Monday, October 31, 2005

Dhimmicrat Convictions

Amir Taheri writes in the Arab News about the "strategic brain" of Iran's mullahs, Hassan Abbasi:

According to Abbasi, the global balance of power is in a state of flux and every nation should fight for a place in a future equilibrium. The Western powers, especially the United States, still wield immense military and economic power that “looks formidable on paper.” But they are unable to use that power because their populations have become “risk-averse.”

“The Western man today has no stomach for a fight,” Abbasi says. “This phenomenon is not new: All empires produce this type of man, the self-centered, materialist, and risk-averse man.”

Abbasi believes that the US intervention in Iraq, which involved “slightly higher risks” than the invasion of Afghanistan, was the very last of its kind. And even then, the US went into Iraq because of President George W Bush’s “readiness to do what no other American leader would dare contemplate.”

So, is this strategic brain correct? Abbasi sounds a lot like one Saddam Hussein who played 'chicken' with the Bush Administration. Saddam blinked and is now facing trial in Iraq. One thug less in the world.

But the question remains, have we Americans become too self-centered, materialistic and risk-averse to deal with the thugs of the world--even when they attack us on our home soil and threaten our interests and allies?

Personally, I think that Abbasi misunderestimates the vast majority of Americans, but he has described the Democratic Party almost perfectly. If ever there was a political party amenable to being bullied by tyrants, the Democrats are it.

Where is there one, single person in that political party that has the courage to face down the world's terrorists, knowing that freedom and democracy and western civilization are at stake?

Who among them will stand up and shout, "No", as the deranged mullahs of Iran work feverishly to destroy Israel and "wipe it off the map"?

Who among them will be politically incorrect enough to have the moral certainty that freedom and democracy are superior in every way possible to tyranny and oppression--even when it is hiding under a veil of religion?

Who among them will be brave enough to call such fanatics to account?

These risk-averse, self-absorbed dhimmicrats are aggressive enough (and desire power enough) to vociferously and reflexly oppose every action by the elected Republican president--especially his decision to proactively protect the US from a psychopathic maniac who had much the same philosophy as Abbasi's; but if we left the defense of the United States, the free world, and western civilization to them, they would depart the scene as rapidly as John Kerry left the conflict in Vietnam.

They have no convictions, so they cannot have the courage of them.

No comments: