West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran (Barf Alert)

Scotsman.com ^ | Sun 15 Jan 2006 | IAN MATHER

[indcons]

WESTERN governments face defeat in their attempts to stop Iran from pursuing its drive to become a nuclear power.

Officials in London and Washington now privately admit that they must face the painful fact that there is nothing they can do, despite deep suspicions that Tehran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons under cover of researching nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Yesterday a defiant Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country would not be deflected from its right to develop nuclear technology by referral to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.

"If they want to destroy the Iranian nation's rights by that course, they will not succeed," he said, adding that Tehran did not need nuclear weapons because they are only used by nations who "want to solve everything through the use of force".

Publicly, the US and Britain, the two countries that have adopted the most hawkish stance, are pressing for international action to stop Iran. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said last week that it was time for the UN to confront Iran's "defiance" over its nuclear programme, while British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insisted that sanctions were now "on the table".

But behind the scenes there is no stomach for a fight. The US is the only country that could take military action. But with the US military already seriously overstretched in Iraq and with the mid-term congressional elections approaching there is no impetus in the White House or in Congress for another military adventure.

"Iran would be a far tougher country to try to attack than Iraq. It is three times as big and has highly motivated armed forces," a Foreign Office diplomat said yesterday.

[A.Hun]

is that Iran will only be stopped or destroyed after they have used nuclear weapons.

I don't like it, don't want it to be that way, but I have to agree with you.

[randog]

"Iran would be a far tougher country to try to attack than Iraq...."

Yeah, and Afghanistan was the country that resisted every empire from the British to the Soviets, and Baghdad would require hand-to-hand street combat to take, and everywhere a Marine stands is a "quagmire", and....

[Petey139]

Do I smell a Israeli-US War Coalition in this post?

[indcons]

I agree with your thoughts, FRiend. Good to see to again too.

[gipper81]

We resigned ourselves to a nuclear Russia, China, France, etc....why not a Muslim nation?

This CANNOT be a seriously, rational question. Simply can't be.

[joesnuffy]

Thank China,Russia,N Korea,Norway,Romania,India,Pakistan,Germany,the UK,Canada and the USA who makes it all possible.

imo

[airborne]

There is no way on this earth that Israel is going to let it happen....PERIOD

If they wait too long to act, they will.

[JasonC]

The world could not sit by while Germany rearmed. The world could not sit by while Japan seized Manchuria and raped Nanking. The world could not sit by while India was torn in half in massive religious pogroms. The world could not sit by while commie traitors gave nukes to Joe Stalin. The world could not sit by while commies took over China. The world could not sit by while democratic movements in eastern europe were crushed by tanks. The world could not sit by while millions were sent to re-education camps and killing fields in southeast Asia. The world could not sit by while scores of engineered terror-famines swept Africa. The world could not sit by while Rwanda was slaughtered.

Apparently, the world has a greater ability to sit by than the commentators suppose.

[JasonC]

It is not a nation, it is a nutjob crazier than Hitler who will start a nuclear war by destroying Tel Aviv, the instant he physically can.

[DakotaGator]

Ahhh...I see you've identified the coward's mantra.

We need to continue to expose their sniveling and whining until they crawl back under their covers and whimper through the night while real defenders of freedom make the world safe for them.

Mind you, I have no strong opinions on the subject ;-)

[stuartcr]

Before there were godless Muslims that wanted to kill us, there were godless commies...with nukes.

[Larry Lucido]

But with the US military already seriously overstretched in Iraq

Last I checked, Iraq wasn't far from Iran.

[gipper81]

Before there were godless Muslims that wanted to kill us, there were godless commies...with nukes.

That's about right Einstein.

The Muslims reached New York City. Remember?

[stuartcr]

That is corect, and they didn't have ICBMs. So how come we resigned ourselves to the bad guys with nuke delivery systems?

[10mm]

Here is the flaw in your analysis. As evil as the Communists are, we still have one thing in common...we both want to live. This provides a firm basis for negotiations.

Muslims only want to kill and die for Allah. There is no rational entity within the Muslim sphere with whom we can negotiate in good faith.

They must never be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. They will use them.

[endthematrix]

Here's another Barf Alert on the same topic. Must be talking points...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1558393/posts

[endthematrix]

"resigned ourselves"

Uh, those nuclear devices are meant for our destruction. The Soviets and China killed how many people via nuclear blackmail? Past nuclear proliferation were Rat foreign policy failures we would be foolish to repeat.

[stuartcr]

There is no analysis, I just asked a question.

[hershey]

The Scotsman gets it wrong. Again.