Posted by MP, in another thread:
. . .
"dust-7" the Newt Gingrich fan amped up for WWIII:
http://www.hannity.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-78766.html
And that's not what I wrote:
This is the Cold War continued. And the Soviets are losing. The Chicoms are losing, despite how things may seem. What both have is far more weaponry and far larger forces. The question will be, do they have to bluff the west with attack, will they attack, or will they continue to try to defeat the free west 'without firing a shot'? The leftist establishment has accomplished much for them, after all, in this the supposedly last 'superpower'. So viewed that way, it might seem grim for the free west.
But it's also easy to become defeatist. And I sense a bit of that in Newt. You can see too much of the 'inside moves', too much of the world, and lose perspective, and lose ones bearings. The fact is, Afganistan is free from the Taliban, and Iraq has already formed its second government. Iran is spouting, but completely in check - and surrounded (which is probably why they're spouting, and pushing Hezbollah, etc). The North Koreans threatened a long range missile, that went nowhere, and have only succeeded in so frightening the Japanese, that the nation so unilaterally opposed to nuclear weapons seems quickly to be casting aside that objection in favor of being the one to push the button were they to be attacked.
-------------
I'd add that certain critics, on this forum, seem to want to have it both ways. They would complain about Communism, but perhaps not about Communists. They would complain, perhaps, of Islam, but not of Islamic countries already shown to be militarily belligerent, particularly if it meant supporting ANY action taken by Israel.
And that leads to the question - Does Israel have a right to exist? And apparently, some here believe that The Roman Catholic Church dogmatically teaches that Jєωs must forever wander. It's certainly understood that they still suffer punishment for attacking those Jєωs faithful to God and His Church. The Church, nor any reasonable person not Catholic, cannot condone the alterations of Scriptures known as the TNK, nor various opinions of the тαℓмυd.
But it is neither reasonable to attack Israel. The Church even did oppose such a nation, at least as far as I know. Someone correct me if that's wrong. But that opposition weakened after the war. The British were disheartened by Jєωιѕн terrorism, and a 'war abroad'. Even almost as soon as the British received their 'mandate' from the collapsed Ottoman Empire after WWI, there were those certainly eager to attempt a co-operative arrangement. But those seeking peace were threatened and harassed by Arab 'liberationists', long before WWII. It was restated by Lord Peel of Britain, just before the war in 1937, that such co-operation would not be possible - suggesting partition as the alternative.
Even before the war, Jєωιѕн factions operated as terrorists hoping to destroy support at home for continued British control of Palestine. They attacked not only innocents, but specifically the Arabs who opposed them, as well.
While Hitler's Final Solution was important in passing Resolution 181 for partition, it was more the fact that Jєωs were denied emigration from occupied nαzι territory in order to escape such a fate. So the state of Israel was created, essentially, on the argument of guilt and a prevention of such emigration refusals in future. Should Jєωs need to escape, that is, Israel would be one nation to allow them entry.
Topic: The Sean Hannity forum (Read 693 times)