Iran begging for “it”
Offered “a very generous” set of incentives to discontinue their pursuit of nuclear weapons, Iran has unsurprisingly rejected the UN’s plan to mediate the crisis. Thus, causing the UN to get scary stern;
Spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said there was consensus in the group that Iran’s latest reply to the offer was “very disappointing” and “a stalling tactic” that had left the group with no option other than to seek new sanctions.
“We are very disappointed that Iran has yet again failed to give Javier Solana a clear answer to the … generous incentives package,” he told reporters. “We agreed that we have no choice but to pursue further measures against Iran.”
Despite the strong language, Iran seems unafraid. I wonder why?
…a one-page document which was submitted to Solana on Tuesday and was supposed to contain either an acceptance or rejection of negotiations over the package.
Instead, the response repeated Iran’s long-standing position that it has a right to peaceful nuclear activities and said it would not give a definitive answer to the offer until its own questions about it had been answered.
The Iranians have the Russians running a screen play for them, just as the Soviets did for Hussein and later the Russians did for Serbia (Washington Post link);
Vitaly I. Churkin, said the six nations should continue negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program. He dismissed assertions by the United States, Britain and France that Tehran had missed a deadline this week to respond to the offer, which would make a push for U.N. sanctions inevitable.
“We haven’t set any deadlines for their response,” he said. “We have some negotiating opportunities, and rather than focus almost entirely on sanctions we should focus on what those opportunities should be.”
Churkin’s remarks raised the prospect of renewed strains between Washington and Moscow over Iran policy during the final months of President Bush’s tenure.
So the Israelis, who don’t have the luxury of time and distance that the debating society at Turtle Bay enjoys, are making plans of their own. They use language that’s a little bit stronger (Reuters link);
Israeli cabinet minister Shaul Mofaz, a contender to succeed the prime minister, denounced his native Iran on Wednesday as “the root of all evil” and said its nuclear program constituted a threat to world peace.
Mofaz was speaking a day after he launched a campaign for a party leadership election next month that will lead to the replacement of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
And they’ve got the clout (Fox News link);
The Jewish state has purchased 90 F-16I fighter planes that can carry enough fuel to reach Iran, and will receive 11 more by the end of next year. It has bought two new Dolphin submarines from Germany reportedly capable of firing nuclear-armed warheads — in addition to the three it already has.
And, of course, while the US pussyfoots around with Iran over the insurgency against our troops in Iraq, not to mention the Iraqis themselves, using the language of the American Left, which in itself is shameful, the Iranians deny they’re involved in Iraq…despite the mounting evidence to the contrary(India News);
The Iranian mission to the UN issued a statement Wednesday rejecting the charge by US Deputy Ambassador Alejandro Wolff that its government contributed to the insurgent war and undermined peace efforts by the Iraqi government.
“The US government unwarrantedly insists on its unacceptable behaviour in scapegoating others, including Iran, for its own wrong policies in Iraq in order to distract attention from the sources of US failures in that country,” Iranian Ambassador Mehdi Danesh Yazdi said.
Now, someone explain to me how the Islamic Republic deserves to be treated as a rational actor. This is a pattern of the enemies of freedom that we’ve seen played out so many times in the last century. They bank on the fact that the world community, the so-called civilized nations, are too weak to force rational behavior from them, and they go on their merry way until thousands, sometimes millions, of lives are lost and world security is placed at risk.
It’s always left up to the US or Israel to act unilaterally, then world gasps at the audacity and condemns the actions, while privately heaving a sigh of relief. Iran is begging for it, so why wait? Someone’s going to do something, why not sooner than later?
To Hell with Code Pink, IVAW, MoveOn and all the rest of the little brainless nitwits who want to neuter the US’ military advantage for their own selfish emotional reasons. Do something. Now.
Category: Antiwar crowd, Politics, Terror War
Jonn, I trust you’re investigating ways to position yourself at the forefront of this fight – perhaps you can volunteer as a mercenary or something?
At least in this war they could have a real objective. Not like Iraq where they had to invent a mission due to the lack of WMDs.
Rooney –
In case you missed it, Congress gave multiple reasons for authorizing the use of force against Baathist Iraq:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/print/20021002-2.html
Of course, none of this fit’s into the narrative of “anti-war” simpletons who focus single-mindedly on the WMD issue as if it were the only reason we went to war.
The other reasons are BS.
And don’t try to label me. Although I know that is the bread and butter play you guys like- see a different idea and label it. You don’t know me or what you’re talking about.
550+ tons of yellowcake located earlier in Iraq, shipped to Canada in early July of this year?
Yeah and how about the reports of Iraqi WMD’s being moved into Syria, a few weeks before the US invasion.
Mike –
If Bill Clinton had sought the use of force against Iraq would you be cheerin him on the way you cheer on ol’ Bushie?
Somehow I doubt it.
Rooney –
First of all, if you weren’t so busy essentializing people yourself, you would have noticed that I was speaking in general terms. Secondly, I know EXACTLY what I’m talking about – you’re not the first person I’ve encountered who has tried to boil the rationale behind the decision to go to war down to the WMDs.
If anything could be considered bullshit, it’s your cavalier dismissal of the other factors that played a role in the decision to authorize the use of force against Baathist Iraq, most notably Saddam’s numerous violations of the Gulf War I ceasefire.
How long did it take to topple Saddam and the Baathist party? How long ago was Saddam killed? What is the next mission we can undertake over there?
Eddie Willers –
It has always been my position that Clinton should have dealt with this situation when he was president, particularly after Saddam kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Unfortunately, he decided to pay attention to the “wag the dog” crowd out of fear of appearing to create a distraction from the legal issues surrounding his bimbo eruptions.
Rooney –
If by “over there” you mean Iraq, there are the missions of finishing off the Salafist and Khumeinist jihadists in the country and containing Iran. In the process, helping the Iraqis stand up a free and democratic civil society would serve our longer term goals of countering the neofascist and Islamist political forces in the region.
Well said, Mike. I trust you’ll join with the majority of the readership and find your way into the front lines of the fight? I mean, being a keyboard killer has got to drive you bonkers after a while…right? I think you should put your money where your RAM is.
I’ll do you one better, though, as I subscribe to the Murray Rothbard school of foreign policy: I think the US should immediately invade EVERY country on earth. Why wait? We’ve already perfected the art of creating enemies out of convenience, and there’s no better way to ensure security and love for America than to assert our presence in every country.
Thoughts?
Eddie Willers Says:
Well said, Mike. I trust you’ll join with the majority of the readership and find your way into the front lines of the fight?
Quite a few of us already volunteered and served our time, years past, including me. The war’s been won dude, despite the bleatings of the “bend over for the jihadists”, surrenderist left!
You want your wife and daughter(s) forced into wearing a burka dude? Do you want sharia to become the law of the land here in the US? It’s already happening in Europe. Go ahead and effin’ “reason” with the jihadists, they’ll nod their heads and smile at you while they’re plotting their next step to saw our heads off with a knife!
One would figure that a direct attack on our country from the jihadists would give you a friggin’ clue…
RV:
If you’re so scared of the implementation of sharia law, that should be reason enough to grab your gun and go crusading across the globe! How can you NOT volunteer to eradicate any and all forms of life that seek to perpetuate such oppressive lifestyles?
Perhaps you think the conquering Jihadists will spare your children/grandchildren from wearing the burka because you’ve “served your time”?
I suspect the majority of the people on this site who have served their time are far too comfortable resting on their laurels to get motivated to fight. Ironically, they’ve become guilty of the very thing they lambast anti-war groups for: unmotivated self-pity.
Riddle me this: how you reconcile your fear of being overrun by Jihadists with your ambivalence towards getting involved in the fight? Sounds hypocritical to me.
Eddie Willers,
You’re a troll, go back to your parent’s basement and play some D&D…
Eddie Willers babbles incoherently
“Well said, Mike. I trust you’ll join with the majority of the readership and find your way into the front lines of the fight? I mean, being a keyboard killer has got to drive you bonkers after a while…right? I think you should put your money where your RAM is.”
Most of the folks who comment here have served their country in the military. Perhaps you’d like to compare missing body parts with us. Oooops, never mind I concede and you win. I still have my balls and brains.
Eddie,
I missed the part where RV said he was “scared of the implementation of sharia law” or had a “fear of being overrun by Jihadists”.
Being both aware of a threat and willing to see it dealt with are entirely different issues.
Willers –
My thought is that we should take your irrational scenario to its opposite extreme. In response to the attacks of September 11, 2001 (and those that preceded it), the American people should all go in their backyards, dig a hole, and shove their heads in it, hoping that Murray Rothbard’s isolationist theory will prevent another attack on our home soil.
Better yet, perhaps you will get out of your basement and embark on a world tour convincing the Salafist and Khumeinist Internationale, as well as their totalitarianistic Marxist bedfellows, to renounce their own ideologies and agendas of choice and embrace your Rothbardian Libertarianism. Perhaps then, we can finally live together in the perfect peace and harmony of Murray’s neat, utopian fantasy.
Mike:
You might want to do a little more homework before you denounce Rothbardian theory. Based on what’s written above, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. I thought everyone here (with the possible exception of Rooney) could get behind Rothbard’s “invade em’ all” ideal. Exactly how Rothbard’s position can be interpreted as isolationist is beyond me.
Indeed, if any scenario is idealistic or utopian, it’s your (as well as the readership’s) idea that America can somehow bring democracy to Iraq. You can’t even define victory in terms other than the esoteric, so your little lecture about Rothbardian theory rings hollow.
There’s nothing extreme about suggesting you, RV, et al. grab your guns and charge off overseas to prevent Iran and others from implementing Sharia law in America. I thought it would be instinct for this blog’s readership to find a way into the fight?
Calling me a troll and skewing the argument into convenient, pre-packaged responses doesn’t change the fact that if someone really believed in a cause (like a democratic Iraq or preventing your grandchildren from being forced to wear the burka) they’d find a way into the fight. Attack me all you want; you haven’t answered my original question.
Jonn wrote: You’re on thin ice, Junior. For the most part, the commenters here have done their part. Resting on their laurels? Hardly. But we are somewhat piqued that you happen to be resting on our laurels. We don’t need to suffer the slings and arrows of the armchair warrior class to which you belong.
If you’re going to continue to comment here, you ought to try to keep the discussion in the realm of the possible. As it is, I tried years ago to go back on active duty to do my part in the war against terror (and imbeciles who can only reach far enough into their intellectual quiver to pull out the “chickenhawk” weapon). Several of us have sons and daughters serving on active duty – including COB6 and me. TSO is doing his best to get back into the fight. So you picked the wrong place to start throwing your lightweight, intellectually vacant ass around telling people what they “ought’ to be doing.
By the way, from this moment forward, all of your comments will have to be approved by me or my two partners before they’re posted for the public.
I’m with you Jonn- I’m out of the service now but that doesn’t mean I can’t keep fighting the good fight still. Let me know the next time you go to one of those protests and I’ll have your back in any scuffles that might break out. I can’t wait to stomp the hippie scum.
Maybe we can form a new “A”-Team. You can be Hannibal of course. TSO can be Face. I’ll be Murdoch. Who wants to be B.A.? COB you want in?