P.O.T.U.S.
Veteran
offline
Registered: Jul 2006
Local time: 07:49 PM
Location: "Troll" in the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave
Posts: 489
|
[Before it's too late.]
The Natanz nuclear facility in Iran.
Here's a little Jeopardy question for you: Answer (imagine the best Alex Trebek intonation you can): Belly button lint, a steaming pile of dog crap, hair balls spit up by your cat, used motor oil. Question: What are things that are more useful than a United Nations "deadline"?
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reaffirmed his support for a U.N. resolution backing the ceasefire that ended a 34-day war in Lebanon, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Sunday.
Iran and the US are locked even more firmly on a collision course after the United Nations formally declared that Tehran had failed to meet an international deadline to halt uranium enrichment, opening the way for sanctions by the Security Council.
After Iran's latest, studied acts of defiance, including the opening of a heavy water plant at the weekend, yesterday's verdict from the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was a foregone conclusion. "Iran has not suspended its enrichment-related activities," a report said, nor had Tehran addressed "long outstanding verification issues". Indeed, according to the IAEA, Iran had started a new round of enrichment on 24 August, a week before the deadline.
As the dispute moved towards punitive measures against the Islamic regime, both sides stepped up their rhetoric. In what was billed by the White House as a major national security speech, President Bush placed the nuclear showdown squarely in the context of the "war on terror". "It is time for Iran to make a choice... there must be consequences for Iran's defiance and we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon," he said.
The response from the Iranian government was equally uncompromising. Although the report was "not fully satisfactory", Mohammed Saeedi, the deputy chief of the country's atomic energy organisation, said, it was enough to show that American "propaganda and politically motivated claims" that its nuclear programme was designed to produce a bomb were "based on hallucinations".
Jump back, Jack!!!! We have a "formal UN declaration" that Iran hasn't complied with the world community's pleadings to "pretty please" stop developing those nasty nuclear weapons. That and a couple bucks will get you a cup of Starbucks coffee of the day.
I'm sincerely interested in hearing from all you liberals on the subject of what exactly this monumental exercise in futility is going to accomplish and why we shouldn't just bomb the hell out of these Islamofacist nutcases. Since liberals seem to all be of the notion that we have to "negotiate" with the likes of the Middle East's little Hitler I assume you will have no problem supporting this assertion.
I've tried this enough to know that there won't be a lot of coherent responses from you liberals -- a lot of hate emails filled with gibberish perhaps, but few, if any coherent responses defending the practice of negotiating with Islamofacist nuts.
The illogic of negotiating within terrorists, despotic thugs, and Islamofacist nutcases is blatantly evident -- repeated attempts to do so have proven completely useless. But despite the utter illogic of negotiating with these nuts, this has become the preferred method of dealing with people whose chief aim is to see us all dead.
There is nothing to negotiate in dealing with these despots. Our position is that we just want people to be able to live free in peace. Their one and only position is that the infidels (us) must die -- no negotiation necessary. The absurdity of trying to reason with people like this should be blatantly obvious to anyone. In this relationship, the side that is dominant and willing and able to assert and project that dominance is the winner. Thus far, we haven't done a very good job of asserting our dominance.
The Iranians feared for their lives when Ronald Reagan became president because of the absolute certainty that he would destroy them if he had to. As it turned out, he didn't have to: The mere certainty of the notion that we could and would rain fire down upon them was enough to send them cowering to their little corner of the world. Through useless UN resolutions, empty threats and namby-pamby hand wringing since Ronaldus Mangnus left office, we have completely lost any "peace through strength" advantage that we had and the only way to gain it back is to demonstrate that we can and will use force against despots who threaten the world.
Our survival as a country depends on asserting our power over these fascists. Our inaction will bring about our demise maybe not now, not tomorrow, not ten years from now, but within the lifespan of our children and their children. Negotiating with these fascists will only bring about our demise faster and that is something the appeasement liberals can’t dispute although [they'll die trying, even under the towering mushroom cloud of an Iranian-gotten terrorist nuclear detonation in the middle of New York City. Way to go, chumps.]
—Steve Bowers
"America is not what's wrong with the world. The struggle we are in is too important to have the luxury of returning to that old mentality of 'Blame America First.'" —Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
Leftist "intellectuals" in America now look to Europe—steeped for years in anti-American propaganda from the Soviet Union. |
|
09-04-2006 03:38 PM
