After seven Democratic presidential candidates debated on Nov. 15, CNN treated us to a debate of eight Republican hopefuls on Nov. 28.
The transcript of the debate numbers 25 pages. Its first major subject is “illegal immigration,” which runs to Page 10, or about a third of the debate.
The word “state” in the political sense (as in “the United States of America”) implies that foreigners cannot come to and live in a “state” as they could on land owned by no one. Otherwise, the “USA” should have been called “NOLA,” “No One’s Lands of America.”
Nineteen foreigners (mostly from Saudi Arabia by origin) came into the United States in 2001 to commit the terrorist attack of 9/11. Millions of such suicidal terrorists could have come into “No One’s Lands of America” if more such foreigners would have been willing to die in the same suicidal way.
In the debate, the New York ex-Mayor Giuliani explained that the 70,000 “children of illegal immigrants” in New York had to be sent to school or they would have added to the crime statistics. Nor could “emergency care in the hospital” be denied to “illegal immigrants” and their children.
Sen. McCain, who hasn’t been exactly known as an exceptionally soft-hearted person, said that “we need to sit down as Americans and recognize that these [“illegal immigrants”] are God’s children as well. [Applause.] And they need some protection under the law. And they need some of our love and compassion.”
The solution seems obvious: The border wall, which should have been built in the past 10 or 20 years. But you know how expenses can spiral out of control; for example, the war in Iraq has been extremely costly, and its expenses may continue for many years.
That same McCain declared that the intention to withdraw troops from Iraq is isolationism, and isolationism caused World War II.
The audience was booing. So Saddam Hussein, who was suspected (falsely) of having had “weapons of mass destruction” (such as the mustard gas of World War 1) is the equivalent of Hitler, who conquered France, together with the British Expeditionary Force, in about a month.
McCain explains that the U.S. troops told him: “Let us win.” That is, give us a chance to win the war instead of withdrawing us.
Well, the war was won in 2003, and the event was duly celebrated by George W. Bush. Had Bush or McCain looked up a reference book on sale in any stationery store, they would have learned that the Shia account for 60 percent-65 percent of Iraq’s population and the Sunni for 32 percent-37 percent. Saddam Hussein was a Sunni, and the Sunni, better educated than the Shia, ruled the country. The U.S. established the Shia dictatorship. The Sunni began a guerrilla war.
What will this victory, to which McCain alludes, mean? No Sunni war against the dictatorship of the Shia who are more anti-Western and anti-American than the Sunni?
Several months ago it was assumed that the U.S. victory in Afghanistan was complete. So it was. Then it was reported that a Bible was found at the home of an Afghani who was to be executed according to the laws of the country. You would not assert, would you, that a person who kept a Bible at his home can continue to live?
Just as in the Democratic debate, China was mentioned in the Republican debate only in connection with toxic toys imported from China. It was said by Rep. Hunter that China makes, by unfair trade, a lot of money, which China needs. Said Hunter: “They are clearly [!] arming.”
I nearly fainted: to recognize that China is “clearly[!] arming”! No other presidential candidate reached aloud such a horrible, cynical, dangerous conclusion!
The word “clearly” is worth comment. The fact is that the dictatorship of China can conceal the development of nano weapons able to annihilate the United States (or the West as a whole), just as the United States concealed the Manhattan Project’s “atom bombs” until two of them were dropped on Japan. But much weaponization of space or oceans cannot be concealed and hence the word “clearly” — China is “clearly arming.”
For example, last year, a former U.S. top naval official said that China’s navy is to consist of 600 battleships, while the U.S. navy is to consist of 150 battleships. Of course, battleships on high seas cannot be concealed.
McCain defined as “isolationists” those “who were for bringing our troops home from Iraq.” But what about those who do not even mention the “China threat”? Surely China is more dangerous than was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq with his (mythical) “weapons of mass destruction.”
It is forgotten that China began to test its nuclear weapons in 1964. And today “nuclear weapons” are obsolete as offensive weapons (due to Mutual Assured Destruction), and China is developing post-nuclear (such as nano) super-weapons.
Unwilling to notice the military development of China, McCain and all the other Republican presidential candidates at the Nov. 28 debate, except Rep. Hunter, are not just isolationists, but suicidal fugitives from the geostrategic reality of today’s world.
Well, in the Democratic debate, even that four-word sentence that Hunter uttered was not heard.
Indeed, of all presidential candidates in the CNN debates, Duncan Hunter is the only one who can be taken seriously. To my inquiry “Duncan Hunter on the China threat,” Yahoo! yielded 2,760,000 items, and the second item was: “Duncan Hunter Speaks to Nevada about Chinese Threat.”
Not to understand or not to admit that a dictatorship whose population exceeds that of the United States more than four times poses a mortal threat is more irresponsible than it was to fail to understand in 1938 that the dictatorship of Germany was a threat.
It was Hitler himself who cured the free West of that blindness by seizing the “rump” of Czechoslovakia, swallowing Poland and France, fighting Britain furiously, grabbing Russia up to the Volga, and declaring war on the United States.
* * *
You can e-mail me at email@example.com.
© 2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.