Viewing 1 - 2 out of 2 Blogs.

Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what Sept 11, 2001, did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world war. Like the Cold War, as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us against Islamo-fascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades. What follows from this way of looking at the last seven years is that the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be understood if they are regarded as self-contained wars in their own right. Instead we have to see them as fronts or theaters that have been opened up in the early stages of a protracted global struggle. The same thing is true of Iran. As the currently main center of the Islamo-fascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11, and as the main sponsor of the terrorism that is Islamo-fascism's weapon of choice, Iran too is a front in this new world war. Moreover, its effort to build a nuclear arsenal makes it the potentially most dangerous one of all. Seven years have passed since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, which were supposed to awaken us to the threat of devastating attacks by state-sponsored terrorists. And now, America is finally beginning to confront the world's largest and most dangerous state sponsor of terrorism: the Islamic Republic of Iran. For the past couple of weeks, newspapers and magazines have been filled with discussion of possible military action against Iran. The debate, so far, is between those who merely want to "threaten" the use of force, and those who argue that the Iranian threat is illusory. No one is yet willing to face the fact that Iran is already at war with the United States and that Iran is the central enemy we have to defeat if we are going to win the War on Terrorism. In all of the second guessing, generated by the backward looking debate over what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, it has been easy for some to claim that the Iranian threat is being blown out of proportion by the Bush administration. But grasping the case against Iran doesn't depend on secret dossiers and obscure intelligence reports. All it requires is that you open up your newspaper and read the pronouncements of Iran's own leaders. In early April, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hosted a pep rally at which dancers in traditional Persian garb held aloft vials of refined uranium, while Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had succeeding in enriching uranium, the first step toward producing a nuclear bomb. An Iranian official followed up by announcing that Iran would immediately take the next step, expanding uranium enrichment to an industrial scale, allowing Iran to start building its nuclear arsenal as early as the end of this year. Why does Iran want to enrich uranium? Ahmadinejad isn't interested so much in joining a nuclear club as he is in wielding a nuclear club. He has openly boasted that Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the map." Is Ahmadinejad just a wild-eyed radical, out of touch with the rest of the Iranian regime? A few years ago, Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, considered moderate by the standards of the Iranian regime, boasted that "a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel." In case you don't think they're serious, Iran's religious establishment recently released a fatwa, (A fatwa is an Islamic religious ruling) sanctioning the use of nuclear weapons. But the biggest threat posed by an Iranian nuclear weapon is not in Israel, but in Iraq, where Iran is already fighting a proxy war against America and its allies. In the Iraqi conflict, Iran has been playing both ends against the United States. In Western Iraq, the Sunni insurgency is supported by a flow of terrorists, weapons, and money from Syria, a key Iranian ally. In Southern Iraq, Shiite insurgents have been using sophisticated Iranian built shaped charges in their bomb attacks on American convoys. But this is the least of the Iranian threat. Violent Shiite militias that seek to impose an Islamist dictatorship are funded, organized, and take their ideological inspiration from Iran. The leader of the most pro-Iranian faction, Muqtada al-Sadr, has publicly pledged to fight on Iran's behalf if it is attacked by America. There is no need to invoke the doctrine of pre-emption against Iran. Iran is already fighting a war against the United States. We just haven't been fighting back. We have held our fire as if Iran were protected by a shield of nuclear weapons. How much more aggressive will the Iranians become when they are actually protected by such a nuclear shield? Iran's reach is not limited to Iraq. Late last year, when Bashar Assad's Syrian dictatorship was reeling from the loss of Lebanon, Ahmadinejad made a trip to Damascus in which he urged Assad to stand fast and pledged Iranian support. The Assad regime, which had begun trial moves towards political liberalization, instead back peddled and threw hundreds of dissidents into prison. At the same time, Ahmadinejad met with leaders of Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist militia in Southern Lebanon, and representatives of two Palestinian terrorist groups: Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Now that Hamas has won the Palestinian elections, it is looking for diplomatic and financial support from Iran. Iran's tentacles even extend beyond the Middle East. Iran has been cultivating an alliance with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, including discussions about providing the anti-American firebrand and protégé of Fidel Castro with nuclear technology. This expansionist pattern is no accident. The mullahs who rule Iran's system from behind the scenes maneuvered Ahmadinejad into power last year because they knew he had the fiery fanaticism to go on the offensive, pressing Iran's advantage in the face of American wavering on Iraq. Ahmadinejad has not disappointed them. Ahmadinejad has a master plan for the domination of the world. In a document presented to Iran's parliament last year, he declared that the US is a fading "sunset power," while Iran is poised to become the "core power" of the Islamic world, the center of a totalitarian Islamic empire. Ahmadinejad's has a larger dream of extending the power and influence of Islam throughout Europe, and this too he hopes to accomplish by playing on the fear that resistance to Iran would lead to a nuclear war. Everywhere you look in the Middle East, if you ask who is the biggest threat to America's interests, you will find the same answer, Hamas in the Palestinian territories, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria, the Sunni terrorists and Shiite militias in Iraq, directly or indirectly, Iran is supporting them all. Iran's global ambitions are as grandiose as anything put forward by Osama bin Laden, but they are backed by control of a country of 70 million people with an army, navy, and air force, a vast network of terrorist organizations across the Middle East, and very soon, nuclear weapons. If America's failure to act against the comparatively minor threat from Bin Laden in the 1990s resulted in the horrors of September 11, we can expect far worse if we fail to act against Iran. A war with Iran must begin with the destruction of its nuclear facilities, but it must not end there. Iran is likely to respond to any American attack by escalating, inciting an uprising in Southern Iraq, unleashing a wave of terrorist attacks, launching missiles against U.S. targets in the Middle East, attacking oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. And even if we neutralize all of these threats, Iran's mullahs will not drop their global ambitions. They will merely wait for our attention to wander and attempt to strike us again. The goal of a war against Iran must be to topple the Iranian regime and to support the rise of a new government formed by the secularist dissidents who now languish in Iran's prisons. The wars we have fought so far, against the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Baathist regime in Iraq were necessary, but they left the largest, most dangerous Islamist regime untouched. The Iranians know it. Sensing American weakness, they are moving against us on all fronts and any further delay in pushing them back will only make the task more difficult. We have to act and we have to act now. There can be no victory in the War on Terrorism until we confront and defeat the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is the real war, and it's time we started fighting it.

History is a much loved hobby of mine, and I enjoy looking at parallels between the past and the present. Now I must first say that the odds of any of this being fact is astronomically small, but it interesting none the less. I have read several essays on this subject, but none that truly take the parallels this far, or expounded on them in great detail. The issue I am talking about is the parallels between Sen. Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler. First I would like to say that being somewhat of a history buff, the Nazi regime is a subject that I find extremely interesting, and enjoy studying. Please don't believe for a second that I prescribe to any of Hitler's twisted ideals, but his action and thoughts behind those actions intrigue me. And as I look at the meteoric rise of Sen. Obama, I see a striking similarity to Hitler's rise to power. 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. They disliked the policies of their current government, and were looking forward to the charismatic leader who could lead them back to the economic and cultural power it once was. 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 a lot of radical ties, but the media, and ultimately the voters, were willing to overlook that. Who is he? The answer is Adolf Hitler. It’s something of a trick question, because nothing in the characteristics of the above described character bear any distinction between Obama and Hitler. The only difference is that the final sentence implies that the leader has already been elected, while Obama has not been elected. Yet. Before Hitler became the leader of Germany, he was a relative unknown. Not many people truly knew what he was about, or what he stood for. But he could inspire people to do whatever he wanted them to do. During his speeches, women would often be seen crying and feinting. Men would shout and cheer, and hang on Hitler’s every word. During the years leading up to his take over, the people of Germany were crying out for "change." Hitler stepped into the spot light with a message of seemingly divine and fundamental change. Now doesn't this sequence of events sound extremely familiar? Like events that are currently taking place in the Democratic Party with regards to the candidacy of Sen. Obama. But I am not sure that all these similarities are truly coincidental. What if there is a deeper meaning behind Sen. Obama's rise to power? Hitler also had an enemy to defeat. An enemy whom he blamed for all of Germany's problems. In the 1930’s, Hitler ran on a platform that included open anti-Semitism. He looked to the Jews to bare the blame for the rest of the country’s shortcomings. I am sure that anyone reading this knows what happened next. At that time and place, it was politically viable to do so. In the modern era and in the U.S., it is not viable to be openly opposed to any race, including the Jews. Nevertheless, Obama has knowingly jeopardized his chances for the presidency by willfully associating himself with countless anti-Semites: Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Samantha Powers, Robert Malley, Bill Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, El-Hady, etc. Some of his own advisors have called for the U.S. to cut off funding to Israel, have been caught negotiating with known Islamic extremist groups, and have expressed sympathy and praise for Hamas. There appears to be only two conclusions we can reach from this: A. Obama is anti-Semitic but hides it from voters. B. Obama is incredibly tolerant of anti-Semitism. Regardless of Obama’s true feelings, this sort of approach to something as poisonous as racism is disturbing and dangerous. The church that Sen. Obama attended has, as I am sure you all know, some interesting ideals. Their mission statement talks almost solely about staying true to the black community. That in itself seems extremely racist, but there is more. Sen. Obama's church has also given Louis Farrakhan, the man who has stated that the causes of the world’s problems are the Jewish people, their lifetime achievement award. With the similarities between Obama and Hitler, one must ask if it is only events that have taken place around them that is similar. The fact that even people who are closely involved in the Obama campaign do not know what he truly stands for makes me wonder how closely he follows Farrakhan’s ideals. I am not trying to make the claim that Barack Obama is a closet Nazi. I am not saying that he is for sure an anti-Semite. But what I am trying to do is urge caution when looking at Sen. Obama as America's savior. With the parallels I have put forth, people must keep it in the back of their minds that there is the possibility of people that are behind the Obama campaign who are working towards the goal of resurrecting a Nazi-like regime in America. I am simply concerned for our country’s future, and how quickly people are to jump on the Obama band wagon. Very similar events occurred during Hitler's rise, and I want to urge people to ask themselves what is it they truly see in Obama. The Christian church stood by and in some cases openly embraced Hitler and his beliefs into their own. All while our Jewish brethren were massacred in the name of some “greater good“. That is the primary purpose of this letter, so that we may avoid making that same mistake again.