It used to be said that the cure for the ills of democracy
is more democracy. Those were the good old days. What you have now in America is a
school of thought – if you can call that a school – which says the following:
The cure for the ills of armament is more armament. Aside from the local wackos
who make up the leadership of the National Rifle Association (the people who
want to make America safe by giving every man, woman and child a gun,) we now
hear from the self-designated international wackos who want to make the world
safe for democracy by firing up a new arms race.
And we have two articles on this day, August 23, 2013
written by such wackos who were kind enough to expand on their theory, and let
us see for ourselves how a screwy mind actually works. The first article was
written by William Lloyd Stearman under the title: “Why the U.S. Still
Needs Nuclear Weapons Superiority” and the subtitle: “I saw firsthand what
happened when the Allies thought the Soviets had the strategic advantage.” It
was published in the Wall Street Journal. As to the second article, it was
written by Clifford D. May under the title: “Realism on Egypt ” and the
subtitle: “Aid to the military should be conditional.” It was published in National
Review Online.
What the two articles have in common is that the authors
urge the people on whose behalf they take the liberty to speak, to ramp up the
arming of the nation. Stearman speaks for America , and urges its leaders to
aim for military superiority. As to Clifford May, he speaks for Israel , and urges America to keep it militarily
superior. What is significant is that the two authors say what they say without
once mentioning that the response of the potential “enemies” the two countries
will arm against, will be to catch up. To do this, they will arm themselves
with equal or better weaponry, thus trigger an arms race in the way that things
were in the bad old days.
You can see how the mind of a wacko works when you follow
the logic that these people employ to arrive at their conclusions. For example,
Stearman tells the story of Sputnik that was a game-changer, as he says,
because it meant that the Soviets could have intercontinental ballistic
missiles. As it turned out, however, the Soviets never bothered building such
weapons as proven by the flights of the American U-2 spy planes.
What happened, instead was that Soviet Premier Nikita
Khrushchev was so “emboldened” by the success of Sputnik, he asked for changes
in the status of Berlin .
Misreading that boldness, the Americans thought there was a missile gap between
them and the Soviets. They responded by embarking on a program to fill a gap
that did not exist while making concessions that Khrushchev did not take
advantage of. Well, instead of seeing this as a reason to avoid an arms race
that could annihilate the planet if and when someone will misread someone
else's intention, Stearman says we should reignite the nightmare scenario of
the bad old days. So I ask: Then do what, William? Love the bomb and learn to
live with it? What a wacko idea!
As to the way that the mind of Clifford May works, he begins
with the typical Jewish habit of mutilating history. He then builds on it an
edifice that is more an optical illusion than it is reality. But having learned
that he can no longer get away with too much BS, he plays it safe this time.
Talking about the Camp David Accord, look how he articulates the core of his
current theory: “Egyptian generals realize that a conflict with the Jewish
state would end in their defeat and humiliation … It this thesis is correct,
peace can be preserved by sharpening Israel 's qualitative military
edge.” As you can see, he first asserts: “generals realize” but then qualifies:
“If this is correct.”
What is noticeable here is that for the past 30 years or so,
the Jewish propaganda machine was telling the American Congress that the litmus
test the Egyptian government must pass is the country's willingness to adhere
to the Camp David Accord. But now, Clifford May says: Who cares about that
Accord; just give Israel
superior weapons, and that will keep the peace because the Egyptians who kicked
Israel
out of the Sinai in 1973, may or may not now realize they can be defeated and
humiliated.
Nothing here about the Egyptian response to Israel