| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
President Ahmadinejad of Iran is actually trying to intimidate the West with threats:
Addressing a rare press conference in Tehran, [Ahmadinejad] appeared to issue thinly veiled threats against Western countries, implying that they could face serious consequences unless they backed down. 'You need us more than we need you. All of you today need the Iranian nation,' Ahmadinejad said. 'Why are you putting on airs? You don't have that might.'
Here we see Ahmadinejad seeking to intimidate the West with threats relating to oil production. What threats would he be likely to issue if he also had nukes?
But U.S. Senators are showing that they are not so easy to intimidate:
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said sanctions will be tough but that Iran poses a greater danger to the United States than Iraq at this point and must be contained.
"If the price of oil has to go up, then that's a consequence we would have to suffer," McCain said on "Face the Nation" on CBS.
...Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Bush should do whatever he can to get support from Russia and China.
"They need stuff from us," Schumer said on "Fox News Sunday. "They need trade. They need all kinds of assistance. We ought to play hardball with them."
...Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said penalties should be imposed as a response to Iran's "irresponsible" behavior. He pointed to Iran's announcement Sunday that it will hold a conference to examine evidence of the Holocaust. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust a "myth" and called for Israel to be wiped from the face of the earth.
"We cannot be intimidated by economic threats from their side," Lott said on CNN's "Late Edition." "At the very minimum, we should go to the U.N. Security Council and we should impose economic sanctions unless there's some dramatic change in the Iranian position."
...Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., said President Bush should have dealt with threats from Iran years ago. He said Iran is the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world and a "force for instability and death."
#1
#2I agree. But will Israel really do it? I hope so. And I hope the U.S. will support them and join them in that action.
#3I believe that it will come down to not having a choice. I'm actually writing a paper on this very question right now. It won't matter whether the threat to Israel is real or whether Iran's threats are just propoganda. Israel will not and cannot let itself become a pawn in Iran's game to be a super-power in the Middle East. Personally, I think that's what it's all about. Think about it this way. Would we have gone into Iraq, either in '91 or '03, so easily if we knew that they had nuclear weapons? I'm not talking about in the process of getting, I'm talking about having the stockpiles in their midst. Biological and chemical weapons are one thing, but if Israel had not taken out Iraq's reactor in '81, how different would the world picture be today? Same goes for Iran. If we allow them to acquire nuclear weapons, the world will definitely think twice and hundred times before even thinking about the possibility of maybe attempting to attack Iran for being a terrorist country. On top of that, Iran will be able to use Israel as a hostage to stop the world, especially the U.S., from messing with them and their policies. In the Gulf War, what did Israel had to with anything? Yet, who was attacked with scud missiles when Saddam wanted to threaten the U.S. with repercussions for interfering with their attack on Kuwait? Israel.
I believe Israel can't allow itself to be put in that position again. Especially if Iran succeeds in getting nuclear weapons. There's no gas mask or bomb shelter to protect you for those. So, to make an already long story shorter, I believe Israel won't have a choice. Iran can't be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Will the US support such a strike? That remains to be seen. I think the Bush admnistration definitely will and will breathe a huge sigh of relief that they didn't have to do it. I think the liberals and European will condemn us as usual, then also breathe a huge sigh of relief that the tyranical Israel did what they don't have the guts to even think about. So, that's my answer.
-OC
#4Thanks for this excellent post, Olah. I have just quoted from it in a new article. I'd be very interested in your thoughts on this article.
You know, at this point, Iran is right on the mark. All I hear from these Senators is nothing but hot air. "We need sanctions... maybe. We need a committee and investigation..." Blah, Blah, Blah. That's all I hear. There needs to be action, not just empty words. They're pointing fingers instead of making solid suggestions. Get the support from Russia and China? Has Schmucky Schumer not noticed that Russia and China have more to gain from their relations with Iran than they do with us? Well, I guess not. He's a complete idiot.
You know, thank G-d Israel is around. We don't have time for this. The IAF will go in and move Iran's nuclear development back several years, give the world more time to squander and just talk, and show Iran that they can't just do what they want, and that there are some countries who have the balls to do what needs to be done.
-OC