Posted by: Scott Groves | January 12, 2012

Follow-up to my post about Obama and Iran

A week ago I wrote a post regarding Obama’s take on Iran.

I got some interesting feedback from a very intelligent friend of mine who has several degrees and is a wizard when it comes to history.

I thought I would share some of his thoughts here (please excuse some editing and clarification – hopefully my friend won’t mind me altering his text a bit):

Scott,

What is really sad about this clip is that Obama’s statements are the misreadings of, or lies about, the historical record.

Obama states:  “Kennedy talked with Khrushchev,”…   When in it was in-fact Kennedy’s weakness in his initial meeting with Khrushchev that convinced the latter to attempt to place missiles in Cuba, thus triggering the 1962 crisis.  Ironically, it was Kennedy’s first attempts at “talking” which almost led to nucleur disaster.  It wasn’t until JFK used the military blockade and a stronger political stance that Khrushchev backed down from trying to bully the United States.

Obama goes on, “Nixon talked with Mao,”… Yes, and because Nixon (and Kissinger) were “realists,” this lead not to the defeat of communism and tyranny in China, but to 40 years of economic expansion by China (through trade opening and exports in addition to exploitation of their citizens), which has increased China’s GDP and massive military buildup.  This financial, political and economic strength will be what puts U.S. supremacy in the Pacific and our ability to protect our democratic Asian allies (Japan, S. Korea, Philippines, Taiwan, even Australia) in jeopardy.   One wonders if Nixon had not opened relations with China in the early 1970s, China might not be so rich today, or such a source of relentless military and economic competition to the U.S. today.   Maybe it would have been instead a big, impoverished Cuba, riper for revolution by democratic forces, as the Soviets were by 1990.  Instead, we are forced into bed (financially and politically) with a country whom we know to violate the civil rights of many of their own citizens.

Obama implies strongly that dialogue between Reagan and Gorbachev brought down the Berlin Wall.   In fact, and the record is clear here, it was Reagan’s steadfastness on increased defense spending despite the opposition of Democrats in Congress (SEE: European missiles, naval buildup, and most importantly, the Strategic Defense Initiative -SDI, or Star Wars) which caused Gorbachev and the Kremlin leaders to throw in the towel on continuing the Cold War.  [The book Useful Idiots does a great job of dissecting this issue and is worth a read]

As to Obama’s view that “tiny” countries such as Venezuela, Cuba and Iran can pose no threat to the U.S., and that we have nothing to fear from them is also ludicrous.   Venezuela—fomenting revolution and communism in Latin America, and hosting Muslim terrorists and probably planning to host Iranian missiles, and propping up Cuba economically with Venezuelan oil; Cuba, which enslaves millions, but is not a threat only because we refused to talk or trade with them for 50 years, ensuring their weakness; and Iran, which, for all our decades of talking (instead of military action) is taking over the Middle East and close to becoming a terror-sponsoring nuclear power hell-bent on the destruction of Israel and the U.S., and probably Europe.

Obama should re-read (or read for the first time) the history of the 20th century.   The long refusal of the U.S. and Europe to face the obvious nature of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao led to the death of scores of millions of people—probably 100 million—and decades of enslavement of a large portion of the world.    50 million dead on WWII, 40 years of Eastern European enslavement, and the continued enslavement of the people of Cuba, China, Tibet, Vietnam all flowed from the same U.S.-European weakness.

Who knows how it all might have turned out had we and our allies been stronger in the face of the communists and of Hitler.   It is worth keeping in mind that not one of these adversaries (Bolshevism, Nazism, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Cuban communism) had nuclear weapons when first appearing on the world stage.  The Russians didn’t have them from 1917 to 1951, and could have been deposed around the time of WWI and the early 1920s; Hitler never had nuclear weapons and could have been easily defeated by the Europeans (France, England) between 1933 and 1936,  and the Chinese didn’t have nuclear weapons until about 1960, and could perhaps been defeated during the 1945-1948 period when Chiang was still on the mainland, and if one believes MacArthur, even in 1950-51.  My point is that the introduction of nuclear weapons is a game changer because our weakness in the face of true evil will have quicker and more destructive affects than in the past.

– S.L.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: