Obama Proposes Radical Reduction in US Nuclear Arsenal - Page 3 - Big Big Forums

Jolie Rouge · 09-24-2009, 02:55 PM

New UN resolution aims at nuclear-free world
Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press Writer
16 mins ago

UNITED NATIONS – With President Barack Obama presiding over a historic session, the U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a U.S.-sponsored resolution Thursday committing all nations to work for a nuclear weapons-free world.

Russia, China and developing nations supported the measure, giving it global clout and strong political backing.

The resolution calls for stepped up efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, promote disarmament and "reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism." It calls for better security for nuclear weapons materials and underscores the Security Council's intention to take action if such material or nuclear weapons get into the hands of terrorists.

The resolution consolidated many elements previously endorsed individually in the Security Council or other international forums. But bringing them together in a single document, voted on by global leaders, should add political momentum to efforts to achieve these goals, particularly at important conferences next year on nuclear security and on strengthening the Nonproliferation Treaty.

It was only the fifth time the Security Council met at summit level since the U.N. was founded in 1945 and 14 of the 15 chairs around the council's horseshoe-shaped table were filled by presidents and prime ministers. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's name was on the U.N.-circulated list as attending but he was a no-show. Libya's U.N. ambassador spoke for his country.

The U.S. holds the rotating council presidency this month and Obama was the first American president to preside over a Security Council summit, gaveling the meeting into session and announcing that "the draft resolution has been adopted unanimously."

"The historic resolution we just adopted enshrines our shared commitment to a goal of a world without nuclear weapons," Obama said immediately after the vote. "And it brings Security Council agreement on a broad framework for action to reduce nuclear dangers as we work toward that goal."

Just one nuclear weapon set off in a major city — "be it New York or Moscow, Tokyo or Beijing, London or Paris" — could kill hundreds of thousands of people and cause major destruction, Obama said.

The council endorsed a global effort to "lock down all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years" and the president announced that the United States will host an April summit to advance compliance and assist all nations in achieving the goal.

The resolution does not mention any country by name but it reaffirms previous Security Council resolutions that imposed sanctions on Iran and North Korea for their nuclear activities. It does not call for any new sanctions.

The resolution "expresses particular concern at the current major challenges to the nonproliferation regime that the Security Council has acted upon."

"This is not about singling out an individual nation," Obama said. "International law is not an empty promise, and treaties must be enforced."

But Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy all identified North Korea, which has tested nuclear weapons, and Iran, suspected of harboring weapon plans, as obstacles to a safer world.

Sarkozy sharply criticized both countries for ignoring Security Council resolutions calling on them to cease such activities.

"We may all be threatened one day by a neighbor, by a neighbor endowing itself" with nuclear weapons, he said.

"What I believe is that if we have the courage to affirm and impose sanctions on those who violate resolutions of the Security Council we will be lending credibility to our commitment to a world with fewer nuclear weapons and ultimately with no nuclear weapons," Sarkozy said.

The British leader called on the council to consider "far tougher sanctions" against Iran.

Iran's U.N. Mission issued a statement calling allegations about its nuclear program "totally untrue and without any foundation," insisting it is pursuing nuclear power as an alternative source of energy "to supply its booming population and rapid development."

Iran called French claims "preposterous" and accused Britain of "deliberately and cynically" ignoring its legal commitments to take practical steps to eliminate nuclear weapons but did not mention the United States by name.

Diplomats from Iran are scheduled to hold talks on Oct. 1 with the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.

The Iranian statement reiterates the country's "readiness to engage in serious and constructive negotiations with interested parties, based on respect, justice, rights of nations and collective commitments, aimed at reaching a framework for cooperative relationships." But it said that to achieve success in future negotiations the six countries should abandon "futile and illegal demands of the past years" that include suspending Iran's enrichment program.

Obama said the resolution reflects the nuclear agenda he outlined in his April speech in Prague when he declared his commitment to "a world without nuclear weapons."

The president called in that speech for the slashing of U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, adoption of the treaty banning all nuclear tests, an international fuel bank to better safeguard nuclear material, and negotiations on a new treaty that "verifiably" ends the production of fissile materials for atomic weapons.

He also strongly backed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, which requires signatory nations not to pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for a commitment by the five nuclear powers to move toward nuclear disarmament. States without nuclear weapons are guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear technology for electricity generation.

All those measures are included in the draft resolution.

The resolution suggests that the Security Council consider taking firmer actions in the case of a country withdrawing from the NPT — as North Korea did — and stresses that countries that pull out are responsible for all violations before withdrawal.

Iran in its statement reaffirmed its commitment to the NPT, saying it takes its responsibilities under the treaty "seriously."

In its opening paragraph, the resolution reaffirms the council's commitment "to seek a safer world for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons."

Obama warned Thursday against violations of the NPT saying, "We must demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced."

But global differences remain.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said that "our main shared goal is to untie the problem knots" among nations seeking nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament.

"This is complicated since the level of mistrust among nations remains too high, but it must be done," he said.

Chinese President Hu Jintao focused on a late addition to Thursday's resolution: a call for all nuclear-weapon states to commit to "no first use" of those weapons, and to not using them against non-nuclear states. China has long proclaimed such a policy, which the U.S. has never embraced.

"All nuclear-weapon states should make an unequivocal commitment of unconditionally not using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states," Hu said.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon saluted the national leaders for joining in the unprecedented Security Council summit on nuclear arms.

"This is a historic moment, a moment offering a fresh start toward a new future," he said.

Among the invited guests were U.N. nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei, former U.S. Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry, media mogul Ted Turner, former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and Queen Noor of Jordan — all campaigners against nuclear weapons.

Nunn, a Georgia Democrat who heads the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a Washington-based group designed to fight the global spread of nuclear materials, said the most important thing about the resolution "is the high-level visibility that will be taking place ... with world leaders gathering to remind both themselves and the world that we are at a nuclear tipping point."

As Obama left the Security Council chamber, he told the Associated Press: "It was an excellent day."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090924/...nuclear_summit

pepperpot · 09-24-2009, 03:02 PM

When I was younger, my brothers used to try to get me to play this game with them.....

It's a contest to see who can punch the softest. They wanted me to go first. I played it and won. I refuse to play that game again.....

gmyers · 09-24-2009, 04:50 PM

I think it would be pretty naive to think some of these other countries would ever get rid of theirs. I don't see anything wrong with getting rid of some of ours but I don't think I'd be able to believe countries like Iran or Korea would ever get rid of theirs.

Jolie Rouge · 09-25-2009, 12:59 AM

Geez, Tell Us How You Really Feel

Rich Lowry excoriates Obama and his speech to the United Nations.

Quote:

President Obama yesterday did his best impression of a high-school sophomore participating in his first Model UN meeting, retailing pious clichés he learned from his pony-tailed social studies teacher.

Even Woodrow Wilson might have blanched at the mushy-headed exhortations to world peace and collective action better suited to a college dorm-room bull session or a holiday-season Coca-Cola commercial.

It's All About Obama, he from whom all good things flow:

Quote:

Has an American president ever expressed such implicit hostility toward his own nation's pre-eminence in world affairs? Or so relished in recalling its failings, or so readily elevated himself and his own virtues over those of his country?

Between America and the world, Obama adopts a happy medium. It is in this sense only that he is a centrist. "For those who question the character and cause of my nation," Obama said, "I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months." In other words, he's the redeemer of a nation sunk in war crimes (we condoned torture), high-handedness (we ignored the United Nations) and hypocrisy (we promoted democracy selectively) prior to the ascension of his blessed administration.

Here is a link to the speech. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us...pagewanted=all

Just to further vex Mr. Lowry let me toss in this link to another American President addressing the United Nations in 1982 at a special session devoted to disarmament:

Quote:

Mr. Secretary-General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen:

I speak today as both a citizen of the United States and of the world. I come with the heartfelt wishes of my people for peace, bearing honest proposals and looking for genuine progress.

Dag Hammarskjold said 24 years ago this month, "We meet in a time of peace, which is no peace." His words are as true today as they were then. More than a hundred disputes have disturbed the peace among nations since World War II, and today the threat of nuclear disaster hangs over the lives of all our people. The Bible tells us there will be a time for peace, but so far this century mankind has failed to find it.

The United Nations is dedicated to world peace, and its charter clearly prohibits the international use of force. Yet the tide of belligerence continues to rise. The charter's influence has weakened even in the 4 years since the first special session on disarmament. We must not only condemn aggression; we must enforce the dictates of our charter and resume the struggle for peace.

The record of history is clear: Citizens of the United States resort to force reluctantly and only when they must. Our foreign policy, as President Eisenhower once said, "is not difficult to state. We are for peace first, last, and always for very simple reasons." We know that only in a peaceful atmosphere, a peace with justice, one in which we can be confident, can America prosper as we have known prosperity in the past, he said.

He said to those who challenge the truth of those words, let me point out, at the end of World War II, we were the only undamaged industrial power in the world. Our military supremacy was unquestioned. We had harnessed the atom and had the ability to unleash its destructive force anywhere in the world. In short, we could have achieved world domination, but that was contrary to the character of our people. Instead, we wrote a new chapter in the history of mankind.

We used our power and wealth to rebuild the war-ravaged economies of the world, both East and West, including those nations who had been our enemies. We took the initiative in creating such international institutions as this United Nations, where leaders of good will could come together to build bridges for peace and prosperity.

America has no territorial ambitions. We occupy no countries, and we have built no walls to lock our people in. Our commitment to self-determination, freedom, and peace is the very soul of America. That commitment is as strong today as it ever was.

The United States has fought four wars in my lifetime. In each, we struggled to defend freedom and democracy. We were never the aggressors. America's strength and, yes, her military power have been a force for peace, not conquest; for democracy, not despotism; for freedom, not tyranny. Watching, as I have, succeeding generations of American youth bleed their lives onto far-flung battlefields to protect our ideals and secure the rule of law, I have known how important it is to deter conflict. But since coming to the Presidency, the enormity of the responsibility of this office has made my commitment even deeper. I believe that responsibility is shared by all of us here today.

My goodness - if Regan had just been a bit more humble and apologetic about the US role in defeating the Nazis the Soviet Union might have collapsed in 1988.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/mai...ealy-feel.html

[/quote]

Jolie Rouge · 09-25-2009, 04:11 PM

New enrichment site heightens Iran concerns
George Jahn, Associated Press Writer
1 hr 58 mins ago

VIENNA – Western intelligence puts Iran's newly revealed nuclear plant in the arid mountains southwest of Tehran, not far from one of the holiest cities in Shiite Islam.

Neither Iran nor the International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed the location or size of the facility. Nor have they given details on its purpose. But diplomats with access to Western intelligence say the plant is about 160 kilometers — 100 miles — from the capital, near Qom, a center of Shiite religious teaching and the site of one of Shiism's most revered shrines.

The U.S. and Israel have not ruled out the possibility of a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities as a last resort if Iran's continues to flout U.N. Security Council demands that it cease uranium enrichment.

But any strike near Qom would likely provoke a backlash among Shiite Muslims across the Middle East.

The intelligence assessment cited by diplomats says the site is meant to house no more than 3,000 enriching centrifuges — much less than the more than 8,000 machines at Iran's Natanz site which is being monitored by the IAEA.

But the plant, which intelligence reports say is set to start operation next year, could be set up for advanced domestically developed centrifuges that enrich uranium at much higher speed and efficiency than the decades old P-1 type centrifuges acquired on the black market and enriching at Natanz.

That means Iran could enrich much more quickly with fewer centrifuges than at Natanz, where it has already accumulated enough low enriched material to turn out enough weapons-grade uranium — enriched to 90 percent and beyond — for one nuclear weapon.

Iran kept the facility hidden from weapons inspectors until a letter it sent to the IAEA on Monday.

Officials said the letter contained no details about the location of the second facility, such as when — or if — it had started operations or the type and number of centrifuges it was running.

But one of the officials, who had access to a review of Western intelligence on the issue, said it was underground about 100 miles southwest of Tehran. It is not yet operational but the U.S. believes it will be by next year, said a U.S. counterproliferation official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

U.S. intelligence believes the facility is on a military base controlled by Iran's Revolutionary Guards, according to a document that the Obama administration sent to U.S. lawmakers. It was provided to The Association Press by an official on condition of anonymity because, though unclassified, it was deemed confidential. The military connection could undermine Iran's contention that the plant was designed for civilian purposes.

Tehran insists the facility is not a threat. Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi suggested Friday that International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors will be allowed to visit the previously secret facility.

Salehi, speaking only hours after the existence of the letter was revealed by diplomats, said the facility is a "successful new step in the direction of preserving and enjoying its accepted right for peaceful use of nuclear energy."

"The activities of this facility, like other nuclear facilities in Iran, will be in the framework of the measures of the agency," he said, suggesting that the new facility could be opened to inspectors, like Iran's known enrichment facility, Natanz.

But the fact that Iran disclosed the plant's existence only a few days before it was publicly revealed suggests it may have done so only because it wanted to go on record before being exposed.

At the G-20 summer in Pittsburg, Obama and the leaders of France and Britain declared that the secret nuclear facility puts new pressure on Tehran to quickly disclose all its nuclear efforts — including any moves toward weapons development — "or be held accountable."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responded that his nation was keeping nothing from international inspectors and needn't "inform Mr. Obama's administration of every facility that we have."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/...u_nuclear_iran

09/25/2009
Iran letter to the IAEA revealed!

have received a copy of Iran’s letter to the IAEA, revealing the existence of a heretofore undisclosed (don’t you love the word “heretofore”?) nuclear plant that is only a year away from operation. Just remember, even Drudge doesn’t have this scoop!

Quote:

Dear suckers esteemed inspectors of the IAEA,

Like, we forgot to tell you something on your last visit here. Remember when you asked us if we had anything more to declare, and, we were like, “No way!” and you were like, “Way!” and we were like, “Dudes, no way, and if you don’t stop messin’ with us we’re gonna call the Basij dudes on their bikes and they’re really pissed today ’cause all the hot protest babes are on the other side,” and you were like, “Whoa, Basij, not necessary, bro,” and then you, like, ran to the airport and forgot to give us going-away presents?

Well, like, we kinda forgot to tell you that, uh, yeah, there’s this one more little nuke plant, and it’s, like, near Qom, and it’s like, about a year away from being able to make a bomb, uh, I mean, to power up the holy dudes’ mosques so they can get their mad on at the Zionist Entity every Friday like always. Oh, wait—my buddy Mahmoud just told me to tell you to tell them that it’s just a pilot enrichment program, and it’s barely big enough to make a single—uh, pilot. And anyway, like, we’re only going to enrich it to five percent, and everyone knows that you need to enrich it more to make bombs, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is peaceful, and we don’t want to hurt anyone, except for all you infidels and Zionists and idolators and atheists. And dogs. We really hate dogs, dude.

So, like, this is to let you know that we, like, uh, forgot to tell you—oh, wait, I already said that. Dude. Um, okay, well, then, that’s about it, except, like, death to America and death to Israel, dudes. And we hope you’re not mad that we, like, forgot.

InSincerely,

The dudes in Iran who are going to nuke your asses, uh, I mean, be your best friends.

http://www.yourish.com/2009/09/25/8915

Jolie Rouge · 09-25-2009, 04:19 PM

Medvedev Says He'll "Consider" Stronger Iran Sanctions

Here's what we'll get in return for unilaterally killing European Missile Defense: Russia will "consider other options" for dealing with the Tehran. During this morning's Q & A at the University of Pittsburgh, Medvedev said: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...5/2080138.aspx

Quote:

I do not believe sanctions are the best way to achieve results. Sanctions were used on a number of occasions against Iran but we have doubts about the results. Nevertheless when all instruments have been used and failed, one can use international legal sanctions. That is common…I think we should continue to promote positive incentives for Iran and at the same time push it to make all its programs transparent and open. Should we fail in that case, we'll consider other options.

They'll also continue to occupy US ally Georgia and send 300 series SAMs to the rogue regime in Tehran, but it's not like we needed European BMD as a bargaining chip or anything. Can't wait for the START II talks!

Jolie Rouge · 09-25-2009, 04:26 PM

U.S., France, Britain condemn Iran for second nuclear site
updated 1 hour, 49 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The existence of a second uranium enrichment facility in Iran came to light on Friday, prompting President Obama and the leaders of Britain and France to publicly chide the Islamic republic and threaten further sanctions.

President Obama told Iran to "take concrete steps" to show it will comply with nuclear regulations.

But the United States has actually known about the unfinished site since the Bush administration, according to senior U.S. officials who declined to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the negotiations. French intelligence officials were also aware of the facility for several months at least, a U.S. diplomatic source told CNN.

It wasn't until Monday that Iran wrote a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency, revealing the existence of the underground facility on a military base near the city of Qom. The facility is thought to be capable of housing 3,000 centrifuges, which is not enough to produce nuclear fuel to power a reactor but is sufficient to manufacture bomb-making material, according to a U.S. diplomatic source who read the letter.

Iran told the IAEA there is no nuclear material at the site, an agency spokesman said.

Once Iran alerted the IAEA, Obama began sharing U.S. intelligence on the nuclear site with allies, particularly with Russia and China in an effort to get those countries on board with new sanctions against Iran, the officials said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed Friday that Iran admitted the existence of the "new pilot fuel enrichment plant," prompting Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy to respond at the G-20 economic summit in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

"Iran's decision to build yet another nuclear facility without notifying the IAEA represents a direct challenge to the basic compact at the center of the non-proliferation regime," Obama said, with Brown and Sarkozy standing at his side. Watch world leaders react to Iran »

"The size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program," Obama said.

Obama said the three countries presented "detailed evidence" to the IAEA on Thursday that showed Iran "has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility near Qom for several years."

They demanded an immediate investigation into the facility and threatened a stiff response if Iran fails to conform to international obligations regarding nuclear development.

Iran's admission comes ahead of next week's rare meeting between Iran and the five permanent United Nations Security Council members, plus Germany. The October 1 meeting will take place in Geneva, Switzerland, according to Iran's government funded Press TV.

Iran's revelation of a new nuclear site could actually "strengthen their hand" as Tehran heads into next week's talks, according to Paul Ingram, an analyst who studies Iran and nuclear non-proliferation.

"It will be seen as an indication that they are willing to play by the rules," said Ingram, the executive director of the British American Security Information Council in London, England.

He said the timing of Iran's revelation -- in between the U.N. General Assembly sessions and the October 1 meeting -- is deliberate on Iran's part.

"This will make it more difficult to persuade them to abandon enrichment," Ingram said.

Iran claims its nuclear enrichment program is intended for peaceful purposes, but the international community accuses it of continuing to try to develop nuclear weapons capability.

Iran conducts research for its nuclear program in sites around the country. Until the new letter, it had acknowledged only a uranium enrichment plant in Natanz, which nuclear inspectors visited recently. Iran also has an unfinished nuclear research reactor in Arak, and U.N. nuclear inspectors were allowed access to that facility earlier this month. iReport.com: Dissidents discuss Iran enrichment plants

Other important nuclear sites in Iran include its Bushehr nuclear power plant and the Isfahan uranium conversion plant.

Washington became aware of the covert facility near Qom several years ago, but a clearer picture about the facility emerged later, a U.S. counter-proliferation official said. The enrichment facility would probably not be operational for another year, the official said.

The official said the newly unveiled facility "doesn't really change the baseline" conclusion of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which concluded that Iran could manufacture a nuclear weapons sometime between 2010 and 2015.

"But that is always subject to review and reassessment as new information comes in," the official said.

The official added that there are suspicions about other possible hidden or undeclared nuclear-related facilities within the country given Iran's record of deception and concealment.

Earlier this week, Obama shared intelligence about the second uranium plant with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at a private bilateral meeting in New York on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly meetings, the U.S. officials said. After that meeting, Medvedev suggested in public comments that Russia might eventually be supportive of tough new sanctions against Iran.

One U.S. official said Medvedev's statement is an example that "our strategy has already begun to bear fruit." That strategy, the official said, involves using aggressive diplomacy to build a case for new sanctions against Iran.

Intelligence has also been shared with Chinese President Hu Jintao, and officials in Beijing are "just now absorbing" the new information, another U.S. official said.

The U.N. Security Council has implemented sanctions against Iran for refusing to freeze enrichment. The British prime minister said Friday that international leaders were prepared to impose "further and more stringent" sanctions against Tehran.

Obama has previously said that "serious sanctions" are a possibility if Iran fails to adequately address the nuclear issue.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not mention the Qom plant during his visit to New York this week for the U.N. General Assembly sessions. He reiterated earlier claims that Iran has fully cooperated with nuclear inspectors.

Earlier this month, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Iran had reached a "stalemate" with the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency over its disputed nuclear program.

The Islamic republic has cooperated with the IAEA in regards to allowing access to its unfinished research reactor in Arak, ElBaradei told the agency's 35-member Board of Governors in Vienna, Austria.

But, he added, "Iran has not suspended its enrichment-related activities or its work on heavy-water related projects as required by the (U.N.) Security Council

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/...ear/index.html

Jolie Rouge · 09-25-2009, 04:30 PM

A Good News/Bad News Scenario from Iran

And because it’s 8:41am on a Friday, let’s start with the good news:

In a somewhat less than effective display of military prowess to mark the anniversary of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War (y’know, the one in which Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran and the Iranians, in turn, used children to clear mine-fields), the Iranian air force succeeded in destroying its only AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) aircraft.

The awesomeness, believe it or not, doesn’t stop there.

Because guess what the downed-aircraft proceeded to hit on the ground?

Its impact was cushioned by none other than the mausoleum of the Islamic revolution’s founder, Ruhollah Khomeini, who, let us not forget, was such a charming and spiritually sound guy that he married his wife when she was 13-years old.

But don’t let this farce detract from the growing threat posed by Iran. This sheer ineptitude, after all, is precisely why the mullocracy is so obsessed with acquiring nuclear weapons, as nukes are a force-multiplier like no other.

Between that and this recent news, however, I’d say that Divine retribution has been picking some wonderful targets of late.

Now for the bad news:

Iran has informed the IAEA that it is building a previously undisclosed uranium enrichment plan. Add one more target to the hit-list, boys and girls.

So having dropped any and all preconditions to negotiations, agreed to face-to-face talks and generally been as subservient as possible, this is what President Obama has earned in return.

The choice facing Obama is simple, as it always has been. He can continue his victory through defeat policy of capitulating to odious thugs and dictators the world over, or he can acknowledge the reality that we gain nothing by appeasing such people. They, on the other hand, receive propaganda victories galore, in addition to basking in the warm glow that results from defying the Great Satan.

Iran has made not one concession during six years worth of Western offers/inducements/bribes.

We cannot nice them into line - but we just might be able to threaten them into line.

Cross-posted at Track-A-’Crat.
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives...rio-from-iran/

Jolie Rouge · 09-26-2009, 01:18 AM

The Obama Maneuver

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives...bama-maneuver/

Jolie Rouge · 09-26-2009, 01:31 AM

Irans Newly Revealed Nuclear Enrichment Plantindicates Need for Change in US Attitude toward Regime

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/09/25...toward-regime/

Jolie Rouge · 09-27-2009, 12:46 AM

Friday, September 25, 2009
Obama At The G-20 On Iran:
"I'm Not Interested In Victory"

Oh yes he did say it, first of all, Obama gets hit with a very good question from CBS's Chip Reid

Quote:

Reid: Thank you Mr. President, you just mentioned sanctions that have bite, what kinds of sanction, and I know you can't get into details but what kind of sanctions at all would have bite with Iran, do you really think that any kind of sanctions would have any effect on somebody like Ahmadinejad, secondly some of your advisers today said that this announcement was a victory, do you consider it a victory and if so why didn't you announce it earlier since you have known since you were President elect?..

Obama flustered by the question : "I'm not interested in victory, I'm interested in solving the problem"

Clearly, today is a big smokescreen, he doesn't wanna come across as "America good, Iran bad," the global citizen is all talk here, we're not going to do anything to Iran other than go to the U.N. and write up another meaningless resolution that will be quickly ignored...

Obama shows that you can be well spoken, and say nothing...

The President is like a state of the art bank, with no money in the vault....

http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/200...nterested.html

Video at link above and more at http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...h-iran-im.html
[i]
Another thing this shows is the liberal obsession with words instead of actions. A conservative president wouldn't have fixated on the word "victory" the way Obama did. The reporter and the person he quoted used the word only in its broadest sense, meaning an accomplishment.

But to Obama, "victory" reeks of American exceptionalism, rugged individualism, knuckle-dragging red-statism, and--most importantly--Bush. "Victory" is for penny-ante Republicans, not philosopher-kings who are above it all, like Obama.

Remember, he also said he doesn't want to use the word "victory" when it comes to the war in Afghanistan:

Quote:

"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/...al-afghanistan/

The fact that Obama is totally ignorant of how the Japanese actually surrendered doesn't inspire confidence in his "wisdom."

----

Saturday, September 26, 2009
French President Sarkozy Emasculates Obama

It's a sad day for America when you realize the French President has more brass than our Commander in Chief.

Maura Flynn reported at Big Government on Sarkozy's response to President Obama's dreams of a world without weapons. http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/25/...llo-big-media/

The Independent has more on Sarkozy's reaction to Obama's toothless resolution: http://www.independent.ie/world-news...s-1896515.html

Quote:

"President Obama dreams of a world without weapons . . . but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.

"Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.

"I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? "More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map," he continued, referring to Israel.

The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama's resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.

"Obama earlier in the day demanded that Iran immediately allow international weapons monitors to inspect the nuclear facility the Islamic Republic now acknowledges it has been building for years."

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...asculates.html

See also See it here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/...ret-nuke-plant/

The only way to have a nuclear-free world is for all nuclear weapons to be fired at once. Otherwise, it cannot and will not happen. As long as mankind knows how to make it, it will make it. There will always be evil doers building weapons and there will always be good guys having no other choice but to respond in kind. That's reality..I suggest everyone get used to it.