Welcome to the Asylum. This is a site devoted to politics and current events in America, and around the globe. The THREE lunatics posting here are unabashed conservatives that go after the liberal lies and deceit prevalent in the debate of the day. We'd like to add that the views expressed here do not reflect the views of other inmates, nor were any inmates harmed in the creation of this site.
The quoted link above will take readers to The Intellectual Activist where this piece appears, as well as an excellent cartoon from the "dynamic duo."
I have noticed a recent trend in war commentary, starting a few weeks after the beginning of the current conflict in Lebanon. The trend began with a series of analogies between recent events and the events of the 1930s, leading up to World War II. In the August 2 Washington Times, for example, Kenneth Timmerman referred to the Lebanon War as "Islamofascism's 1936." Just as the Spanish Civil War that began in that year was a preview of World War II—the 1937 bombing of Guernica was Hermann Goering's test of the ability of aerial bombing to destroy cities—so Timmerman argues that the Lebanon War is a preview of a larger conflict: "Iran…is testing the international community's response, as it prepares for a future war." (TIA Daily readers may remember that Jack Wakeland made a similar point in the July 19 edition of TIA Daily.) For others on the pro-war right, the preferred analogy is 1938, the year in which Western appeasement of Hitler emboldened him to further attacks. That year's Munich Agreement—the "diplomatic solution" to a German-fomented crisis in Czechoslovakia, abandoned Czechoslovakia to Hitler in exchange for promises that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain claimed would guarantee "peace for our time." On August 7, the headline of a Washington Times editorial asked: is the Bush administration's proposed diplomatic solution for Lebanon an attempt to secure "Peace in Our Time?" Over at National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg picks 1939, wondering if Israel will fall to a Sunni-Shiite pact, just as Poland fell to a Nazi-Soviet pact, while John Batchelor, writing in the New York Sun, is more ecumenical, citing analogies to 1936, 1938, 1939, and even America in 1941. British commentator David Pryce-Jones, in his blog at National Review Online, sums up the general sense of things: "I have often wondered what it would have been like to live through the Thirties. How would I have reacted to the annual Nuremberg Party rallies, the rants against the Jews, and Hitler’s foreign adventures which the democracies did nothing to oppose, the occupation of the Rhineland and Austria, Nazi support for Franco in the Spanish civil war, and the rest of it. Appeasement was then considered wise, and has only become a dirty word with hindsight…."
"Now Iran is embarked on foreign adventures in Iraq and Syria and Lebanon. It is engaged on all-out armament programs, and is evidently hard at work developing the nuclear weapon that will give it a dimension of power that Hitler did not have…. Appeasement is again considered wise."
What these commentators are picking up is not an exact parallel to any one event of the 1930s—hence their scattershot of historical analogies. Instead, what they are picking up is a sense of the overall direction of world events: we are clearly headed toward a much larger, bloodier conflict in the Middle East, but no one in the West wants to acknowledge it, prepare for it, or begin to fight it.
We have seen no action from the United Nations Security Council other than Russia and China throwing temper-tantrums over sanctioning Iran. The United States, along with the original EU-3, want to have negotiations regarding Iran's nuclear program. Today was the deadline for Iran's answer to the demand from the United Nations. Thomas and I have talked about this all day (scroll down for the previous posts today), and based on what we have seen thus far today, negotiations will not work. Iran does not care.
They do not truly care at all for the incentives that have been offered (read: bribes to end their enrichment). They do not care what the United Nations will do (read: absolutely nothing). They are stiull enriching their uranium. They will continue to do so, even while we negotiate with them. The only thing that Iran wants, one they will receive through negotiations, is time. And seconds are ticking off that clock. Indeed, we are five minutes to midnight, and we are still acting as though we have all the time in the world.
Time, ladies and gentlemen, is a commodity we do not have. And if we twiddle our thumbs too long, the conflict that could erupt in the Middle East will be precisely the sort that Mr. Tracinski is speaking of. And it will be one of the worst nightmares we will ever face.
Scott @ PowerLine has the scoop. Here are a couple of the key areas out of the ones that he chose. They had a chance at a sneak preview of the report as it is not officially released yet.
Iran has continued the testing of P-1 centrifuges in the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP). Since 6 June 2006, centrifuges in the single machine test stand and in the 10-machine and 20-machine cascades have been run mostly under vacuum, but with the feeding of UF6 into single machines of the 20-machine cascade for short periods of time. Between 6 and 8 June 2006, the 164-machine cascade was also tested with UF6. Further testing of the 164-machine cascade with UF6 was carried out between 23 June and 8 July 2006. During these tests, a total of approximately 6 kg of UF6 was fed into the machines and enriched to various levels of U-235. The feeding of UF6 into the 164-machine cascade was resumed on 24 August 2006. ... ...On 26 July 2006, design information verification (DIV) was carried out at the Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) at Natanz, where construction was ongoing. In the course of the inspectors’ visit to Iran between 11 and 16 August 2006, Iran declined to provide the Agency with access to carry out DIV at FEP, stating that the frequency of DIV activities was, in its view, too high and that the Agency had performed 3 DIVs there in 2003, 3 DIVs in 2004, 15 DIVs in 2005 and 12 DIVs as of August 2006. ... ...As indicated in the Director General’s report of April 2006 (GOV/2006/27, para. 6), on 27 April 2006, the Agency received from Iran a letter in which it was stated that “Iran is fully prepared to continue granting the Agency’s inspection in accordance with the Comprehensive Safeguards provided that the Iran’s nuclear dossier will remain, in full, in the framework of the Agency and under its safeguards, the Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to resolve the remaining outstanding issues reflected in [the Director General’s] report GOV/2006/15 of 27 February 2006, in accordance with the international laws and norms. In this regard, Iran will provide a time table within next three weeks." No such timetable has as yet been received. ...
...Analysis of the environmental samples taken from equipment at a technical university in January 2006, referred to in paragraph 25 of GOV/2006/27, showed a small number of particles of natural and high enriched uranium. This equipment had been shown to the Agency in connection with its investigation into efforts made by the Physics Research Centre (PHRC) to acquire dual use material and equipment (GOV/2006/27, paras 24–25). ...
...Iran has not yet responded to the Agency’s requests for clarification concerning, and access to carry out environmental sampling of, other equipment and materials related to the PHRC. Nor has Iran provided the Agency with access to interview the other former Head of the PHRC. As noted in GOV/2006/38, paragraph 17, the clarification and access sought by the Agency have taken on added importance in light of the results of the environmental sampling referred to in the previous paragraph. ...
... Iran has been providing the Agency with access to nuclear material and facilities, and has provided the required reports. Although Iran has provided the Agency with some information concerning product assays at PFEP, Iran continues to decline Agency access to certain operating records at PFEP. ...
...Iran has not addressed the long outstanding verification issues or provided the necessary transparency to remove uncertainties associated with some of its activities. Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities; nor has Iran acted in accordance with the provisions of the Additional Protocol. ...
I think it is safe to say that Iran is not cooperating fully. And this will continue to be so until the United Nations decides to act, or the the European Union. Unfortunately that will never happen, and if it does, it will be too late. They will have a nuclear weapon, and the world willpay for its procrastinating appeasement approach to a nation that has basically told the whole world to go to Hell.
Late last night/early this morning, Marcie put up this post regarding the arrival of Mohammed Khatemi here in the US. He is meeting with former President Carter to "discuss issues facing the world" right now, and he is speaking at Harvard. Now, I don't think I have to reinforce this, but I'm going to anyway:
Marcie stated last night that the Asylum stands wholly opposed to this move by State to grant this man a visa for a visit. He shouldn't be allowed into the US under any reason. Iran is an enemy of the United States, and has been so for almost thirty years.
Because of many requests from students nationwide, CAIR is offering a limited number of half-price student tickets for the September 8 dinner with former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami at the Marriott Crystal Gateway in Arlington, Va. WHAT: CAIR Hosts Dinner for Former President of Iran WHEN: Friday, September 8, 2006, 7-9 p.m. WHERE: Marriott Crystal Gateway, 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Va. COST: Student ticket for dinner only: $125 per person (with current student ID) CONTACT: RSVP by Tuesday, September 5, 2006, by calling 202-488-8787, or e-mailing: email@example.com
CAIR is sponsoring the event, and Harvard students get a discount. Isn't that lovely? I'm getting the warm fuzzies right now (which usually lead me to vomit sometime soon). This idea is asinine. He should be stopped when he arrives, and put back on the next plane home. We don't allow enemies of this nation to set foot on our soil. We didn't let Hitler or his cronies into the US during World War II. We didn't let the Kaiser come over here during World War I. We didn't have a sit down with Kim Il-sung during the Korean War, and we sure as Hell didn't allow Mao a visa to discuss China's expansion into Korea and North Vietnam.
And I know that may people had given Yasser Arafat the respect of a statesmen (another fact that makes me sick), including Bill Clinton. These people weren't friends of the United States. They were enemies. And, aside form the lame-brained idea of allowing Arafat into the nation, none of the others were. Hell, we don't even let Castro come here. So why in the Hell are we doing this now. If we don't negotiate with terrorists, or sponsors of terrorists, then why are we allowing Khatemi entry into the US, and why are we negotiating with the largest sponsor of terro in the world?
A defiant Iran kept on enriching uranium in advance of the U.N. Security Council's Thursday deadline for Tehran to freeze such activity or face the threat of sanctions, U.N. and European officials said. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urged European members of the council against resorting to sanctions, saying punishment would not dissuade his country from pursuing its disputed nuclear program.
"Sanctions cannot dissuade the Iranian nation from achieving our lofty goals of progress. So it's better for Europe to be independent (of the U.S.) in decision-making and to settle problems through negotiations," Ahmadinejad said Wednesday, according to state-run television.
I would say that the negotiations are off the table now, but I'm not the president. I can't make that call. But that is what I would do. As it stands, we're already prepping a list of sanctions against them so I fail to see the use of any sort of negotiations. Iran was given an ultimatum by the UN to end their enrichment today, or else they would be going before the UNSC for possible sanctions. They've blown off the UN, told the West to kiss its @$$, and went right on ahead with their enrichment.
And John Bolton is telling everyone that it isn't imperative to have "unanimity" on this issue.Bolton and the administration are well aware that a call for sanction will meet resistance, and probably a veto on the UNSC, from Russia and China. Neither nation is going to hold back their veto if their trade with Iran is threatened. And unless they have a fool-proof way to circumvent the possible sanctions, they will cast a veto to protect that. Likewise, sanctions could hurt their ability to gain the oil and natural gas they want from Iran, that Iran has agreed to sell them.
This isn't a matter of what is right and wrong in their eyes. To them it's all about the money. That's what matters to them. They don't feel enough of a threat from Iran to worry about such things, so they just don't care. Further, wh would Iran ever be a threat to them? They're selling them the weapons and technology they want. And this is where they are likely to get much of their nuclear research from, in addition to the remnants of the AQ Khan network from Pakistan.
And is anyone surprised at all with the way Iran is acting? We're not. We knew they wouldn't bow down to the UN. (actually, they'd probably kiss Kofi Annan's hand for all of his help in this matter). By allowing this three-ring circus to drag out, people already know that whatever the UN does it won't matter. It'll never have the teeth that it needs, and it will have enough loopholes for Iran to exploit; and those loopholes will be big enough to push Pluto through.
Israel is already on a war footing, and prepping for the seemingly inevitable fact of a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. We should be, as well, along with our allies in the colaition against terror. A message needs to be sent to Iran--loud and clear--that they won't be enriching anymore uranium, and any site that is considered a "hot" site (a site we know is part of their nuclear weapons program) needs to be taken out. They want nuclear power for "electricity" and other "peaceful applications," then they can do without the other sites. And we also need to push for helping the dissidents in Iran to topple their regime. Experts have been harping on this point for years. They also point out that it's perhaps the only way to topple the mullahs.
Either way we look at it, this circus has come to town, and it has no intention of leaving anytime soon.
Lebanon’s prime minister urged world donors Thursday to help his country recover after Israeli bombing wiped out “15 years of postwar development” in 34 days of fighting with Hezbollah guerrillas. About 60 governments and aid organizations were in Stockholm hoping to raise $500 million to help Lebanon rebuild roads, bridges and homes left shattered by the war.
Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora strongly rejected suggestions the aid money would trickle down to Hezbollah and strengthen the group’s position in southern Lebanon.
“This idea, that it will be siphoned in one way or another to Hezbollah is entirely, completely, a fallacy,” Saniora said at a news conference.
Right. Has Saniora checked this with Nasrallah? Will he make the call for the Lebanese army to disarm Hezbollah before the peacekeeping force shows up? Will he disavow the call fromt he Lebanese government for their army to join with Hezbollah? Everything that has come from Lebanon recently has been in favor of Hezbollah. and it does not matter what the West does.
But here we are, idiotarians one and all, sending money to a regime that is firmly held onto by a terrorist organization. And the prime minister of that nation is trying to assure us that the terrorists will get none of it. Just like the weapons and munitions that Russia assured Israel would never be used on them; the same ones that were used on them in this past war. That is a fact that is going to haunt Putin when an Israeli delegation arrives in Russia to chew on his backside a bit.
If I were the president, I would kill the bill coming to him that allocates any funds to Lebanon, at all. They refuse to stand up to Syria and Hezbollah, and byu default Iran, too? Then they have made their bed. Let them lie in it. Maybe some day they will wake up. But they will never get the message until a number of nations cut off the money.
Everyone is aware of the Democrat's pushing of Joe Lieberman out of their party. He just was not "liberal" enough for their liking right now. They disregard his 95% voting record for the liberal ideals, and hung him out to dry over his support for the war. It is the ultimate example of cutting off one's nose to spite their face, and they have taken a beating from the blogs over the move. But today's Washington Times Insider shows that Joe Lieberman is not the only one in this purge. No, this is going even deeper, and delving into their loyal base. (Registration required to read the whole thing. Registration is free.)
The trend of incumbent Democratic lawmakers facing primary challenges from the left is not sparing black lawmakers, despite their generally being among the party's more liberal representatives and blacks being the party's most loyal constituency. Rep. Albert R. Wynn, Maryland Democrat, is facing a strong primary challenge from Prince George's County lawyer Donna Edwards, who says he is too conservative to represent his predominantly black constituency. The most unlikely Congressional Black Caucus member, Rep. Bobby L. Rush, Illinois Democrat, faced similar charges from his opponent Philip Jackson in the primary. "Our opponent in the primary attempted to use that strategy against Mr. Rush in relation to his vote for the energy bill last year," said a staffer for Mr. Rush. Mr. Rush is a former Black Panther and recognized as one of the most liberal members of Congress yet he and Mr. Wynn were both attacked by their opponents for supporting the energy bill, a choice both men said they made after they successfully worked out a deal in committee to increase federal low-income home energy assistance program (LIHEAP) by $3 billion. "My general view is that the Democratic Party used to be the big tent party where everyone is allowed to express their views; now it is being taken over by these bloggers and purists who can only see one way of thinking," Mr. Wynn said. "We can think for ourselves and not for somebody else's idea of what a liberal is supposed to be." Mr. Wynn's comments are not directed to the whole blogosphere. The center-right has swallowed its pride and is supporting some notable RINOs up for reelection this year. Olympia Snowe, Mike DeWine, Richard Lugar, nad Trent Lott are among them. They do not always put party first, and therefore qualify as a RINO. However, the GOP has shown that they can withstand moderates provided they stay on the party side of certain issues, such as the war and national security. John McCain (who is unfortunately our senator) is one of the most notorious RINOs in the Senate, but he is right on the money 7 out of 10 times when it comes to his votes. He is a staunch supporter of the war, and for upholding the tactics we use to catch our enemies.
Lincoln Chafee is the only one have turned our backs on this year. He is not a party man, and more often than not, he ends up on the opposite side of many issues. He has stood against the war, has stood against tax cuts, and even boasted that he had voted for John Kerry rather than President Bush. Sorry Lincoln, but three strikes and you are out, baby.
But what the Democrats are doing is reprehensible. They want only those that stand in lock-step with their ideology. Zell Miller saw this in 2004, and knew the writing was on the wall. I am left to wonder whether he warned other "moderate" Democrats that their time would come, too. "Watch this kid; today it's me, tomorrow it's you." The KosKiddies/Deaniac/Michael Moore-on crew has hijacked the Democrat party. Eli Pariser famously quipped in an e-mail after John Kerry's loss in 2004, "Now it's our party. We bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back." And take it back they have, but in the worst sort of way.
Instead of collecting themselves after the resounding defeat of John Kerry, instead of lookig to where they messed up in the campaign, they dug in, and slammed even harder to the Left. No one thought the rhetoric could get any worse, but it did. Here we are in 2006, just two years removed from the election, and the Democrat's primary mantra is "Bring the troops home." There have been calls for the president's impeachment; indeed, several Democrat candidates int he House are campaigning on that agenda. There are calls for another vote over our involvement in Iraq. And we still have "Howling Mad" Howard Dean ripping up the administration's personnel. Just two days ago, he slammed Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld again on CNN.The "nutroots" are out there, ladies and gentlemen, and they are completely unhinged.
And now they are taking it out on their longstanding allies. They have targeted a few black congressmen for what they see as a violation of party politics. Bear in mind that the Democrats are doing this to people who do not stand in perfect line with them. We, on the other hand, can afford to be lenient with a few of our moderates, and actually embrace the moderates much better than the Democrats do. We recognize that our ideas do not always work, and the moderates help us get the necessary steps towards our overall goals. Politics is a bloodsport, but it is also something where ALL sides must be taken into account. The Democrats are showing that their side of the debates is all they will tolerate in their party. Anyone who does not fit into that mold is being tossed under the bus.
This is not exactly the smartest call they could have made. Eating your young when you need party strength and unity is no way to run a political party. But the Democrats seem to know better. Fine, let them be. And after November 7th, they will see that they made a serious miscalculation with their candidates, and their base. All we need to do is look at Connecticut to see the mistake. Democrats and Republicans alike are backing Lieberman. They are moderates, at heart, and reject Lamont's hard-left image. The "nutroots" can crow about their victory, but they miss two important points.
First, the Lamont/Lieberman political war was a primary battle. They raved about the outcome at the polls, but forgot to note that most people do not vote in primaries unless they are truly concerned for the well-being of a particular candidate. With the rumors running rampant over Lieberman filing as an independent if he lost, most people resigned themselves to the fact that they would be able to vote for Lieberman regardless of the outcome of the primary. Remember, people in Connecticut are moderates, for the most part, and an Independent Lieberman appeals to them.
Second, no one pays attention to election politics until after Labor Day. After this coming weekend, it will be trench warfare for the candidates. From September 5th through November 6th, this will be a foot-race to see who can get the win, hopefully, before election day. Mike DeWine is in a dead heat right now, and trailing his Democrat opponent. The difference is that DeWine has always finished incredibly strong. And he is not trailing by much. It is hardly an insurmountable lead for his challenger.
But, to me, what is most appalling about this story is that the black vote has always been predominantly Democrat, and here are the Democrats basically blowing them off. Such an attitude is normal for people like Dr. Condoleeza Rice, Justice Clarence Thomas, former Secretary of Education Rod Paige, Thomas Sowell, and so on. They know that because they have not bought into the lies and deceit of the Democrat Party, and assumed the role of sla, er, victim, that they will be demonized, slandered, and insulted. But what did these congressmen do to deserve this sort of treatment?They are, by the DNC's flawed definition, "conservative sympathizers." They are being labled this by their primary opponents because they have joined with the Republicans on a couple of occasions.
And the problem with the Democrat Party is best summed up by Oliver Kellman, a former aide to Donna Brazille:
"The Democratic Party is no longer the voice of the people. But a group of folks are standing up and saying they are going to speak for the people, and that is why you are seeing Al Wynn and Bobby Rush being targeted."
It is the same sort of snobbishness we saw from people like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards two years ago. They think they know better. No, scratch that; they believe that they, and they alone, have all the answers, and people are going to let them do it, or else. (Of course, they have yet to come with what "or else" means, but that is a detail they omit as easily as their campaign platform; a subject that many of them dislike discussing because they know they do not have one.)
This behavior will be the Democrat's downfall this year. The GOP has its problems, and we are not denying that. But in comparison, we are steady and true right now watching the opposing party capsize. We may lose a seat or two, but we will maintain our hold on the majorities. The other benefit we have over the Democrats is that despite we, the base, are targeting Lincoln Chafee. The party is not. It is still giving him money for his campaign, and support. Lieberman had his legs cut out from under him. Representatives Wynn and Rush have yet to see this. But if the Democrats are determined to purge the ranks this year, they will very soon. And I hope they drop the veneer of servitude to the party, and rally the blacks in their district to see how they are being treated by Democrats. Do not whine about it, but point it out when it comes out.
The people have supported these men for some time now. (Wynn was first elected in 1992; Rush in '93) Wynn has been in seven elections, and each time he has beaten his opponent by 75% or more of the vote. so it is not as though he is not well-liked and respected. Rush in 2000 faced off against Barak Obama--the new "darling" of the Senate--and soundly beat him for the House seat.
Based on that above, and the information in the story, if I were a dEmocrat I would have to ask why these men are being targeted? And that goes double if I were a Democrat who openly, actively, and proudly camapigned and voted for either man. What has changed to make the Democrats turn on these men? Their voting records have not changed. And another thing, Cynthia McKinney lost her primary race to Hank Johnson, who is said to be a Lieberman moderate. If that is true, will the Democrats support him against his Republican challenger, or will they stay silent, and possibly allow a House seat to slip fromt heir fingers?
In other words, how far are the Democrats willing to go on this strategy? If they take it too far, it could have even more disastrous results come November than is being predicted by many.
Mohammad Khatemi, an Iranian cleric and former Iranian president, has been invited to Harvard to speak,/li> on tolerance in this day and age. But before he leaves, he will have a meeting with none other than Jimmy Carter. Khatami and Iran want to talk, and they set up this meeting with the Carter Center.
Now I seriously doubt I have to remind our readers that Iran is still a recognized enemy of the United states. They have been since 1979. The Asylum now joins a group of growing voices who have a problem with this. People have equated this to FDR allowing Goebbels a chance to spew Nazi propaganda as Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia. That is a good analogy, but it is more like the prelude to the Munich accords, as Hitler continues to spew his hate, right before Neville Chamberlain commits political suicide.
In the case of the past, FDR would not have allowed such a blatant move by an aggressor. And we should not have allowed Khatemi's entrance into the United States, but it has happened. And today, national Review Online conducted a symposium of the sharpest minds regarding Iran. Needless to say, they agree. Here are some "highlights" from that symposium:
Anne Bayefsky U.S.-Iran policy, spearheaded by Nicholas Burns and Secretary of State Rice, is a train to nowheresville, literally. That’s what the world will look like (starting with the hole in the ground that was once Israel) when Iran has acquired nuclear weapons. Iran has no intention of stopping its nuclear weapons program voluntarily. Only a program of serious consequences, swiftly implemented, in response to its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction will prevent the catastrophe that looms before us. We know that serious sanctions will not be forthcoming through the U.N. Security Council. China and Russia have made their views on the subject quite clear. But let’s replay the words of Secretary Rice on May 10, 2006. Either Iran can accept a path to a civil nuclear program, she said, or “Iran can defy the international community and face isolation.” And again on May 31, 2006: “It’s a moment of truth for Iran.” Tough talk — but the problem is that nobody takes American huffing and puffing seriously anymore. Courtesy of the United States, Iranian proxy Hezbollah has just won a U.N. resolution permitting it to regroup and rearm to fight another day. Iran itself has been further emboldened by a resolution that does not even mention Iran, as if the war had nothing to do with it. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has been anointed to administer “peace” between Israel and those who want to annihilate the Jewish state. But Annan thinks those who share that destructive goal — and hail from states having no diplomatic relations with Israel — would make good members of his international “peacekeeping” force. Annan himself is now headed to Iran to further cement U.N. ties with terrorists, after his discussions with Hezbollah ministers in Lebanon. One wonders if he is planning to take in “the Holocaust is a joke” cartoon exhibit now playing in Tehran. The U.S. visa to former Iranian President Khatami — who wasn’t exactly AWOL during the buildup of Iran’s nuclear program — is not an isolated event. As the pattern of all talk and no action takes hold, this move too will undercut any demand to the international community for immediate, serious sanctions on Iran. If we aren’t prepared to isolate Iran, why should anyone else? Outstanding points, each one of them. And Ms.Bayefsky is quite correct in the assertion that the world does not buy the "huffing and puffing" of America anymore. Why should they? Everything about this war was tough and nasty when this started. Since then, the president has been caving into his critics more often than not. He is preparing to send aid to Lebanon; aid that will only be used by Hezbollah, be it money or supplies. Anyone remember Somalia and how Aidid "hijacked" UN relief supplies, and doled them out as he saw fit. Anyone think that Hezbollah would do anything less? And money? That will go right back to Iran to purchase more weapons, or be used by Hezbollah to buy arms from the unsavories int he region. Yes, our anger is strong, but evidently it can be overcome by attention deficit disorder; a disease seemingly rampant int he diplomatic community.
Pooya Dayanim The issuance of a United States visa to Mohammad Khatami, the former president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, is an insult to the American people, a slap in the face of Iran’s pro-democracy movement, a mockery of the immigration and antiterrorism laws, and a continuation of the schizophrenic non-policy of the State Department. To see him here, in both New York and Washington, D.C., cities attacked five years ago, will be heartbreaking. So succinct. Mr. Dayanim hits the nail on the head with one paragraph. He does go on, but this is the literally the money paragraph. It sends precisely the message that is needed to get the diplomat's lack of attention to the danger of Iran. And he is completely correct in his "shaming" of the diplomats for forgetting about not only those people in Iran hoping America will help them, as it did with Afghanistan and Iraq, but also to Americans. Americans' are not stupid people, and the good majority of us know that Iran is a primary sponsor of terrorism in the region. So why on God's green earth would we allow an ally of terrorism into this nation to give any sort of speech? Have we lost our minds?
Michael Ledeen Giving Khatami prestigious platforms all over America is a dumb move, and it will enormously discourage the Iranian people. For those who believed Bush is serious about regime change, this is a numbing blow. Would FDR have given Goebbels a visa while the Reich was attacking Czechoslovakia? Whatever the intent, this looks like blatant appeasement and the people in the Middle East will certainly “understand” it that way. Khatami is very much a member of the clerical fascist regime. He was the empty vessel into which the Iranian people poured their dreams of freedom when they elected him; now he couldn’t win an election for dog catcher. He presided over brutal repression, including the grisly murders of the Forouhars in 1978 and the mass murders and arrests of student demonstrators a year later. Alas, this confirms my worst fears about this administration. Talk, talk, talk, but when it is time to act, they are still talking. Or rearranging the deck chairs over at the Pentagon in the middle of a war.
There is the famous Geobbels line, and Mr. Ledeen--noted pundit and expert on Middle Eastern affairs--is right to join Ms. Bayefsky in condeming the administration for its "tough talk" stance. However we have seen that the administration is very open to talking. The coming negotiations (if they occur, and Lord knows we hope they do not) are a sign that the president is willing to moderate with an animal equally as dangerous as Hitler ever was. And, in fact, Iran and President Ahmadinejad are more dangerous that the Fuehrer ever was because of the very program in dispute.
Gary Metz The State Department that calls Hezbollah a terrorist organization granted on Tuesday a visa to the man who presided over the creation of Hezbollah, the former president of the Islamic Republic, Mohammad Khatami. The smiling Khatami’s so-called “reformist” movement is dead. He promised he would “reform” the government while remaining committed to “the rule of the clerics.” He lost his popular support when his government murdered or jailed its dissidents and proved unable to make even modest reforms. Last year his movement died when Iranians refused to vote any longer for candidates pre-selected by the regime. Now he is coming to the U.S. for a “dialogue with the West.” But the regime’s very purpose is to replace a world dominated by the U.S. with their version of Islamic justice. He can no more offer an end to Iran’s one sided war with the U.S. than U.S. officials can negotiate away our commitment to freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. Fortunately, Khatami said Monday that he will not come if he is subjected to the normal fingerprinting of Iranians visiting America. Someone needs to make it clear that the man, who presided over the creation of a terrorist organization that until 9/11 killed more Americans than any other, will at least be fingerprinted. He should be arrested. The best thing that could happen is for him to be told he will submit to fingerprints, and a 24 hour chaperone. I would prefer he not come to the United States at all. He does not need to come here, and honestly, I would let him know he is not welcome here. If he really wants to communicate with Harvard or Jimmy Carter he can do it via video feed over the Internet. I am offended that the same people connected with Hezbollah--a known and recognized terrorist organization by the nations of the West--is allowed to come here. We are still a sovereign nation, and it is time we start exercising more of that. We are at war, and we need no propagandists from our enemy coming over here to spread it. And on the subject of negotiating things away, that is what this coming election is all about. The Left seems to be more than willing to capitulate, and this issue, along with the negotiations with Iran, show that even our side is willing to do that from time to time. And it is a grave mistake.
Laurent Murawiec Granting a visa to a prominent representative of an enemy nation while, by its own pronouncements, actions, and its long-standing practice, that nation’s government is at war with us? Whoever issued it clearly assumed that the beneficiary could sway his peers in a direction we desire. Unfortunately, Khatami was not able to do that even when he nominally was president of Iran. He just gave the impression that he wished to. Our policy cannot be based on impressions gleaned years ago from an ineffectual figurehead. Iran’s nuclear program did not start with Ahmadinejad, but under the “moderate” Rafsanjani, who also called for the nuclear eradication of Israel, just as Khomeini before him. Iran’s nuclear program continued unabated under Khatami. We cannot invent a pseudo-faction of “moderates” amongst the ayatollahs just because some of us would rather look the other way and pretend it is not so. Judgments regarding Iran must be based on the nature of its regime, from Khomeini to today’s Guide Khamenei and Ahmadinejad: the regime of the Islamic Revolution is apocalyptic, millenarian, eschatological. It wishes for the apocalypse that will bring forward the coming of the Mahdi, who will in turn win the great battle with Satan that will extend Allah’s writ to the entire earth. It devoutly believes that the nuclear Holocaust where Israel would perish would hugely advance the timetable of reappearance of the Twelfth Iman, the Mahdi. This creed overrides reality in the strategic perspective of the regime: Tehran is not an actor rationally working in the national interest of Iran and the Iranians. It is serving its ideological mania. It sacrificed hundreds of thousands of Iran’s children, blown to smithereens as they walked to clear Iraqi minefields, with certificates of good Islamic conduct around their necks — by a regime content to expedite them to Paradise. If they do that to their own kids, what of the rest of the world? The Tehran regime recently gambled with the existence of Lebanon just to test Israel’s defenses. For years, Tehran has been stringing the diplomats along. With her head on the chopping block, Madame du Barry was begging the executioner to give her one more minute. The diplomats beg. But there are no forces within the Tehran regime with which we can negotiate, and might divert Iran from its course of acquiring nuclear weapons.
And this was a point that we emphasized in the run-up to August 22nd: the apocalyptic day that President Ahmadinejad predicted the Mahdi would return. Nothing happened on that day, but it shows the deep, concerted effort to usher int their own "end times" prophesies. People who govern by such means are unstable and irrational. How are we to negotiate with such people? And Khatemi believes in these things as ferventyl as Ahmadinejad and the mullahs do. He is a believer, and that makes him extremely dangerous. Why? Because he is willing to die for that belief. And ahamdinejad is, as well; his desire goes beyond himself, and goes straight to the people. They will be the one sacrificed in the name of Islam by their insane leaders.
James A. Phillips It was a major error to issue a visa to former Iranian President Khatami at a time when Iran is defiantly thumbing its nose at the U.S. and the U.N. Security Council regarding its nuclear weapons program. Although Khatami put a softer face on Iran’s blood-soaked revolutionary regime, Iran’s nuclear program flourished during his eight years in power. While calling for a “dialogue of civilizations” Khatami turned a deaf ear to Iranian student reformers who called for long-overdue reforms in Iran but were beaten, imprisoned, and murdered when their peaceful demonstrations were violently crushed in 1999. Although widely portrayed as a lovable liberal in the Western media, Khatami fully shares the long term goals of Ayatollah Khomeini’s radical revolution. During the recent fighting in Lebanon, he called Hezbollah — the terrorist organization that has killed more Americans than any other group except al Qaeda — “a shining sun that illuminates and warms the hearts of all Muslims and supporters of freedom in the world.” In addition, while in America, Khatami is slated to attend a fundraising dinner for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a radical Islamist organization that has served as an apologist for Middle Eastern terrorist groups. It is difficult to understand how issuing the visa serves American national interests in confronting Iran’s nuclear program or winning the war on terrorism. Mr. Phillips wastes no time in reminding readers about Khatemi's culpability in quashing those calling for reform in Iran. In addition, he brings up the fact that Khatemi recently praised Hezbollah. These are hardly the actions of a reformer who was intent on changing how Iran dealt with such things. His reforms--is promises--were as empty as a corrupt politician' promise to change his ways. And there is no doubt in my mind that at the CAIR event his rhetoric will change from someone promoting tolerance and peace to a voice calling for the continued existence of Iran's nuclear program, a call for support for Hezbollah, and a condemnation of the West's--most notably, America's--stance on those supported by Iran. While al-Qaeda did not help in the 9/11 attacks, Kenneth Timmerman's excellent investigative journalism dug up information regarding al-Qaeda's past relations with Iran, and those that presently are continuing. And yet we still saw fit to issue a visa for this man? Again, what was State thinking when they said "yes" to a visa for his visit?
Michael Rubin By granting a visa to Mohammad Khatami, the Bush administration handed the Islamic Republic a propaganda coup. Journalists will fawn and diplomats celebrate Khatami’s talk of tolerance. They will be complicit in projecting a false image of the regime Khatami still represents. Khatami’sreality is the inverse of his image. To Western audiences, he speaks of tolerance; in Persian, he urges Iranians to mobilize for war. While he maximized the diplomatic gains by calling for dialogue, he channeled the fruits of engagement to different aims. He constrains dialogue. While the State Department issued 22,000 visas for Iranians in 1997, the year of the call to dialogue, Khatami reciprocated with only 880 tourist visas for Americans. He showed less tolerance for dialogue among his own constituents. In April 2000, Iranian journalists, speculating on the reason for the government ban on the daily Arya, hinted that the penalty was due to the paper’s mention of a series of hangings of political prisoners in 1988, a time when Khatami was the armed forces’ deputy director of ideological affairs. Perhaps, the Bush administration felt constrained by international opinion. But why concede? What better time to fight back and remind Europeans that, when dealing with Iran, it is important to focus on deeds rather than words. Excellent point. That is the crux of this issue, and Europe keeps avoiding that unsavory fact. So do our own diplomats, evidently, otherwise why would the visa had been granted? The talk now is of peace, tolerance, and negotiations. But that is not the talk going on in Iran right now. Iran is on a war-footing right now. They are supplying the native insurgents/terrorists in Iraq with training, munitions, IEDs and other explosives. Their proxy, Hezbollah, just faced down Israel over the course of thirty-four days. They are pursuing the goal of constructing a nuclear weapon. Their actions show anything but peace. The recent actions of the basiji dealing with student dissidents do not translate to tolerance. And the only reason they are willing to negotiate is to buy themselves more time. I thought we learned the lesson of Neville Chamberlain. The more we see right now, it is obvious that we have not, and we are likely to go through another world war before we learn that lesson again.
Rick Santorum This seems at best foolish and at worst misguided. Mohammed Khatami is one of the chief propagandists of the Islamic Fascist regime. We are offering free speech to a man whose government was called "the greatest predator of free press in the Middle East" by Reporters Without Frontiers. We are welcoming a man who presided over many brutal murders and mass incarceration of people whose only crime was calling for greater freedom. He has deceived many naïve people into believing that he stands for genuine reform, and that he is a reasonable intellectual with whom productive dialogue is possible. The Iranian people know better. I recently met with a brave student movement leader, Amir Abbas Fakhravar, who had escaped from the Iranian dungeons. His profound wish is that the United States Government be strong, consistent and outspoken about our support of freedom for the Iranian people. Unhappily, this action moves in the opposite direction. I am opposed to granting a visa to such a man so that he can travel around the United States and mislead the American people. We should insist, at a minimum, that the Iranian people can hear free American voices. Iran is frightened of freedom. They are jamming our radio and television broadcasts, and tearing down television satellite dishes in all the major cities of the country. It seems only fair that we be able to speak to the Iranians suffering under a regime of which Mohammed Khatami is an integral part. Again, I must agree. Senator Santorum makes a number of good points. The regime over there is indeed afraid of freedom. They know what the outcome of such a concept means. It means they are out of power. The majority of Iranians dislike rule under the mullahs. They are, quite literally, live-in hostages in Iran. Those who tow the line and do not make waves are rewarded; those opposed to such a strict and backwards ideology are punished. And it is not pleasant, especially with Ahmadinejad's own terror squads amidst the basiji. Repressive regime does not even begin to describe Iran. Seventh Century militant theocracy is closer to the point, and reveals the danger of the "republic" to the region, and the world.
And out of all the people who participated, only one person--Amir Taheri--disagreed, and believed he should be allowed to come here. The basis for the idea? It opens him up to public scrutiny. And make no mistake the blogs will be tracking him when he comes to America. The scrutiny he will receive will not be favorable. Every word will be studied. Every sentiment disseminated. As it should be, but it still does not change our opinion that he should not be allowed to come here.
Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of Mohammed Khatemi, and the regime he represents, are those of despots and tyrants; they are the actions of a nation afraid to let even the tiniest speck of Western influence into their land. And it comes from the knowledge that if they do, they will lose face and support amongst their people. The social isolationism of Iran has led them down this path. It has been almost thirty years since the Islamofascists seized power there, and since then nothing has changed. I do not see how anyone in the administration could believe that a couple of kind words and a smile could make people forget his complicity in keeping the Iranian people down.
Israel rejected a call from U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Wednesday to lift its air and sea blockade of Lebanon, saying it would only end the 7-week-old siege once all elements of a ceasefire were in place. During an hour of talks with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Annan said he pressed for a lifting of the embargo, imposed after the start of the war against Lebanon's Hizbollah guerrilla group on July 12, mainly on economic grounds.
At a news conference after their meeting, Olmert rebuffed Annan, saying any relaxation of pressure on Lebanon's ports and airspace depended on the full implementation of U.N. resolution 1701, which governs the ceasefire with Hizbollah.
"The (resolution) is a fixed buffet and everything will be implemented, including the lifting of the blockade, as part of the entire implementation of the different articles," he said.
Olmert was equally firm when it came to suggestions from Annan that Israel should withdraw all its troops from southern Lebanon within "days or weeks," once up to 5,000 U.N.-backed peacekeepers are on the ground.
"Israel will pull out of Lebanon once the resolution is implemented," Olmert said, indicating a longer timeline.
In the talks, Olmert also reiterated his call for the U.N. force to be deployed not just in southern Lebanon but along the border with Syria, a deployment that the U.N. resolution makes dependent on a request from the Lebanese government.
Annan, in Jerusalem after visiting Lebanon, is trying to strengthen a shaky, two-week-old truce that ended a 34-day war between Israel and Hizbollah. His top priority had been the lifting of the blockade, a request made by Lebanon's government.
"It is important not only because of the economic effect it is having on the country but it is also important to strengthen the democratic government of Lebanon with which Israel has repeatedly said it had no problems," Annan said.
As long as Israel is making sure that weapons don't end up in Hezbollah hands, they're safe; to a point. This should have been expected by Annan. He has dithered over this cease-fire, and sent conflicting messages that the world has questioned. He has said that Hezbollah must disarm, but that the new peacekeeping force won't be the ones doing it. From Beirut, the Lebanese army has been told that they won't do it either; that same army has been encouraged to actually join forces with Hezbollah.
So if this is the message being sent to Israel, why would they pull out of Lebanon, and why would they life the blockade. Are they suicidal, all of a sudden? Kofi Annan is most definitely receiving pressure from Syria, Iran, and most importantly, Lebanon. Now that Lebanon has basically been commandeered by Hezbollah, it is a government that is compromised; it can't be trusted to abide by anything decree it issues unless it goes hand-in-hand with Hezbollah's agenda. That plan revolves around harrassing Israel. Hezbollah is acting on orders, and their actions can be understood, from that viewpoint. However, this begging from Kofi Annan is embarrassing.
This guy is so pathetic that he couldn't get lucky in a whorehouse with a fistful of Franklins. He can't control the ones he prefers, and he can't get those he dislikes to cave-in. Again, he's stuck between a rock and a hard case, and his ineptitude is laid bare for the world to behold. And don't think that this ends with Kofi Annan. This makes the UN look equally as bad. No one takes them seriously anymore because they lack the courgae of their convictions. They talk the talk, but they keep tripping over their feet when they try to walk the walk.
So yes; the answer to Kofi Annan is "no." With the amount of times he's been told that in the past couple of months, one would think he'd be used to that answer by now.
That is my opinion after reading this post from Captain Ed based on a story from the New York Sun. No surprise from the title of the piece--"U.N. May Hold Off on Confronting Iran." Does that not just warm your hearts?
The U.N. Security Council will need until mid-September before acting on its threat to punish Iran if Tehran's leaders flout a Thursday deadline to suspend uranium enrichment as is widely expected, Britain's U.N. ambassador said Tuesday. Ambassador Emyr Jones-Parry's prediction seemed to rule out the immediate threat of sanctions against Iran if it disregards the council's demands - spelled out in a resolution adopted this month - to suspend enrichment by Thursday. Iran has already said it would reject the deadline.
Jones-Parry said that before it can act, the Security Council will need to receive a report from the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, on Iran's compliance with the resolution.
"Once we've had the report from the agency, had a further chance to discuss that, capitals will have a clearer view of exactly how this should be carried forward, but I would expect activity here to resume toward the middle of September," Jones-Parry said.
Another obstacle to quick action will be the language that will have to be worked out in the resolution. Russia, whose support for sanctions is essential, has publicly counseled patience with Iran - a possible signal of reluctance to go along with the U.S. For now, most discussions are taking place in the capitals of the permanent five Security Council nations, as well as Germany. A council diplomat said diplomats in New York have discussed ideas which could be included in a new resolution but that the council was a long way from a formal meeting.
I must concur with other bloggers out there when I say "What part of No do you not understand? How about 'go to Hell?'" It is almost as though the United Nations is stuck in the same sort of mindset the Left is. They cannot believe that anyone would be unwilling to go along with them, believe them, or abide by their requests. And I wonder why? After all, the Left just wants a perfect utopia that is wholly unreachable. And the UN wants the same thing, but they want to be the Big Kahunas in the deal.
Unfortunately for them, only solid leadership will gain them any respect. Or fear for that matter. Nations like Iran are playing carefully so as to not irritate President Bush, or provoke the idea he may be a threat to the West. (TOO LATE! Hello?) But that threat has not risen to the level where the president is ready to use force. But Iran is afraid of the "new side" of the United States. No longer are they willing to let slide certain things. They were attacked by Iran and its proxies since 1979. And while they had nothing to do with 9/11 (that ANYONE, including ourselves, is aware of) they saw the reaction from a nation with ramrod straight and hard resolve. Again, an anemy of the United states made the mistake of waking the "sleeping dragon;" Japan learned the folly of such ideas in World War II. And it is quite obvious that al-Qaeda missed that lesson in history class.
Make it little, and we will go after you. Make it big, and you just brought Hell down upon you. Kill a few, and we get ticked. Kill a lot, and there is no tether to hold our anger back, and we will unleash what we have against you. Here endeth the lesson.
And that is precisely what they are showing as they continue to hem and haw over this issue. Iran's nuclear program, as long as it continues unfettered and unchecked, will continue to grow in danger and anxiety. We honestly do not know what Iran is working on. We have only minor information and supposition to support a hypothesis. And we have their rhetoric to back up those allegations.
There used to be a fatwa forbidding the possession or use of nuclear weapons by Islamic nations. That fatwa is no more, and has been replaced by one that condones their use. President Ahmadinejad has stated--often and repeatedly--that he will "wipe Israel off the map" once Iran has nuclear weapons; this coming from a man who continues to tell the world that Iran has no weapon ambitions with their nuclear program. They do have these desires, and we feel that they are working on weaponizing their nuclear technology. We want sanctions, and we want them watched.
The United Nations seems to miss this idea. Lord knows why, unless they have a level of masochism that people are unaware of, and they would enjoy being ground zero of a nuke strike because of their dawdling.The United Nations had better locate its backbone, and soon. If they do not, certain nations of the world will be forced to act unilaterally again. And honestly, I am not in the mood to listen to another three years of whining from the United Nations because they were bypassed, and disrespected by other nations. Well, if they would act instead of talking, more might be accomplished.
Ahmadinejad's Pen Pal Kisses And Tells: Transcript Of His Letter To Angela Merkel
SPECIAL NOTE: Marcie's post regarding the San Francisco hit-and-run incident late yesterday is right below this one. If you left off before she updated last night, and have missed some of this, scroll down. She added a couple of updates to the initial post, including one late last night.
The German government has released the complete text of Ahmadinejad's letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. I'm not going to cite the whole thing here, but there are a couple of things I'd like to point out in it of particular interest. I should also note that his letter to her didn't close the same way that President Bush did; there was no veiled threat in closing.
World War II came to an end with all its material and moral losses and its 60 million casualties. The death of human beings is tragic and sad. In all divine religions and before all awakened conscience and pure nature of mankind and the sense of right and wrong, the life, property and honor of people, regardless of their religious persuasion and ethnic background, must be respected at all times and all places. Sixty years have passed since the end of the war. But, regrettably the entire world and some nations in particular are still facing its consequences.
Even now the conduct of some bullying powers and power-seeking and aggressive groups is the conduct of victors with the vanquished. The extortion and blackmail continue, and people are not allowed to think about or even question the source of this extortion, otherwise they face imprisonment. When will this situation end?
Sixty years, one hundred years or one thousand years, when? I am sorry to remind you that today the perpetual claimants against the great people of Germany are the bullying powers and the Zionists that founded the Al-Qods Occupying Regime with the force of bayonets in the Middle East.
In his eyes, what the world did for the Jews is seen as some sort of extorition on the part of the Jews. How so? Does he really think that the Jews had a hand in this decision? This was Britain's idea to give the Jews a homeland. There was no sort of extortion from the Jews. But this is how much of the letter goes on about. He spends quite a few paragrpahsranting about the "Zionists" and their extortion conspiracy over the whole world. What's sad is with such a rant, he makes the conspiracy theorists of 11 September look sane.
I have no intention of arguing about the Holocaust. But, does it not stand to reason that some victorious countries of World War II intended to create an alibi on the basis of which they could continue keeping the defeated nations of World War II indebted to them. Their purpose has been to weaken their morale and their inspiration in order to obstruct their progress and power. In addition to the people of Germany, the peoples of the Middle East have also borne the brunt of the Holocaust. By raising the necessity of settling the survivors of the Holocaust in the land of Palestine, they have created a permanent threat in the Middle East in order to rob the people of the region of the opportunities to achieve progress. The collective conscience of the world is indignant over the daily atrocities by the Zionist occupiers, destruction of homes and farms, killing of children, assassinations and bombardments.
In Ahmadinejad's eyes, Israel is always the aggressor in these wars. Israel never defends herself, and they always act with a level of indiscriminate action that equates them to war criminals. And, of course, the Jews want everything in the region. Never mind the fact that if their neighbors would simply leave them alone that everything would be OK. But no. Their neighbors have to push the envelope, and push them into a war. This nation has seen more attacks on their sovereignty since it was created in 1948 than any other nation on the face of the planet. Take a look at the wars that has befallen Israel, and tell me that they haven't had their fair share of defending their homeland. And none of these wars were started by them. They struck pre-emptively on a couple of occasions, but it only happened AFTER they found out they were about to be attacked.
And if one needs indiscriminate warfare, you only need to look at how Hezbollah conducted operations in the latest Israeli/Hezbollah conflict. Bear in mind that Hezbollah had cutting-edge military technology and real-time intelligence, care of the UN and UNIFIL, respectively in the recent war. With their very clandestine nature, with such things in hand, they could have engaged the IDF with deadly precision. No, Hezbollah chose to lob rockets into Israeli population centers. But by Ahmadinejad's standards, that is "Israeli" aggression.
We need to ask ourselves that for what purposes the millions of dollars that the Zionists receive from the treasury of some Western countries are spent for. Are they used for the promotion of peace and the well-being of the people? Or are they used for waging war against Palestinians and the neighboring countries. Are the nuclear arsenals of Israel intended to be used in defense of the survivors of the Holocaust or as a permanent threat against nations of the region and as an instrument of coercion, and possibly to defend the interests of certain circles of power in the Western countries.
The money that Israel uses is spent in a number of places, and yes some of it (most of it, probably) goes towards their military. But when you are surrounded by your enemies, do you plant a flower bed, or fashion a weapon to defend yourself? Their nuclear arsenal is a deterrant to those in the region that have the ability to hit them with weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't have to be a nuke; a chemical or bilogical weapon will do just as much harm to the population as a nuke will. And with Iran well on its way towards a nuclear weapon we should all be happy that Israel has nukes to keep them at bay. With Israel as a check against Iran, Ahmadinejad knows he needs more than one nuke. And that is why he's calling their arsenal into question. Like it or not, Israel is as involved with Iran as we are, only they understand that negotiations with a nutter like Ahmadinejad will be fruitless. We have to be told to get lost by him.
... But just imagine where Germany would be today in terms of its eminence among the freedom-loving nations, Muslims of the world and peoples of Europe, if such a situation did not exist and the governments in power in Germany had said no to the extortions by the Zionists and had not supported the greatest enemy of mankind.
It is sad to admit that Europe has lost a lot of its clout in global interactions and has not been able to face and overcome major challenges by relying on itself. This is, of course, understandable. The big powers outside of the continent intend to prove that Europe cannot rely on itself and do anything without their help and intervention.
And here is the ploy. A blatant attempt to turn one of our allies against us. He is trying to sway her to see his side of things, and join Iran in opposing America in its war. This war not only goes after terrorists, but the regimes that sponsor, enable, and protect terrorists, as well. Iran has been an enemy of the United States since 1979 because of what they did in their rise to power. And since then we've also recognized that they fund and supply a good deal of terrorist organizations int he Middle East, including Hezbollah. And Ahmadinejad is appealing to the chancellor of Germany to join hands and oppose those in the West opposed to Iran. He's looking for a European ally, and he's yet to find one. But given Germany's history, and the fact that the German people are more than aware of what Hitler tried to do, he should have known that this route was futile.
We believe that still a major part of the peoples of the world and even international organizations are under the influence of the behavior and the conduct of the victors of the World War II. I explained the position of the people and government of the Islamic Republic of Iran at the United Nations General Assembly.
Is the present state of affairs such as the rules governing the work of the Security Council, especially the right to veto, fair? Do you not think that the time has come to change these rules in cooperation with independent governments?
These rules are by no means acceptable to the collective conscience of nations and are contrary to the sense of reason and human nature. At least, if we want to be fairer, some other countries of the world should be allowed to benefit from the right to veto.
Interesting note here that he wants her help in backing a resolution to remove the vote of America from the Security Council. And he wants others in the world to have a say. The UN Security Council is reserved for the most advanced nations int he world. Basically, it's the G-8 nations on the council, and I'm apt to agree that some nations houldn't be allowed a vote, especially after the Oil-For-Food scandal, and the burgeoning situations regarding Iran and North Korea. But I don't get a say int hat, and honestly Iran shouldn't have one, either. They're facing sanctions over their nuclear program. But what if this ploy is something else; possibly a hint towards what Ahmadinejad would like to have in exchange for, oh, let's say, IAEA inspectors allowed to inspect their facilities. Politics is all about horse trading, and he seems ready to deal, but with our allies and not us.
The inner instincts and nature of the peoples of the world have wakened up.
Tendency toward faith in the oneness of God is on the rise.
People will no longer tolerate to be tyrannized, humiliated and their rights violated.
The prevailing circumstances today differ from those of yesterday. Multiple standards and approaches in relations will not endure.
Iran and Germany can play a more important role together in the international arena by relying on the noble and high values.
This cooperative relationship can also enhance the role of Europe on the global scene and serve as a model of cooperation between two governments and nations. Without doubt, cooperation of two peace-loving, powerful and cultured nations of Germany and Iran will serve the interests of Europe as well.
Together we must end the present abnormalities in international relations, the type of order and relations that are based on the impositions of the victors of the World War II on the defeated nations. Nations and many governments will be on our side on this path.
Here is the veiled threat, instead of the end of the letter. He is offering Germany, and Europe by default, a greater standing in the world. But it's a world he wants to fashion via a caliphate ruled from Tehran. Join hands, or perish. He doesn't put it quite that way. He's more polite about it. He chooses to show her the crown jewels instead; the riches and prosperity of working with him, rather than against him. This is the carrot, and Angela Merkel isn't stupid. She knows exactly what the stick is. And based on her intelligence, she believes he doesn't have that stick just yet. The same goes for our end of the intelligence spectrum.
This letter, while lacking the ending that Bush's letter had, possessed everything else the previous ones have had. There is the talk about the Jews, and blaming them for the region's problems, and the world's, too. There is a point where he discusses "faith,' and that we in the West have strayed from the path to the true God. There is the flattery to the leader he is speaking to (in a sickening Eddie Haskel sort of way, too), and the flattery to their nation.
It's the same old song-and-dance routine that we've seen in the past. The difference with this one is the talk about the veto power on the UN Security Council. That's the first time I've even seen such a hint from Iran. But it's clear that if he's talking about this that the pressure that is being brought to bear on them is working. He's getting a bit nervous about those that strongly oppose Iran's nuclear program. Good. That's what we wanted. We want him worried about what his future might be like if the sanctions are put in place, and if they're thoroughly observed.
In the end, I am happy to hear that Chancellor Merkel has rejected this letter. It's full of sentiments that the world rejects. The world knows that Hitler tried to eradicate the entire Jewish population. they know that they've been attacked more times than most care to remember. They know that America is a force for good in the world; some would contend one of only a couple nations that still stand for liberty and freedom. And in the end, that's what Ahmadinejad truly fears. Iran's not nice to those who embrace Western ideals, style, and technology. And he knows that the more people see others free, and able to govern themselves, the more they desire it.