اينها هر دفعه هم يک مقاله در مورد ايران دارند که معمولاً از صفحهِ «مقالهآگهی»های New York Times میدزدند [اينها يه صفحاتی توی New york Times است مثل رپرتاژآگهی] که يارو جای يک تبليغ نيم صفحهای، يک مقاله نوشته بوده راجع به اين که ای بابا ايران را بمباران کنيد، مردم ايران هم راحت میشوند و از اين لاطاعلات (البته ماجرا مال ۲،۳ ماه پيش است)، بعد هم يک مقاله ديگر که از قول يک «دانشجوی ايرانی» نوشته بود که خيلی هم ايرانیها از آمريکايیها خوششان میآيد و خوشحال میشوند که آمريکا با چند موشک کار اصلاحات در ايران را به انجام برساند. اين لجنها از نظر فلسفی پيرو نظريه Ayn Rand هستند که فلسفه لذت شخصی است و بس. شمارهِ قبلی آنها هم در مورد عشق بود و میخواستند آن را به صورت ارضای حس خودخواهی انسان و در نتيجه هدفی بس والا نشان دهند! ببخشيد که نامرتب نوشتم، آخر حرصم در آمده! خودتان بخوانيد:
Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower surrendered the West's property rights in oil, although that oil rightfully belonged to those in the West whose science, technology, and capital made its discovery and use possible. The first country to nationalize Western oil, in 1951, was Iran. The rest, observing our frightened silence, hurried to grab their piece of the newly available loot.
Most of the Mideast is ruled by thugs who would be paralyzed by an American victory over any of their neighbors. Iran, by contrast, is the only major country there ruled by zealots dedicated not to material gain (such as more wealth or territory), but to the triumph by any means, however violent, of the Muslim fundamentalist movement they brought to life. That is why Iran manufactures the most terrorists.
If one were under a Nazi aerial bombardment, it would be senseless to restrict oneself to combatting Nazi satellites while ignoring Germany and the ideological plague it was working to spread. What Germany was to Nazism in the 1940s, Iran is to terrorism today. Whatever else it does, therefore, the U.S. can put an end to the Jihad-mongers only by taking out Iran.
The greatest obstacle to U.S. victory is not Iran and its allies, but our own intellectuals. Even now, they are advocating the same ideas that caused our historical paralysis. They are asking a reeling nation to show neighbor-love by shunning "vengeance." The multiculturalists—rejecting the concept of objectivity—are urging us to "understand" the Arabs and avoid "racism" (i.e., any condemnation of any group's culture). The friends of "peace" are reminding us, ever more loudly, to "remember Hiroshima" and beware the sin of pride.
These are the kinds of voices being heard in the universities, the churches, and the media as the country recovers from its first shock, and the professoriate et al. feel emboldened to resume business as usual. These voices are a siren song luring us to untroubled sleep while the fanatics proceed to gut America.
Tragically, Mr. Bush is attempting a compromise between the people's demand for a decisive war and the intellectuals' demand for appeasement.