Wednesday, May 16, 2007

A diplomat I agree with

Story:"John Bolton, ... told The Daily Telegraph that the European Union had to "get more serious" about Iran and recognise that its diplomatic attempts to halt Iran's enrichment programme had failed.

Iran has "clearly mastered the enrichment technology now...they're not stopping, they're making progress and our time is limited", he said. Economic sanctions "with pain" had to be the next step, followed by attempting to overthrow the theocratic regime and, ultimately, military action to destroy nuclear sites.
Mr Bolton's stark warning appeared to be borne out yesterday by leaks about an inspection by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of Iran's main nuclear installation at Natanz on Sunday.
The experts found that Iran's scientists were operating 1,312 centrifuges, the machines used to enrich uranium. If Iran can install 3,000, it will need about one year to produce enough weapons grade uranium for one nuclear bomb."

Destroy the enemy before they can destroy us. The problem is America, and at least half of this country has no stomach for fighting to save itself.
Still, it would prevent a lot of problems, for both Isreal and us, if we took down the Iranians now, rather then when they do have a nuke.

8 comments:

Jonathan said...

So THAT's why dems wouldn't keep him at the UN...cause he scared them with his dark helmet? I see the resemblance now.

Actually, I really do love Bolton and what he's been preaching for quite some time now (heck, my first blog, was on the guy. He's been warning us about Iran for quite some time.

I totally agree...America no longer understands the concept of War. We don't realize that people do die when we fight against evil, and that more will die if we don't.

SolaMeanie said...

Yes, Dems and weasel RINO Republicans like Voinovich in Ohio, who thought John Bolton in the U.N. would hurt his grandchildren. Hoo boy.

Unfortunately, I think there would be huge, unforeseen repercussions if we did act on Iran unilaterally. That doesn't mean we ought not to do it, but we should go into it with eyes wide open. There are other countries out there with nukes, and they might well use them.

It is interesting to me that, prophetically, the position of the United States is vague. Some people try to read our nation into end-time prophecy, but I think we ought to be careful doing that. Perhaps the reason we aren't mentioned is that we are no longer around as the nation we are today. Just speculation on my part, but it's possible.

under_the_mercy said...

"Destroy the enemy before they can destroy us"

Interesting tactic, sounds like Machiavelli or Hobbes.

Could you explain what have the iraqi's done (that we have not) to deserve destruction?

Palm boy said...

Under...

The Iraqi's have not done anything worthy of destruction, and I am not advocating that we 'destroy' the Iraqis.

Iran on the other hand... Let us consider the ways.
1. Vehemently anti-isreal, to the point of assuring the world they would be 'wiped off the map'.
http://pushbackignorance.blogspot.com/2007/01/iran-predicts-us-isreals-doom.html

2. State sponsor of terrorism, to the point of giving advanced 'IEDs' to the terrorists in Iraq.
http://pushbackignorance.blogspot.com/2007/02/iran-supplying-ieds-to-shiite.html

3. Pursuing Nuclear weapons, to what end? We have two options.
a. Assume they wish to form a new variety of miracle grow, and sow seeds in the desert and begin farming with reckless abandon.
b. Arming themselves, or other terrorists, with a nuclear weapon to wreak havoc upon the west.
Which one do you think is more plausible?

4. The actions taken against our closest ally, Britian, are far beyond what a 'neutral' state would do. Rather, by twice taking English service men hostage, they have demonstrated their complete disregard for British sovereignty, and Iraqi waters.
http://pushbackignorance.blogspot.com/2007/03/witness-british-were-in-iraqi-waters.html

5. Actively training terrorists inside their country. For this reason alone they are included in the Axis of Evil, which is now down to two poles.
http://pushbackignorance.blogspot.com/2007/03/iran-training-hamas.html


Sola, interesting take on it.

SolaMeanie said...

Mercy,

I haven't heard of anyone wanting to wipe the Iraqis out, however I have heard comments that the terrorists must be destroyed. And with that, I agree. You can't negotiate with these people.

People often confuse an evangelistic response with the responsibility of the state to govern and protect its citizens. Romans 13 says the state doesn't bear the sword for nothing. Evangelism is the responsibility of the church (made up of individual believers). Fighting a war is the responsibility of the state.

under_the_mercy said...

Palm boy, thanks for seeing my error, I did mean Iran not Iraq.

1. We had the same mindset toward communist countries.

2. U.S.A. has been one of the greatest sponsers of terrorism giving millions to anyone who said they were pro U.S.A.

3. We have nucluer weapons and, ironicly enough, have been the only nation to ever use them.

What gives us the right to say we can have them but you cant.

4. Our actions have been anything but neutral, just take Vietnam for instance.

5. Your strongest point, but we came pretty close during our conqeust of the philippines, do a study on it, its quite revolting.

Here is a link, look closely at causes of war, use of propaganda, and total dead on both sides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War


Sol:

Fighting a war is only the responsibility of the state when the state has been attacked.

Palm boy said...

1. We did have a complete disdain for communist countries, mostly because of their pilfering of human rights. Ironically enough, the same is rightly said about Iran.

2. The US been one of the greatest sponsors of terrorism...
Perhaps.
However, our aid served a purpose. In Afganistan, we helped fight of the Soviet Red Army. In the Iraq-Iran war, we made a mistake.
Yet, the focus of our national security objectives are not the destruction of the west, as Iran's are.

3. Yes, we have nuclear weapons. And yes, we did use them to shatter the will of a murdering, totalitarian empire. Good use for such a weapon.

Using such a weapon in an undeclared war by terrorists on civilians? Not so good.

4.I fail to see the similarities between Vietnam and the kidnapping of British Sailors by Iran.

5. So Iran is training terrorists in its borders, but no one cares. Wonderful.
And while the Spanish-American War has questionable origins, I fail to see how it relates to our current situation.

under_the_mercy said...

Palm boy, I was addressing your points to show how we had done all that you claim they deserve destruction for. Concerning Japan, we dropped the bombs to scare Russia, not kill japanese citizens, and as to the Spanish-American war, I was not refering to its orgins, but its terrorist like policies, it was a war against the people.

Look at things from their side, they are just as human as you, babies in iran, china, japan, and the phillipians are not born freedom hating terrorists.