In A Dangerous World “Dangerous” McCain Better than “Diplomatic” Obama

Will Malven
September 10, 2008

As the most enduring beacon of liberty and freedom in the world, America needs a strong, and yes dangerous, President. Our freedom and that of the world depend on that fact. A leader who is regarded as being dangerous enough to use the power at his disposal, is a leader who will be respected by those whose respect America most requires. John McCain is that leader.

We don’t need the respect of the Socialist Democracies Western of Europe, we need the respect (and fear) of those leaders and those nations which most pose a threat to international stability. Apparently that simple fact is beyond the grasp of those in the Democrat Party Leadership, who continue to be concerned mostly with how America is seen by the tea-sippers in London, the coffee drinkers in Paris and the beer drinkers in Germany, when they should be concerned by the overt aggression of Putin’s Russia and Ahmadinejad’s Iran.

During the 1980 election, one of the arguments put forward by the Democrat Party was that Ronald Reagan was “too confrontational,” too dangerous to be President of the United States. His labeling of the former Soviet Union as an “evil empire” frightened the Democrats here at home and our European allies overseas.

They claimed Reagan would cause World War III by his refusal , not only to embrace the then growing “unilateral disarmament” movement, but also to use diplomatic language when discussing our Cold War adversaries. His tough rhetoric struck fear in Democrats in America and in our European allies, who were pressing hard for a “nuclear freeze.”

History proved President Reagan right and those who were calling for appeasement and Western disarmament in the face of Soviet expansionism wrong. As a direct result of Ronald Reagan’s confrontational style, rather than succumbing to the “inevitable” victory of Soviet ideals, the West prevailed, the Berlin Wall came down, and millions of East Europeans got their first taste of freedom in fifty years.

Today we are hearing the same whispered pacifist campaign, this time directed at John McCain. The Democrat “rap” on John McCain is that his election would send a dangerous signal to our political adversaries.

We are told, “John McCain might attack Iran,” or John McCain is too confrontational over the Russian invasion of South Ossetia and the independent nation of Georgia. “McCain is dangerous.”

Good! In dangerous times, America needs a dangerous leader; dangerous, as seen by those nations that would engage in the kind of adventurism exemplified by Russia’s aggressive “defensive” move.

Over the past year, we have seen Vladimir Putin’s military renew bomber incursions into American airspace, aggressive pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran, accompanied by threats of full scale attacks against Israel, and numerous other aggressive stands taken by nations like Venezuela, North Korea, and Communist China.

The Chinese have been pursuing a massive build-up of their military capabilities as well as an aggressive program of space exploration and cyber warfare.

More recently, Iran announced a program to build a submarine fleet to “defend it coasts” and missiles to carry its warheads to Israel, more militant rhetoric from Moscow directed at American relief missions to aid the people of war ravaged Georgia, and the announcement of “joint naval exercises” between Chavez’s Venezuelan Navy and the Russian Navy in the Caribbean Sea.

Additional threats can be seen in the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, a fledgling government in Pakistan with questionable intentions and a substantial nuclear arsenal, and finally the announcement by North Korea’s ruling junta that they intend to reactivate the nuclear facilities previously deactivated in accordance with the most recent (and ill-conceived) treaty signed by Kim Jung Il and President Bush.

It is no coincidence that these aggressive movements by nations which traditionally have been enemies of freedom and democracy have accompanied the increasingly strident calls for “direct diplomatic engagement,” with our enemies coming out of the Democrat Party, rather than the path of confrontation chosen by the Bush Administration and advocated by candidate John McCain.

The chatter coming from the pandering polliwogs infesting the swamps of Washington D.C. echoes the naïve rhetoric of former Democrat Candidate for President, Dennis Kucinich, who loudly proclaimed that we should have a policy of “Strength through Peace,” rather than the “Peace through Strength” policies which have served our interests so well in the past.

Given the presumed ascendency of the Democrat Party and their “inevitable victory” in November, with their almost ceaseless defeatist rhetoric, this expansion of “adventurism” by nations whose foreign policy objectives run contrary to those of our nation and who oppose the expansion of freedom throughout the world was inevitable.

What possible reason would these nations have to curtail their activities if the government of their primary adversary became a soft echo of Britain’s Neville Chamberlain administration?

The Democrat Party is afflicted with the same well intentioned myopia that led directly to World War II.

Barack Obama tells us that he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Korea and Venezuela, “with no preconditions.”

Those who advocate these policies of appeasement are the real risk to peace. They are the ones that are prone to be caught off-guard by hostile actions and they are the ones who are prone as well to recklessly lashing out in response to those actions, as Bill Clinton did when he bombed the aspirin factory in Somalia.

Those who assume moral equivalency between the actions and intent of America and the base aggressive moves of nations bent on conquest and dominance, invite that aggression by their very attempts to secure peace. If you cannot see evil, then you cannot be prepared for its inevitable aggression.

Men like Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, and Mohammed Ahmadinejad are not impressed by diplomacy, they are impressed by strength. They see the diplomatic efforts of men like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama as weaknesses to be exploited. They see such efforts as an invitation to continue their aggressive actions and they will press and press until they meet resistance, then they will back up. If instead of resistance, they meet diplomacy and a desire to negotiate, they will take all that is offered and come back for more.

This simple fact of human behavior has been proven time and again throughout history. The lessons are readily apparent for any who care to study them. The decisions by Western democracies prior to World War II provide an object lesson in this darker side of human nature.

• Had Hitler not correctly interpreted the inaction of and attempts to negotiate with Germany by Neville Chamberlain and Edouoard Daladier as proof of their desire for peace at any cost, World War II might never have happened.


• Had the allies taken action against Hitler when his efforts to rearm Germany (in direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles) became overt, rather than simply bury their collective heads, Hitler’s “Reich” would never have become the massive military machine it was when it finally invaded Poland in 1939.


• Had the larger and more powerful French Army confronted the German Army when they crossed the Rhine in 1936 to reoccupy the Rhineland ( again, in direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles) rather than acquiesce, the Sudetenland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia would never have been annexed and Poland would never have been invaded.

At each juncture, the free nations of the world had an opportunity to prevent the eventual cataclysm in Europe and at each confrontation, rather than meeting aggression with strength, the allies met it with further offers of negotiations and offers of peace.

In order for an offer of peace to be taken seriously, both parties must desire peace. If one party sees only opportunity for gain in the proffered agreement, then the negotiations become a recipe for further adventurism by that party.

Again, in the Pacific, had Japan not believed it could successfully attack the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor; had American foreign policy been aggressively proactive rather than isolationist, the War in the Pacific would never have occurred.

In the Middle East, had Saddam Hussein not believed that he could successfully invade Kuwait and get away unscathed, he would never have invaded.

In the lead up to every war, there comes a time when the “aggressor power” over-reaches. Each time, they are gambling that those with no imperialistic aspirations will seek “an accord,” being more interested in peace than confrontation. If that aggressor is met with firm and unwavering strength, it will back down, but if instead it encounters with the soft words of diplomacy, then it will continue with its campaign of conquest.

These lessons are readily found in history for those who care to look, but apparently difficult for Democrats to learn. For nearly two decades, beginning almost immediately after the first Iraq War, the Democrat Party has been the party of weakness, surrender, and appeasement.

Under President George H.W. Bush, troop strength was reduced by roughly 15.5%. This was the “Peace Dividend” towards which both sides of the aisle were looking at to finance increased domestic spending.

Under President Bill Clinton, those reductions continued unabated. The number of troops in our military was reduced by a further 23.5%. These additional reductions were made in the face of an increasing awareness of the threats posed by international terrorism, and constituted the bulk of President Clinton’s pledge to “reduce in the size of government.”

Today, with Democrat Presidential Nominee Barack Obama in the lead, Democrats continue to pursue this ill-advised and mistaken belief that peace can be had on the cheap.

A President Barack Obama would emasculate our military, treat with our enemies, and is more concerned with Americas image in the eyes of our European allies overseas than in our image in the eyes of those who continuously seek to expand their power.

He would precipitously retreat from Iraq, leaving an unstable government to deal with the continued threats from al Qaeda and vulnerable to outside influence from the oppressive regimes of Iran and Syria. He would “negotiate without preconditions” with Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba.

He would, as Americans mistakenly did once before, have us turn our eyes inward rather than outward, leaving us vulnerable to terrorism and imperialistic adventurism by hostile governments.

Democracies need “dangerous” leaders, because only then will their allies cleave to them and their enemies fear and respect them. It is only when a nation becomes predictably “nice” that the enemies of freedom begin to get wanderlust.

Now is not the time for a man who thinks that “calling for sanctions against Russia in the United Nations Security Council” is the way to deal with an international crisis instigated by Russia; a nation which, apparently unknown to him or any of his foreign policy advisors, possesses a veto vote on that council.

Now is the time for a President who presents a credible threat to use force when needed. Now is the time for a President who has experienced the hardship of war and who therefore can be counted on to only pursue war as a last resort. Now is the time for a man who will not flinch in the face of adversity.

Now is the time for President John S. McCain.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below