>> my time at the staff college as the only american student there representing the entire history of the u.s. armed forces -- at the time it was abu graib -- i did think about the same questions. we approach the problems from very different sides. the germans had learned that having an army would eventually lead to using it in an improper way. using get outside your borders was inherently wrong. the americans thought if you do not have a army that is too ready to defend your country, you end up with pearl harbor, 9/11, or some other situation that is unacceptable. that is not every american's view of it, but the people who were charged kind of fell into those categories.

these products of history, they are hard to change. it would probably take a new dynamic and another situation where we are united in a different way. my danish friend stood up and surprise me with the comment, "america is looking for security and exceptional was and is not the way to do it. you are making yourself a target." what about giving away your strategy to gain some security? i do not believe those americans who are in charge can't agree on who to give that -- can agree on who to give that to. there are people out there who do not agree with us. should we give it to the chinese? should we give it to the russians?

they have their own problems. do we give it to the germans? they have their own problems. they are trying to give it away, too. everyone is trying to give it to someone else and someone has to act. because of our history going back to the american revolution and manifest destiny, whether it was right or wrong, there is this trend of thinking that america needs to be able to defend itself and that it will not give up sovereignty, hell or high water. this is a trend, not just the most of the elite, but it is a very populist idea. it may not be among the elite educated. it may not be there idea. but it is probably 50% of the people who vote. it needs to be a paradigm shift. something outrageous. godzilla meets to attack the earth. will give up our sovereignty to the un so they can develop a

weapon to destroy the alien invaders. this kind of thing. something that bizarre would have to be required. >> i think this question is one that could be addressed at length. i would like to devote the attention to it. i want to apologize that we are limited in the amount of time we can spend on these questions. please accept our forgiveness for having to address other people's questions. i think this is very important. thank you. >> if we are able to reach a point where violence is no longer an issue, what do we really accomplished by destroying human nature? [laughter]

>> we learn. we must be able to learn from it. if we do these things, it is because we have made a choice. by making mistakes, we can learn a lot. i think this moment is a moment for learning. i do not believe that we want to reduce any kind of absolute interest. but we can learn from ourselves much that will compose us to do the right choices next time. i think it is a bit of a system.

we must be responsible for our choices. we must be educated so that we can make the right choice. we are responsible for that. >> i am not sure i fully understand the application -- the implication. there is a difference between dealing with violence and conflict. conflict is not necessarily a bad thing. it is how you manage those conflicts that challenge you. if you think about political, economic, or social change in most cases of non-violent ways of achieving change have been more productive and have lasted

longer than attempts to do so violently. if you accept that violence this an inherent, a positive part of the human condition, then maybe your question makes sense, but in my way of thinking, pilots in peace soc -- violents impedes social, political, and economic change. violence can be reduced and eliminated in a way that people can continue to develop and create positive change. question.ake the next >> you talked about capitalism

as a way for men to channel their masculinity into achieving things. to me, it seems that is still a form of aggression to exploit the lower classes. why do you think that is a less detrimental alternative to war for the united states? >> i think it depends on your attitude towards the competition. on the whole, it works better than other economic systems. i was a student in the soviet union. it stank.

it is not a very good system, to be honest. ultimately, the channeling your desire and to building a new company and getting rich is ultimately -- it does not have to be capitalism. you can channel it into your local sports team. whatever. the more choices you get people anymore avenues in which to end that there naturally competitive instincts, the more people will fulfill that side of their nature. that is my basic point. >> i think a capitalist society generates more of those choices. >> a number of people on the panel seemed to suggest that there are a number of ways to

replace violence into very banal activities. it is a sublimation of cruelty. we could talk about the banality of evil and the east to which we could inflate -- and the ease to which we could inflict -- he makes the case that we have this predilection to discourse our own psychological narrative and to inflate our pilots on them. we need to be excruciatingly aggressive course our own predilections to violence. we need to stop inflicting ourselves on them.

that is my two-cents. >> my name is nina. i come from mumbai. i appreciate the comments about political causes. i wish to bring up the kashmir issue that is going on. i find in my own country the military is egregious. why are the governments of these nation-states not interested in peace? [unintelligible] when hatred is constructed either through education or other systems, i think people in

power are required -- can we ever achieve this? the topic of the discussion ends with challenges to peace. >> i will take a shot at that. we had a conference about a week ago looking back at the irish good friday peace accords that are now 10-years old. that was something nobody thought the two factions could sit down at the peace table and have a sustainable pace. they exhausted themselves over time. there was mediation from the outside from the united states. ultimately, they used a power-

sharing equation that seems to not only have worked for them, but is now being exported around the world and injected into other peace negotiations. the idea that if you can come up with a mathematical formula that can conceal the lack of fear so that they can fill secure and that they have representation through this power-sharing equation, that may be an ingredient for a long peace. that is a model. i do not know whether it would work for kashmir. there are a lot of people around the world right now that are on the brink of war. i want to bring to the attention to the audience what is going on between the north of sudan and south sudan. both armies are armed to the hilt. there will be a referendum on independence. there was an arbitration that

decided the south sudan against the oil fields around the border. everything is right for major terrorist violence there. this is a place where the world community has to do much more to head it off or we will be remembering sudan as any thing -- as worse than anything we've seen in years, where stem what ns going on in -- worse tha what is going on in darfur. >> kashmir suffers from the fact that there are other agendas involved. in some cases, the conflicts may be exacerbated by the specific neighborhood one is in. what is happening, not just in

kashmir, but the pakistani, afghan, and u.s. agenda with respect to that border spills over ander creates -- and creates a situation. because there are other agendas, they oftentimes get shunted aside. therefore, the international community -- and i would say in terms of the united states -- what we do not see is a very strong global leadership. we do not see a global leadership as a function of cooperation and collaboration among all parties and countries that have the capacity to emphasize the agenda of others. one of the speakers previously

talked about the american exceptionally some and america becoming the world's superpower. some would argue that the united states attempts to do so is long past. it met its waterloo in iraq. it is not because the united states could not show that it was a military superpower, but it was what came after. the inability of the u.s. and international community to help other robust tools that could have helped create opportunities for peaceful change or political change. that is what the international community lacks today. even though we may be making incremental progress on

international law, the and ability to actually kill less of around those tools and use them -- coalesce is a real problem. china is becoming a significant superpower, but not diplomatically, but economically. the united states has a military capacity, but its economic and diplomatic power is weakening. that is a recipe for a weaker international community, not a stronger international community. look at the context in all of these things. northern ireland is an interesting example because the outside powers also came together to help facilitate that process. we do not have that -- when we

do not have that in combination with the powers inside the conflict, it is difficult to seek a discernible peace. -- to see a discernible peace. >> if you look at global statistics on conflict, you see that it is massively lower than it was 20 years ago. it is substantially more peaceful than it was. we are moving there. it will take time, but i am something of an optimist. prosperity spreads and violence will become more and more isolated. >> i agree with what you said. the trends are getting better, believe it or not. >> i think there is a shift to a kind of leadership among

nations. i think it will take some time, but we will arrive much more stable and peaceful. we will learn how to cooperate. each nation can achieve a sustainable peace. if we cannot do so, we will not be prepared for peace. >> things are getting better. i was worried about the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in iraq. [applause] i appreciate that.

>> i am and academic, but i will take all my academic hat. academics are not really humans are they? that is what i have been hearing. i am an optimist. i think war is inevitable as long as we believe is inevitable. i think you have been talking about the proclivity for violence and conflict. i think humans also have a proclivity for peace. i travel the world promoting the fight in competitions. -- promoting fightin competitions. before the competition's, we meet up with all sorts of people. there is a cultural politeness

in the air. within a couple of days, the ultures collapse. as year you what's the cultures -- you watch the cultures nearly collapsed. that is, to me, very interesting. i think there is another beast within. beast is probably the wrong word, but i think that everybody has humanity inside them. everybody has this love for spirituality and inhumanity of deep down inside of them. rather than try to suppress these proclivities, we should support them. that is just my opinion.

[applause] >> i wanted to ask a question that goes back to what he was just saying. we did discuss how the humanity has its proclivity to conflict. i was wondering if we have a proclivity to conflict, but not for violence. you all think that inclination towards violence enters the picture. we have been talking about sigmund freud and other old school psychology. i would like to say, maybe from the perspective of more developmental psychology, identity in crisis proposes that at adolescence the crisis identity forms opportunity for youth to become violent towards other cultures.

i was wondering where you all thought that violence enters the picture and how we can improve that. >> i agree with your speech. maybe we are seeing a kind of shift. we are getting to a very mature society. we have to overcome some theories. maybe we are just trying to grow our way out of these -- out of this identity. i remember a moment when someone said we had a great possibility of choices.

with the previous speech, i agree that we were talking all lot about death, but if there is such a thing, it is because there is life. life must be pleasurable. we must always remember every day that the eros side of energy must be praised everyday when we wake up, when we meet our friends, wives, and children.

any culture will have the right to have displeasure. they are not different from us. they can seem a little bit different. we must educate our sons and daughters about diversity. that will be the key to achieving peace. there will be problems. there will be developments to solve these problems. our institutions need our support. we must also participate with its as we vote, as we make our

choices. >> i think the choice is really important. the idea of the beast inside of us, that is only one perspective. as professor scharf said, you have humanity in you. the most out to state human -- and altruistic human -- i would encourage everyone, the youth especially, be assured that you can make a difference. it is not that you are just an actor waiting for the newspaper to come out to tell you we are going to war or something terrible has happened. it may be something small that you do. go home and help your little brother with his homework. something that simple.

you'll move someone from the beast towards the altruist ideal -- alturistic ideal. you can have an impact. reading books, and traveling the world -- those things are great, but it is the interaction with other children that will make you a better person and make this kind of thing plausible in the future. it will probably not be my generation and i doubt it will be the u.s. army that solves the problem of the sustainable beast -- the sustainable peace. we can control the oceans with our aircraft carriers, but we cannot stop someone from another country painhating us. there is a pirate loading his boat right now and we cannot

get to him fast enough. [applause] >> i think this was an excellent question. my concern is how do we cultivate this eros that you are talking about especially since what you are saying is that violence can be encoded in the process. that is what you have theorists who are talking about the neurobiology of attachment and held violence can be encoded into the brain. -- and how violence can be encoded into the brain. i hope you can take what they said and apply it toward the development of the psychology we are cultivating. i am sorry to interrupt you.

>> i thought i would share one piece of research i found very interesting. a sociologists study of violence patterns in children. over a 20-year period, the parents had to log every violent action baseball. teen-agers were thought to be the most violent. children are the most but between the ages of -- are the most violent between the ages of two and four. they found that it does bridget -- they found if it does not drop by age 4, it never does. a lot of educational efforts that are going into teenagers and so on, but you have to nip it in the bud by ages three or

four. >> we talk about healthier and other emotions can be encoded into the brain. that has some drastic implications if we are talking about violence that is biologically ingrained. i do not want to preclude the possibility of the cultivation of proclivity. i have to apologize for not being able to take every question. i know people are coming up to ask questions, but our panelists have to run to the airport. we do not want them to miss their planes because of the discussion. my apologies to you. i encourage you to ask your questions to the remaining panelists afterwards. you can communicate by e-mail. i am afraid we have run out of time.

again, my apologies. i would like to thank the distinguished panelists from coming from great distances to join us. i think this has been fantastic. thank you for coming. [applause]

>> good afternoon. my name is david. i served as director of the allan kirby jr. center for constitutional studies. launched in 2008 and located on capitol hill, the kirby center teaches the principles and practices of america's constitutional principles here in the nation's capital and around the country. welcome to today's first principles on first fridays lecture. it's part of a monthly lecture series that addresses

significant and timely political historical and economic issues from a constitutional perspective. we are pleased today that this lecture is being broadcast on c-span and thank them for the public service they do in their program. hillsdale college has been dedicated to the teaching of the enduring principles of the constitution and the declaration of independence since its founding in 1844. in the civil war college's michigan campus emptied out as we send more than 400 students to fight for the union cause. today, all of hillsdale more than 1,350 students take a course on the united states constitution. the kirby center which is located here in washington, d.c. marks an extension of hillsdale teaching purposes. the center is dedicated to the reestablishment of the fundamental conditions of

freedom. true savitt education in our schools pride self-government within society and an understanding among our elected officials of the enduring principles of the constitution. you may find it more out about our programs online at our website, thekirbycenter.org. we also invite you to visit us in person when you are in washington. our next lecture in the series will be february 4th and will feature richard brookheiser speaking on the topic james madison, father of american politics. on this stage, jennifer ressa finton 1789, but the electors for the first presidential election in american history were selected. we all know who won that first election, and all of george washington's fellow founding fathers knew who was going to win. the reason washington was first in the hearts of his countrymen was that he put those countrymen, his fellow citizens and his country first.

washington said the constitution is the guide which i never will abandoned. it is for that reason that he is properly esteemed for from he is. george washington understood what we today often forget that the federal government must be responsible to the american people, not for them. it must protect our liberty. it must do so, washington knew by protecting us against external threats and in so far as we see the nation's ability to ensure the country's security, we endanger our liberty by limiting the government's size and reach, citizens help to ensure that there will do the things that it must do. that is why we've titled today's talk it's not just the economy, our speaker today understands the threat the nation faces today. mr. kennedy as president of the claremont institute. its mission is to restore the principles of the american

founding to their rightful preeminent of viridian our national life. president of claremont institute excellent quarterly publication the clermont review of books, mr. kennedy is also the victim of the institutes ballistic missile defense project. his written widely on national security issues in "the wall street journal," the "national review" and investors business daily among other publications. he also sits on the independent working group on missile defense. brian kennedy has been for hillsdale college on many occasions. we are pleased to welcome him today for the first time to washington dc. please join me in welcoming brian kennedy. [applause] -- before, david, for every kind introduction. well good afternoon, everyone. thank you for having me here today. it's a great honor to be here for hillsdale college. i share with hillsdale students something important.

i, like them, and a student of hillsdale president who has been a friend and colleague of mine for 20 years. he hired me 20 years ago at the claremont institute. i am proud to say the same thing of the jeffrey, who many of you know is in the back of the room. the august decline at indispensable intellectual behind the best parts of the conservative movement whether it's been hillsdale college or at the claremont institute. thank you for having me. as was said by david i have the pleasure of serving as president of the claremont institute. our mission is to make the first principles you hear so much about these days the first principles of the american founding preeminent in our politics, to link them matter not just to save them that make them a reality. as a practical matter, my colleagues and i remind, alert and otherwise explain to the most important americans including you that their freedom can be lost, the prosperity and domestic tranquility our country enjoys can be taken away.

in the great history of the world no country like ours lasts forever and certainly not a space republic like ours, we have enemies like to see life destroyed because we as americans that represent freedom in the muslim world. on their plan here from california i've had next to a very pungent a christian minister coming here to washington i asked him what he was going to be doing while he was here. spreading the good news of jesus, see it. he asked why was going to be giving to the and told him spreading the bad news of brian. [laughter] because i think the situation today is much more serious than our elective leaders would let us believe. abraham lincoln called us the last best hope of earth. we are that to be sure. we the people don't always appreciate this. we are a blessed people, blessed

to be here in north america, protected by two oceans and with neighbors in canada and mexico that we have been a very careful to cultivate these past 200 years. some of us like those in this room are aware we have permanent enemies, enemies that are capable, more capable than ever of seeing us destroyed. indeed the question we should be asking when it comes to our national defense can america and the free world actually destroyed. do we have threats to our very existence, but even in these tough economic times when we are still worried about how to create jobs must we not also worry about our national defense. we are told we are the most powerful military in the world and we will have no serious challenge for some time to come and we are confronted with three reassurance is meant to end a

serious discussion of that national security policy. we know the reassurances well their first that islam is a religion of peace. second, we will never go to war with china because our economic interests are so intertwined and feared and less controversial america won the cold war and that russia is no longer our enemy. these myths are probably the left and right and we would like to believe them because to believe otherwise would suggest we have enemies to seek destruction on the marginalization and subjugation to read but we see transparently the unfashionable thing we have enemies in the islamic world in russia and communist china. they operate abroad and here in the united states, we know from aristotle and ron common sense everything is done for a purpose.

the office in their interest. when we got real leverage planning to spend enormous pressure, materials and organize them for a purpose, then we know the statecraft is at work. we must understand who our enemies are and take the necessary steps to defend the united states or we will suffer the consequences. these consequences may be the end of the american way of life on the constitutional government with a very lives of the american people it would be easier to tell you all to listen to your ipod or facebook and watch 300 channels of cable tv i can't, that wouldn't be right. you are all too important for that. you have a responsibility to know better, to do something about it. as do others in this room that have made their work to defend this country and its principals.

let me address to the areas of confusion in the current understanding of the national defence. they are the islamic threat, communist china and russia. first, islam is a religion of peace. we were told this after the attack set september 11th after islamic operatives hijacked into the plans in the world trade center, the pentagon and were thwarted for another target here in washington probably not very far from here. president bush was a very good man, and he believed it was otherwise persuaded is mom was no different than a strain of the judeo-christian heritage that its adherents, the islamic adherence more peaceful of decent people who report what happened september 11th. president bush even said on october 11th 2002 that islam is a vibrant faith. mel little bo citizens are

muslim and we respect the faith, we honor its traditions, our enemy does not read our enemy doesn't follow the great tradition of islam these high-tech degree religion. and of quote. it's common to circle the wagons and the president when he's thought to have conservative leanings and even today since we know president bush was another decent man, but mr. bush and his administration did the country agree to this service by saying that islam was a religion of peace for it was trying to understand them as we would like them to be whether how the in fact are. although islam organization as balto and a belief in god whom they call it is more purpose for the discussion a political ideology organized around the koran and its teacher mohammad. the teachings about the subjugation of 1.3 billion people, like most people, are

inclined to believe there is a god and that his profits have spoken to man. but where has christianity asks its adherents to render unto caesar what is cesar's and on to god is god islam teaches the koran is the absolute word of god, not subject to interpretation. the to disagree with the 6,000 on the verses of the koran that are organized into 114 chapters or even reinterpreting them blasphemy, publishable by death. the islamic authorities of the major schools of islam teaches us the koran must be written so that the parts written last that were written last rule over the other parts. they do not come last numerically in the koran since it is arranged the largest chapter is our first and smallest chapters are last. the so-called theory of

aggregation requires that we look at chapters of the koran which were written after mohammed went to 99 and 620 to 80 for guidance. so although there may be peaceful parts of the koran come they do not died with him as not to believe. now this hasn't been done especially here in washington let us look at the chapters of the koran returned last, number nine and five. number nine, quote, fight and sleeve young believers wherever you find them and watching and wait for them in every strategy of war but if they repented and establish regular prayer and practice regular charity, then open the way for them for the law is most merciful that is number nine versus five. fight those who believe not in the law or the last day or hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by the law or ed lynch

the religion of truth even if they are of the 40 people of the book until they pay with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. number 91st 29. let me repeat the earlier one. findings leave the young believers and wait for them in every strategy of war. ravee who believe, take not the jews and christians for your friends and protectors. they are but friends and protectors to each other and he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them barely it is not the in just. that is verse five number 51. ..

under the principle that they should not be friends with him, except as deception and they can kill the infidel. this is not by the way, one man's interpretation. this exists in the book, the koran, not subject to interpretation, except by punishment of death. if a muslim says otherwise, it is for all practical purposes a line that to deceive us where it's not our job to interpret islam in ways that would make us feel better. our job is to defend these

united states, from all enemies foreign and domestic. her job is to understand them again as they understand themselves. and it matters not whether the number of muslims who actually believe that if a thousand or a million or 1.3 billion. we know it is believed by parents to islam, who have taken up arms against the united states, who have operated a terrorist and control regimes abroad who are sponsored against the united states like saudi arabia or building nuclear ballistic missiles such as iran. it is the doctrine of our enemy who is making more both here at home and abroad. in this country coming to take the form of the muslim brotherhood and organizational items, such as the council on islamic relations, the islamic society of north america, muslim student associations and others. their job is to persuade american elites that islam is a

religion of peace. documents obtained at the holy land trial in 2007 in taxes to investigate terrorist funding, including the following -- include the following from the muslim brotherhood's strategic memorandum north american affairs. they actually didn't memorandum internally so that they understand internally what they're doing. they say in their internal memorandum, the general strategic goal of the group in america -- this is straight from their document, the general strategic goal of the group in america, which was approved by the shura council and the organizational conference from the year 1987 his quote in a moment of islam in north america meeting, establishing an effective and stable islamic movement led by the muslim brotherhood, which adopts muslim causes domestically and globally in which works to expand the observant muslim base, aims at

unifying and directing muslim offers, present islam as a civilization alternative and supports the global islamic state for every good. having established its leadership, the memorandum states that wrote the muslim brotherhood in north america, they continue to say the process of settlement and civilization g hottest process, with all the means. the acorn, meaning the boatswain brotherhood must understand that their work in america is fakery and jihad in eliminating and destroying the western civilization from within and sabotaging its house by their hands and by the hands of the believers, so that it is eliminated in all his religion is made with aureus over all other religion. again, this is coming from their document. they say without this level of understanding, that their goal

is the establishment of islam here in north america. without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for g javier. it is a muslim's destiny to perform jihads and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes. and there is not escape from that destiny, except for those who choose to slack. but what the slackers and the mushy dean equal. again, if one were to ask the average muslim if they know any of this, the answer would be no, of course not. indeed very few understand the muslim community the karate with any detail. it's within the islamic world that are violent, this is what they believe. they who live in the united states in fact believe this. and they often influence operation here in the united

state to have us believe that islam is a religion of peace. we of course have evidence, not that i even need to mention it of the first bombing of the world trade center, the attacks on number 11 in isolated attacks, most recently at fort hood and elsewhere. more than anything else, before were a free society and liberal people in the best sense of the word, what anything else, this notion that islam is of peace has counted american policymakers to believing that islam is a religion to be treated like any other religion. indeed to mention the threat of islam, as is islam in any kind of serious ways to be labeled a bigot or a racist. some of the groundbreaking work done on the threat of islam was by nature stephen conlin, who while working as a lawyer for the joint staff and the pentagon try to explain the ideological

and practical threat islam poses to the united states. this work led ultimately to the book sharia, threat to america those co-authored with frank gaffney, andrew mccarthy, jim woolsey and other members of the national security community. i'd recommend not put to you. in it, we describe the threat that islam presents to a free society. since we do not want to see our fellow countrymen as potential enemies of the state, we americans don't think that way. we don't want to think that way. the part of our problem is we really don't know how many muslims there are in the united states. we don't know how big of a problem this actually is. and to suggest that there may be a security threat raises the specious charges of bigotry. because it matters at some level just how many muslims they are. during the bush administration, they use the number of about 2.5

muslim americans. the pew research center in 2007 estimated there were 2.35 million muslims in the united states. the council on american islamic relations care with 5 million muslims in 2000. president obama in his cairo speech in june of 2009 put the number at 7 million. so there's quite a bit of discrepancy they are. other people i now think the number could be as high as 9 million. the pew research center again which did that lower number did a survey of muslims in 2007 found a few interesting responses. i say this not to vilify any muslims. essay simply to understand them as they're trying to understand themselves and we can look with clarity, moral clarity at who they are and how we can live together. 80% of american muslims, again,

american muslims said that suicide bombing, 80% of the muslims said that suicide bombing can sometimes be justified in defense of islam. the simple math if we take a number such as 7 million, that mr. obama said, that would be 560,000 people who live in the united states who think suicide bombing can be justified. among muslims aged 18 to 29, 15% believe that suicide bombing could be justified. among this age group, 60% thought of themselves first as muslim and second as americans. among all ages and met 2007 survey, 5% had a favorable view of al qaeda. now that we have not suffered another large-scale attack after september 11 is due in part to some fine work by law enforcement. for more than likely come the inability of the muslim brotherhood to capitalize on what they built. and there is i will say the

great uncertainty as to how americans would react to widespread terrorism within the american heartland. american navy is very genteel people, but also people whose passion for freedom could leave them to drastic measures. i believe the muslim brotherhood doesn't quite know how we would react. in the meantime, this stealth jihads that is going on presents a threat to the united states that lingers just below the surface of public debate and one that presents a unique challenge to both law enforcement throughout this country into the u.s. intelligence community. it's one thing to have hundreds of individuals to deal with. what if that number is thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of citizens whose allegiance not to the united states, but to an operational form of islam that seeks the destruction of the united states. we don't like to think in those

terms. it will divide u.s. society, create animosity among citizens and fatness of our focus amongst equally dangerous threats. because where is the islamic threat here at home, which is yet to be fully realized presents great danger, it is only one of other threat. including the islamic threat, which is in fact existential in nature from iran, the islamic republic of iran. so moving away from america to our threat abroad. stay in iran, the enriched uranium that they will convert to plutonium, which they would use in a nuclear warhead sometime. the iranians -- we think of them as backwards at times. they are not. they have advanced ballistic missiles such as the shop three that they can launch from the land or from a ship off of our

coast. the iranians, the islamic republic of iran possesses missiles that can destroy an american city or they are able to deliver the war had as electromagnetic pole slept in. they will destroy the electronic structure of the united states that could result in the deaths of hundreds of lives of americans. again, this is her a country that believes it must destroy the infidel with every stratagem of war. we do not yet today have a missile defense to defend the united states from this ship launched attack or from the attack from china and faces of their purpose is to destroy as with every stratagem of war. they built ballistic missiles and what do we do in return? how can we be serious about our national defense when we will not defend us from such a ship launched attack or from a nuclear attack by it the chinese

or the russians? this is in part because not only do we misunderstand is long, we seem no longer to understand superpower conflict. consider china. we trade with china and they buy our debt. they have $2 trillion in u.s. reserves, one.one trillion dollars in u.s. treasury. their economy and ours are intimately intertwined. they would never go to war with us because that would be to destroy their main export market. despite their intense desire to unify with a free people of taiwan who they consider a renegade province it is said that the chinese will never fight chinese. but they're building an advanced varney, navy, air force and space-based capability to limit the united states and our ability to project power in asia. the chinese have two million men under arms and all the other