Tuesday, June 02, 2009
|
|
Obama Supports a Nuclear Iran
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
11:34 AM
|
Today's Washington Post reports,
"President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy -- provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful."
... This, of course, is sort of like saying one supports the right for Jeffrey Dahmer to have "dinner with friends," -- so long as his plans are for "friendship".
Aside from the fact that this is a dangerously naive position, it should also be noted that Iran is already flush with oil, and doesn't need nuclear power.
It also strikes me as ironic that Democrats are keen on depriving American citizens the right to bear arms, yet President Obama has no problem with Iran's right to bear nuclear arms.
The Post goes on to note that,
Obama's interview offered a preview of a speech he is to deliver in Egypt this week, saying he hoped the address would warm relations between Americans and Muslims abroad.
If President Obama truly does go on to pursue an apology tour in the Middle East, as this story implies he will, he may prove himself to be not only naive regarding foreign policy -- but also more politically naive than one might have expected. Is he really trying to become Jimmy Carter, 2.0?
|
|
to be difficult for you to grasp; but the foolish statement coming from the community organizer will only embolden Iran. They recognize him for the boob that he is, unfortunately drooling drones like yourself are too hapless to see the danger this fool presents not just to this country but to the world at large. One would think the community organizer would enlist the aid of Russia and China and the Europeans in order to curtail the "nuclear aspirations" of Iran, just a thought!
As to your second charge, the stumbling and bumbling in Iraq are post-January 2009, just Google BBC. You do know how to Google?
J I think once nuclear energy becomes unionized the community organizer will be on board with approbation. There is now no money coming from nuclear energy, hence his disenchantment, after all look at the "assistance" he has already given the UAW! |
|
|
ear power?! I suspect Obambi shys away from having to get tough with Iran, so better to join em instead of fight em! For sure, NOT ONLY HAS THE GULLIBLE OBAMA FAILED HIS HISTORY CLASSES HE WILL TRUST THE WORDS OF LIARS AND WAR DOGS?! NOW OBAMA REALLY SCARES ME! |
|
Yep, all clogged, blathered and infested by the usual lefturd vermin. Gawd, what friggin' BORES.
Mr.President: Focus, Fool...HOW do you figure that Iran needs or ought to have Nuke energy, much less a Nuke Bomb, whilst sitting atop a virtual ocean of Oil?? Sorry, babycakes, NOT gonna happen. Some very large Bunker Busters are going to put a stop to the program and the lives of several Nuke Scientists. Thank you Bibi for having a brain and a great Big Set to go with it.
Baa-Daa-Bing. Like dat. |
|
|
|
"You've had two hours"
Sorry, we went over to the winery for lunch.
"that's the best comeback you've got?"
As contrasted to your feeble "I was TRYING to be funny."? Next time you might consider adding a little smiley face. |
|
Lets put the bomb thing aside and take him for what he said.
So why is Nuclear Energy good enough for Iran but not the United States? Anyone? Anyone?
Wouldnt Nuclear Energy cut down our need to use carbon fuels for energy consumption; in turn reducing our dependence on foreign oil?
Wouldnt using more Nuclear Energy sources reduce Carbon Emissions by burning less Carbon based fuel for our energy consumption?
Wouldnt using less carbon fuels reduce so-called excessive CO2 emissions? Not that we really need to as CO2 is consumed by plants which in turn provide oxygen.
Isnt Nuclear proven to be a much more efficient and reliable source of energy than wind, solar, etc?
Arent these statements the same as the energy conservation platform statements made by the Demoncrats and the O'Bummer administration?
What a BUNCH of AMATEURS!!!! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! Organize, and VOTE THE BUMS OUT!!!!
|
|
|
The only possible( but only temporary way )to stop Iran is war---not military action but real war.We most probably will survive a nuclear Iran--a country please trust me that is more stable than Pakistan.We will emerge substantially weaker if we go to war with Iran. We have the best military in the world and our troops are damn brave --of course!!But the best military in the world took the silver medal in Viet Nam because the country couldn't win the war.I don't care how many friends I lose by saying it,but this country cannot sustain a war with Iran.When reminded by John McCain that the North Vietnamese never defeated the U.S. in battle,General Giap said that may be true,but it is also irrelevant.Finally,absolutely do NOT discount the real possibility Obama will rumble into Iran.Obama is a liberal interventionist without serious opposition or even critical analysis from his besotted followers. Obama is so our LBJ. |
|
|
It is the Iranian leaders who will be in charge of these nukes. Enough said I believe. |
|
"It never ceases to amaze me the level of the naivete of the drooling drones, Dread in particular!"
Yes, I am naive for not buying into every hobgoblin that is set before me by people who have a vested interest in keeping me perpetually anxious.
And yes, I imagine these days that a belief in abiding by the law and in demanding hard evidence of lawbreaking before taking action against another nation state is probably grounds to get you excommunicated from the GOP.
So be it.
"Yes, indeed, one can depend on Iran to keep their nuclear aspirations within the range of the treaty!"
As Reagan once said, "Trust, but verify."
That is what inspectors are for. That is, supposedly, why the CIA exists, as well as spy satellites.
If all of that is worthless, then I want my money back. |
|
"There is a difference in Israel having nukes and Iran having nukes. First of all the people of Israel respect life. They do not believe that blowing themselves up will be rewarded. The Iranians on the other hand think dying for a cause is noble. The Iranians have frequently said that they feel that Israel has no right to exist. The people of Israel would not pack their children or disabled with bombs. Lonny do you really think it is okay to let Iran have nukes?"
You know nothing at all about Iran, do you? You've seen the nutjob president of the country talk a couple times and decided he's representative of the whole joint.
By that logic, Obama is the perfect representative of your own opinions. |
|
|
Not a chance. We have Obama 0.1, the man who came from no where and brought it all with him. Under FDR we got The New Deal. Under Obama we are getting The Ordeal. |
|
"Yeah, sure Sparky. You couldn't do sarcasm... blah blah blah"
You've had two hours since I KO'd you with an upper cut to your glass jaw and that's the best comeback you've got?
What's next "I'm rubber you're glue"?
Come on Munck, if you're going to run with the big dogs try not to pee like a pup. |
|
|
There is a difference in Israel having nukes and Iran having nukes. First of all the people of Israel respect life. They do not believe that blowing themselves up will be rewarded. The Iranians on the other hand think dying for a cause is noble. The Iranians have frequently said that they feel that Israel has no right to exist. The people of Israel would not pack their children or disabled with bombs. Lonny do you really think it is okay to let Iran have nukes? |
|
A couple of positive take aways.
Lefties admit the Sun is the cause for the warming of the planet.
Lefties agree Nuclear Power is acceptable. We should starting building nuclear reactors here at home as fast as humanly possible... |
|
"It never ceases to amaze me the level of the naivete of the drooling drones, Dread in particular! Yes, indeed, one can depend on Iran to keep their nuclear aspirations within the range of the treaty!"
So let's hear your solution then. I bet it's the usual conservative solution: stop them militarily. You of course won't be going over to do the fighting, nor will any of the others here in favor of such an option.
Thanks to Iraq, there's a very real possibility we couldn't even pull it off. Iran's military is definitely not Iraq's (former) military. Even if successful, the sort of insurgent resistance you'd see after somebody sticks a Mission Accomplished banner somewhere would make Iraq in the mid-naughts look like a theme park ride.
So c'mon, smartypants. Iran doesn't have a right to nuclear power plants? How do we stop them?
|
|
level of the naivete of the drooling drones, Dread in particular! Yes, indeed, one can depend on Iran to keep their nuclear aspirations within the range of the treaty!
Lonny you poor soul! You do provide some humor in your feeble attempt at intelligent discourse! |
|
"a little "Tongue in Cheek".
Yeah, sure Sparky. You couldn't do sarcasm -- or science -- if your life depended on it. The wingnut inability to do science and math (and humor) has been well established. |
|
"President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy -- provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful."
What in Iran's past 30 years shows any evidence that they have aspirations that are peaceful?
I am not sure what the USA can or should do about this but we should not assume their aspirations are peaceful at this point in time.
I don't think that Isreal (or the Arab nations) are assuming that Iran's aspirations are peaceful. I think that it is likely that Isreal will take action. I pray that their action does not lead to a major conflict but I would not count that out.
|
|
But under the non-proliferation treaties Iran is a part of and currently complying with, they have a right to pursue a peaceful civilian nuclear program.
As long as fuel is not diverted to a military program and they comply with all inspections and reporting mechanisms within the treaty, we do not have cause under the treaty to stop them.
I understand that many here have disdain for treaties, but it was rattified here and as such is the law.
If you are clamoring for another bombing run and another decades long bloody occupation, the onus will be on you to provide hard evidence that the Iranians are not in compliance with the treaty. And you can certainly count of people demanding a lot more (and better) proof the second time around than a sketchy report from Africa. |
|
|
You know, something the Constitution should have guaranteed? My view is, anyone who can develop nuclear power while dodging smart bombs deserves it. |
|
For watching my back.
And good point about BM's acknowledgement that
it's the sun that has had the biggest impact on global warming. And here all along I thought it was the 10 incandescent light bulbs in MY house. |
|
|
that you really are that silly and foolish? Do yourself a kindness and try to post something intelligent at least once a week! Your 12:01 post is definitely not intelligible! |
|
...There's the rationale for N.Korea having nukes: it will have no impact on global warming, so it's OK. BTW, Corndog was not talking about science, he was being sarcastic; you know, humor, something your ilk lacks.
We know the sun is the biggest causal factor when it comes to warming the planet. Thank you for acknowledging that, at least. |
|
And I love how you lib-idiots have zero sense of humor and don't understand a little "Tongue in Cheek".
And I'm not talking about your partner's tongue between your two a$$-cheeks, cause we all know how much you pillow biters love that.
Now go away Munck.
You bother me. |
|
"Don't the libtards understand how huge of an impact the detonation of a couple of nukes will have on global warming?"
Yes. None at all. An fission bomb creates about 1E14 joules of energy; the sun delivers about 1E17 joules of energy to the earth PER SECOND. That is, a nuke creates about as much heat on earth as the sun delivers in one one-thousandth of a second. And the sun shines all day.
I love it when right-wingers try to talk about science. |
|
Don't the libtards understand how huge of an impact the detonation of a couple of nukes will have on global warming? This is serious stuff folks. We must act now to save the polar bear's habitat. |
|
|
at the level of stupidity and naivete of the community organizer! This fool is courting disaster on a worldwide basis. This fool's lack of understanding the magnitude of a nuclear holocaust is mind boggling. This fool is becoming more dangerous, I doubt even Joe Biden would have made such a silly statement! |
|
|
No, he is trying to become John Kennedy 2.0. Kennedy was a failure, from losing debates with communist dictators to selling out U. S. interests and the Cuban people (first, by changing the LZ, then by failure to support troops on the ground at Bay of Pigs). He also sold out on the Cuban missle crisis. We will never know what other failures he would have had. Obama has already failed every leadership test presented. He is about The One, and that is it. |
|
|
|