainwaves. And when it comes to the president, we have witnessed a dramatic evolution in his attitude toward the Jewish state in general, and concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular. When President Obama took office in 2009 he believed that Israel was at fault for the unending stalemate in the “Peace Process”; he believed that the Arab countries and Iran could be won over by his show of respect and admiration to the Muslim world. By 2013, he appears to have learned a lesson. He understands the reality of the situation. He does not merely say that he is a true supporter of the Jewish state; he delivers, and he does so with unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation, significant financial support, perseverance before an extensive anti-Israel lobbying consensus in the UN Security Council, while employing the US Veto power time and again to stop bullying the Jewish State. But above all, we must remind ourselves that leaders go through a life changing reality check once they assume power. On their campaign trail, or while in the political Opposition Party, they stick to popular ideals; they advocate solutions that make their supporters and potential voters feel good. They do so with no consideration or understanding of political, economic and national security constraints. It’s easy and trendy when the buck stops somewhere else. Samantha Power was not representing her country when she was making her unfortunate remarks. She could afford articulating “shoot from the hip” ideals as advocated repeatedly by the extreme left; she represented no one else but herself. When, all at once, her words and actions might stand for her country, her boss rather than her own naive ideologies, she would become increasingly more responsible, more self-scrutinizing, more educated about the actual realities of the Middle East. I would not lose sleep, not even for a moment, as a consequence of Samantha Power’s elevation to the job of the next US ambassador to the UN. Biography Avi Perry is the author of “72 Virgins”—a popular thriller about a countdown to a terror attack on US soil. He is currently a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN). He served as an intelligence expert for the Israeli government and was a professor at Northwestern University. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories distinguished staff member and manager, and a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to UN International Standards body. He is also the author of “Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks.” For more information, visit www.aviperry.org. Friday, March 10, 2006 |
Categories
All
|
