<http://www.ibdedito rials.com/ FeaturedCategori es.aspx?sid= 1801&cid= 1827>
YouTube – Eve Of Destruction Video
Eve of Destruction by Barry McGuire video that a friend made.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akoukq5DvAE
The angry ’60s protest song “Eve of Destruction” spoke of “the eastern
world, it is exploding – violence flaring, bullets loading.” Then, in the
chorus, came a complaint: “But you tell me over and over and over again, my
friend, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction. ”
With violence flaring and bombers committing atrocities in the Middle East
today, it might be time to dust off this old hippie anthem.
Terror sponsor states seem hell-bent on taking the world to an age of
nuclear terrorism, but too many in positions of authority both here and
abroad refuse to believe the danger it poses if we sit by and allow such
regimes to go nuclear – they “don’t believe we’re on the eve of
destruction. ”
When the song was released in the mid-’60s it came off as pretentious and
overblown, since the power of nuclear annihilation was limited to the two
superpowers and a handful of other governments.
Today there’s a real danger of that capability soon falling into the hands
of terrorist groups via the Islamofascist regimes that serve as their
enablers – in other words, people willing to blow up a city even if it means
their own destruction, and even if it means a nuclear counterattack.
Nuclear deterrence worked during the Cold War, but when it comes to fanatics
it’s hard to see how deterrence would be possible.
Tehran reportedly is installing 6,000 centrifuges at its enrichment facility
in Natanz. They may be advanced IR-3 centrifuges with the ability to enrich
uranium two or three times as fast as the machinery Iran has used so far. It
takes 3,000 ordinary centrifuges one year to produce the material needed for
an atomic bomb, so the clock is ticking down.
With increasing evidence of Iran’s role in smuggling weapons into Iraq used
in attacks on U.S. troops, a second aircraft carrier was sent to the Persian
Gulf on Tuesday and the Pentagon ordered commanders to draft options for a
U.S. attack on Iran.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen warned Iran that “it would be a
mistake to think that we are out of combat capability.” This week, Iraqi
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is expected to confront Tehran with evidence
of Iranian activities.
With Iran’s nuclear facilities spread around the country, with some
underground and protected by reinforced concrete, a U.S. attack would be no
simple matter. Iran’s Quds Force headquarters, where operations in Iraq are
directed, would also likely be targeted.
And as Dan Rabkin, Toronto-based national security analyst, recently pointed
out: “The associated consequences would be very severe.”
They could include the targeting of 350,000 U.S. and foreign troops,
contractors and mercenaries near Iran’s borders in Iraq and Afghanistan,
along with possible retaliation against the Strait of Hormuz through which
much of the world’s oil passes.
But when compared with allowing terrorists to have nukes the choice becomes
clear.
As the seriousness of the Iranian threat sinks in, there’s more evidence of
Syria’s nuclear ambitions.
Last year, Syria apparently was weeks away from operating a North
Korean-built plutonium production plant near the Turkish border that could
have produced up to two bombs in the first year of operation.
Israel attacked the facility last September. CIA director Michael Hayden
told reporters this week that “in the course of a year after they got full
up they would have produced enough plutonium for one or two weapons.”
The risks of pre-emptive attack may be daunting.
But President Bush can’t kick this can down the road to his successor,
especially if that successor is one of the two Democratic candidates
resolved to surrender in the Middle East.
