Nukes Are OK For Iran, But Not For Us?

 Amusing  Comments Off on Nukes Are OK For Iran, But Not For Us?
Jun 042009
 

As usual, Liberal inconsistency reveals that their true motivation is the destruction America.

Nuclear Power: If Iran has “legitimate energy concerns” that make its nuclear plants OK, doesn’t the energy-starved U.S.? Why doesn’t Iran, with the second-largest proven oil reserves, just build some refineries?

Normally, a nation with significant oil resources that decides to develop nuclear power would and should be praised for its prudence. Nuclear power is an emission-free domestic form of energy that is good for the environment and the economy.

Except when it’s a country that builds missiles instead of refineries and pledges to wipe a neighbor off the face of the earth.

Iran says it’s developing nuclear power to generate electricity while it waits for the 12th Imam and the apocalypse to arrive. To hasten the process, however, it is using its nuclear knowledge to amass fissile material necessary to build a bomb. It’s developing missiles to deliver that bomb, presumably somewhere in the heart of downtown Tel Aviv.

Our new administration is trying to talk them out of it, and the Iranians are quite willing to drag out the conversation as long as it takes to develop their nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it.

“Although I don’t want to put artificial timetables on that process,” President Obama has said, “we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we’ve actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious.”

Unfortunately, Iran by the end of the year should have enough weapons-grade material to make a bomb, if it doesn’t have enough already. One thing we can measure is the increasing number of centrifuges they have spinning. They are not designed to keep the lights on in Tehran.

It would seem to us that encouraging Iranian use of nuclear energy in any context is the last thing we should be doing. In a BBC interview broadcast on Tuesday, President Obama said:

“Without going into specifics, what I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations. On the other hand, the international community has a very real interest in preventing a nuclear arms race in the region.”

This echoes remarks made in Prague last month, when the president said his administration would “support Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections” if Iran gives up its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

But it hasn’t, and the race is already on. Iran state television interpreted these remarks as recognizing “the rights of the Iranian nation,” by which it means its right to develop nuclear power unencumbered.

That Iran is not serious about peaceful nuclear energy is shown by its refusal to build the refinery capacity needed to eliminate its dependence on imported gasoline. That money instead has gone to buying more centrifuges and expanding nuclear facilities. If Iran’s energy aspirations were legitimate, it would be building refineries and not bombs.

The irony here is that at the same time we are encouraging Iran to exploit the peaceful uses of nuclear power, we are discouraging its use here at home. We have legitimate energy aspirations as well, and one of them is reducing our dependence on imported oil from countries that do not have our interests at heart.

We let billions flow overseas and domestic oil resources from the Chukchi Sea to ANWR to Western oil shale to the Gulf of Mexico go unexploited. We have one thing in common with Iran: We’re not pushing refinery construction here either.

We prattle on about nuclear power being costly and nuclear waste being a danger without a safe place to store it even as we shut down Yucca Mountain, a perfectly safe place to store it. We place all sorts of regulatory and environmental impediments in its way.

Why is nuclear power a viable energy source for Iran but not for America?

Source…

Obama Declares Iran-Dependence Day

 Amusing  Comments Off on Obama Declares Iran-Dependence Day
Jun 032009
 

If only we had a President who would personally deliver “rockets’ red glare” and “the bombs bursting in air” over Tehran this July 4th!

Another classic opinion piece by Ed Anger.

Enjoy!

I can’t believe it: Obama just invited a bunch of crazy foreigners to a Fourth of July party!

Our embassies throw Independence Day parties around the world, so this year, the Communist-in-Chief is inviting local bigwigs to come, too.
That means guys who work for President Achmed Dirtybad of Iran will get to set foot on our property!

That’s pretty funny, because Achmed Dirtybad first became famous when he and his friends took over our embassy in Iran back in the 1970s!

I knew Obama wanted to relive the Carter Presidency, but this is ridiculous. It’s bad enough he wants us to save electricity and drive ugly little cars and put up with crazy inflation like Jimmy did – but now the Teleprompter Kid wants to relive the 1970s in this whole new way! Next thing you know, Obama will be yelling “Kiss my grits” and wearing platform shoes!

I can see it now: a bunch of Iranian kooks asking for pig-free hotdogs at the cookout, or trying to barbeque a goat. I bet they bring their own fireworks, too – nuclear ones! And maybe they’ll burn an effigy of Uncle Sam, like they do every weekend anyway.

How can Iranian big shots celebrate something called “Independence Day” when they’re the same guys who lock up ladies who don’t wear bags on their heads? (Although I like their idea of not letting women drive – I guess they’ve met my mother-in-law.)

All in all, poor old Ed doesn’t feel much like celebrating this Fourth of July. Mark my words: they’ll ban fireworks and barbecues next because they cause pollution. Don’t laugh – that’s the first thing Hitler did when he took over. You can look it up!

Source…

Iran and North Korea are Making a Mockery of Obama

 Amusing  Comments Off on Iran and North Korea are Making a Mockery of Obama
May 312009
 

Don’t you feel like everything is under control and will work itself out now that we have the crack foreign policy team of Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton handling Iran and North Korea?

In the old days at Officer Candidate School, the “tac officers,” snapping and snarling, would circle a hapless would-be lieutenant:

“You’re lost, Candidate.”

“You’re confused.

“What are you going to do now?”

“Make a decision! Make a decision!”

That cherished image of the bewildered victim of calculated harassment fits President Obama perfectly, when it comes to the shambles he’s made of foreign policy in record time.

Around the globe, our enemies — immediate and potential — are testing Obama to see how far they can go. Thus far, he hasn’t set a limit anywhere. Not a single dictator or terrorist leader got a single time-out.

Last week, North Korea nuke-mooned him, then spit missiles in multiple directions. Our president admonished Pyongyang. Words solve everything in Obama-World.

The Master of the Teleprompter didn’t seem to grasp the basics: Like spoiled brats, the North Koreans were demanding attention (and got it); Pyongyang never honors agreements; and, above all, this isn’t our problem to solve — it’s China’s. We just need to worry about nuke exports and keep our Navy gainfully employed.

Instead, we’ve let ourselves be set up as the bad cop, with Beijing as the good cop. We get the responsibilities, Beijing gets the benefits.

Until Beijing decides to get tough on North Korea, nothing happens. China keeps North Korea on a lifeline, viewing the famine-plagued land of routine horrors as a potential economic slave-state, once the Kim dynasty disintegrates. Beijing’s been confident that it’s ultimately in control of the neighborhood nukes.

Now the Chinese are having second thoughts: By allowing North Korea to go nuke, Beijing made a mistake similar to our own in backing the worst Islamist elements against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

We thought we could manage the Mujaheddin. China thought it could control the North Koreans. Now the dark-suited men in Beijing aren’t so sure.

Toss them the football. We’ve got enough to do.

A pervasive flaw in Obama’s approach to all foreign-policy problems is his chattering-class conviction that individuals and states will behave rationally in a crisis. History suggests otherwise (does Kim Jong-Il look rational to you?). But Obama lives in a world of contractual relations, the realm of the Harvard Law Review.

Our opponents view the world as a zero-sum game. And calm demeanors aren’t their strong suit.

Iran’s also defiant, plowing ahead with its nuclear-weapons program. As it turns out, Tehran has plenty of reasons to be confident that Obama won’t act against the regime: the administration has yanked — hard — on Israel’s military leash while engaging in murky dealings with Iran.

I’d love to know how Obama really feels about Israel.

Then there’s Hugo “Embraceable You” Chavez, who’s almost done dismantling Venezuela’s once-robust democracy. Elected officials from the opposition are beaten, jailed, locked out or driven into exile. Media freedom’s nearly dead. A once-vibrant economy’s a disaster. Corruption and demagoguery reign. And Chavez wants nukes, too.

Out of words, for once, Obama has nothing to say.

What does democracy matter, anyway? Ballots and human rights are so Bush-Cheney. In the next few days, Obama will rush to embrace the authoritarian regime in Egypt before crawling to Saudi Arabia. (How deep will his bow to the king go this time? Will photographers be kept away?)

Al Qaeda’s just a symptom. Wahhabism, sponsored globally by the Saudis, is the disease. And don’t Obama’s swooners-in-sweatpants care about the rights of Muslim women?

Sorry, I mis-wrote. Muslim women don’t have rights. Rights are for college-educated Western BFFs who trade tips on day-spas and where to get the best price on organic cat food.

(Then there’s Speaker Pelosi, who worried so terribly about the human rights of a handful of terrorists at Gitmo, but didn’t dare whisper one criticism of Beijing’s abuses of a billion Chinese during her recent pilgrimage to Beijing.)

And don’t overlook Russia, where we “hit the re-set button.” Well, the button must’ve been made in China, because it not only doesn’t work — it’s poisonous. Putin continues to menace his neighbors, suppress dissent (murderously, when necessary), and undercut every effort we make in the region.

Obama’s so desperate to get an arms treaty that he’s offering huge, unbalanced cuts in our nuclear arsenal. Feel safe yet?

While everything else is falling down around our president, the Obama Doctrine stands: Every enemy is a friend, or can be made into one. Let’s talk about it.

Meanwhile, Obama’s so far out of his depth that the only role-model he can turn to for Afghanistan is LBJ. Don’t have a clue what to do? Send more troops.

In Vietnam, we at least had secure supply lines and sensible rules of engagement. But, then, why feel sorry for our soldiers? Obama’s supporters know that those in uniform are all expendable losers. Since the change in administrations, we haven’t heard many chants of “Support our troops, bring them home!”

The hypocrisy’s inexhaustible.

Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, our border with Mexico . . . Gitmo . . . better order some back-up teleprompters.

Source…

Is Obama Another Jimmy Carter?

 Amusing  Comments Off on Is Obama Another Jimmy Carter?
May 262009
 

It is hard to believe but Obama may be worse than Jimmy Carter. Obama is an ideologue and much more dangerous than Carter. Carter was just totally incompetent.

During the U.S. Presidential primaries last year, I had expressed my misgivings that Barack Obama might turn out to be another Jimmy Carter, whose confused thinking and soft image paved the way for the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

The subsequent Iranian defiance of the U.S. and Carter’s inability to deal effectively with the crisis in which Iranian students raided the U.S. Embassy in Teheran and held a number of U.S. diplomats hostage led to disillusionment with him in sections of the U.S. and to his failure to get re-elected in 1980. The strong line taken by him against the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet troops towards the end of 1979 did not help him in wiping out the image of a soft and confused president.

The defiant action of North Korea in testing a long-range missile with military applications last month, and its latest act of defiance in reportedly carrying out an underground nuclear test on May 25, can be attributed–at least partly, if not fully–to its conviction that it will have nothing to fear from the Obama administration for its acts of defiance. It is true that even when George Bush was the president, North Korea had carried out its first underground nuclear test in October 2006. The supposedly strong policy of the Bush administration did not deter it from carrying out its first test.

After Obama assumed office in January, whatever hesitation that existed in North Korea’s policy-making circles regarding the likely response of U.S. administration has disappeared, and its leadership now feels it can defy the U.S. and the international community with impunity.

A series of actions taken by the Obama administration have created an impression in Iran, the “Af-Pak” region, China and North Korea that Obama does not have the political will to retaliate decisively to acts that are detrimental to U.S. interests, and to international peace and security.

Among such actions, one could cite: the soft policy toward Iran: the reluctance to articulate strongly U.S. determination to support the security interests of Israel; the ambivalent attitude toward Pakistan despite its continued support to anti-India terrorist groups and its ineffective action against the sanctuaries of Al-Qaida and the Taliban in Pakistani territory; its silence on the question of the violation of the human rights of the Burmese people and the continued illegal detention of Aung San Suu Kyi by the military regime in Myanmar; and its silence on the Tibetan issue.

Its over-keenness to court Beijing’s support in dealing with the economic crisis, and its anxiety to ensure the continued flow of Chinese money into U.S. Treasury bonds, have also added to the soft image of the U.S.

President Obama cannot blame the problem-states of the world–Iran, Pakistan, Myanmar and North Korea–if they have come to the conclusion that they can take liberties with the present administration in Washington without having to fear any adverse consequences. North Korea’s defiance is only the beginning. One has every reason to apprehend that Iran might be the next to follow.

Israel and India have been the most affected by the perceived soft policies of the Obama administration. Israel is legitimately concerned over the likely impact of this soft policy on the behavior of Iran. South Korea and Japan, which would have been concerned over the implications of the soft policy of the Obama administration, had no national option because they lack independent means of acting against North Korea.

Israel will not stand and watch helplessly if it concludes that Iran might follow the example of North Korea. Israel will not hesitate to act unilaterally against Iran if it apprehends that it is on the verge of acquiring a military nuclear capability. It will prefer to act with the understanding of the U.S., but if there is no change in the soft policy of the Obama administration, it will not hesitate to act even without prior consultation with the U.S.

India, too, has been noting with concern the total confusion, which seems to prevail in the corridors of the Obama administration over its Af-Pak policy. Some of the recent comments of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about alleged past incoherence in U.S. policy toward Pakistan–and about the part-responsibility of the U.S. for the state of affairs in the Af-Pak region–have given comfort to the military-intelligence establishment and the political leaders in Pakistan.

Obama’s new over-generosity to the Pakistani armed forces and his reluctance to hold them accountable for their sins of commission and omission in the war against terrorism have convinced the Pakistani leaders that they have no adverse consequences to fear from the Obama administration. India would be the first to feel the adverse consequences of this newly found confidence in Islamabad vis-a-vis its relations with the U.S.

Jimmy Carter took a little over three years to create the image of the U.S. as a confused and soft power. Obama is bidding fair to create that image even in his first year in office. The North Korean defiance is the first result of this perceived soft image. There will be more surprises for the U.S. and the international community to follow if Obama and his aides do not embark on corrective actions before it is too late.

Source…

 Older Entries  Newer Entries