| « Obama is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize | For the first time EVER: Obama might actually have TO apologize to America, not FOR America » |
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tells Obama, "The U.S. president made a big and historic mistake"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112777942
Iran's president hit back Saturday at President Barack Obama's accusation that his country had sought to hide its construction of a new nuclear site, arguing that Tehran reported the facility to the U.N. even earlier than required.
Obama and the leaders of France and Britain accused Iran of keeping the construction hidden from the world for years. The U.S. president said last month that Iran's actions "raised grave doubts" about its promise to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only.
ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has also said Tehran was "on the wrong side of the law" over the new plant and should have revealed its plans as soon as it decided to build the facility.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad challenged that view in a speech Saturday, saying that Iran voluntarily revealed the facility to the IAEA in a letter on Sept. 21. He said that was one year earlier than necessary under the agency's rules.
"The U.S. president made a big and historic mistake," Iranian state TV quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. "Later it became clear that (his) information was wrong and that we had no secrecy."
White House spokesman Tom Vietor said the administration had no comment on Ahmadinejad's remarks.
Iranian officials argue that under IAEA safeguard rules, a member nation is required to inform the U.N. agency about the existence of a nuclear facility six months before introducing nuclear material into the machines. Iran says the new facility won't be operational for 18 months, and so it has not violated any IAEA requirements.
The IAEA has said that Iran is obliged under the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to notify the organization when it begins to design a new nuclear facility.
Iran says it voluntarily implemented the Additional Protocol for 2 1/2 years as a confidence-building gesture, but its parliament passed legislation in 2007 forcing the government to end such cooperation after the country was referred to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions over its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment.
The IAEA has countered by saying that a government cannot unilaterally abandon such an agreement.
Does Iran have a nuclear program? Yes. Are they using it for peaceful endeavors? Probably not. Should Iran be forced to do what the U.N. tells it to do? No.
I hate to take the side of Iran here, but I think that there is quite a bit to consider here. The U.N. placed more stringent rules on Iran when it comes to reporting on their nuclear activity. So does Iran, as a sovereign nation, have the right to overrule the U.N. measure? I say yes. I think this sets a dangerous precedent; when the U.N. demands that a sovereign nation bend to its will.
Iran made a decision to stop going along with the U.N. protocol. This, because the protocol, led to Iran being turned over to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions. Sanctions were placed on Iran which caused economic problems, so the Iranian government decided to ignore the protocol. Makes sense to me.
Why is this a dangerous precedent?
US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner shocked global markets by revealing that Washington is "quite open" to Chinese proposals for the gradual development of a global reserve currency run by the International Monetary Fund.
"The mere fact that the US Treasury Secretary is even entertaining thoughts that the dollar may cease being the anchor of the global monetary system has caused consternation," he said.
Mr Geithner later qualified his remarks, insisting that the dollar would remain the "world's dominant reserve currency ... for a long period of time" but the seeds of doubt have been sown.
The value of the dollar could be controlled --entirely by outside forces.
Other than the fact that the United States Dollar, currently, is the unit of world trade; what is there to keep the U.N. from placing sanctions against the United States?
The U.N. is not exactly filled with U.S. friendly countries if you remember. Polling shows that most Europeans would like to see a weaker United States, or at least a United States with less influence. The vast majority of votes in the U.N. are votes against the United States.
Just something to think about...
Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.
2 comments
The struggle to replace the U.S. dollar in order to realize the One World Government's One World Currency has been on-going for decades. Just recently, OPEC had to deny rumours it has been in talks to replace the U.S. dollar with a "basket of currencies" with which to trade crude (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125484066563367821.html).This all sounds Apocalyptic, I know. Call me crazy, but that's because it is. The current devaluation of the U.S. dollar is deliberate in order to realize this One World Currency. And none of this would have been possible without the insertion of government agencies into the otherwise "free marketplace" during most of the 20th century.
But I digress. The core issue here is national sovereignty vs. Global Authority. No one wants to side, as you note, with a rogue nation. But when the alternative is to "legitimize" the "authority" of a non-elected global body like the U.N., what choice is there? Power must be divided and balanced, as is the model in the Constitution. It works to prevent tyranny--the guaranteed outcome if and when we move toward global government and currency.
Back to Apocalyptic topics: In terms of Ahmadinejad's charges that Iran has been in compliance with IAEA / UN disclosure agreements, history shows otherwise. Ahmadinejad clearly wants to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth." The insidious nature of the strain of Islamic belief that Ahmadinejad represents forms an irrational and non-negotiable mindset which renders "nuclear deterrence" useless against Iran. As far back as 2001, a U.S. Government study (found at http://www.dtra.mil/documents/asco/publications/IranIraq.pdf) outlines (pages 54+) the Muslim belief in the return of the "Twelfth Imam," or "Islamic Messiah."
Basically, and don't quote me on this, the "Islamic Messiah's" return will be ushered in during the act of "wiping Israel off the face of the earth." In short, the current Iranian leadership would almost welcome the honor of dying in a nuclear attack for the cause of destroying Israel.
It is interesting to note that rumours have recently surfaced that Ahmadinejad is actually Jewish (http://www.huliq.com/3257/87264/does-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-secretly-have-jewish-roots#) Likewise, rumours persist to this day that Hitler, too, was (at least part) Jewish. These "Jewish roots" of both anti-semitic tryants has been used by some to explain the vehement nature of their particular anti-semitism, i.e., they had to overcompensate for their Jewishness to their Jewish-hating audience.
Interesting. If this is true (and I believe that it is in both Hitler and Ahmadinejad's cases), it only adds to the non-rational nature of this "nuclear Iran" issue.
In short, the U.S. or Israel must pre-emptively strike Iran militarily. We have no other choice.
Here's a concrete, current example (see URL, below) of a Jewish convert to Islam and the high-level of anti-semitism to illustrate the irrationality of dealing with a "nuclear Iran" and how misguided and igorant Obama's approach is to these terrorists. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,565365,00.html
It really blows my mind how especially passionate and vocal Jews who convert to Islam are in their hatred for their own people.
This article also opens up another can of worms: that of the limits of Free Speech vs. Hate Speech. I wonder what the concensus would be if a CHRISTIAN posted this same hate speech (it would never happen, of course) on a website and "justified" it as "covered by the First Amendment" because it was simply "a prayer?"
This question is rhetorical, because we all know what would happen. Obama's Administration and government officials would be on that person so fast and have a lawsuit filed so quickly, the person would not know what hit them.
Furthermore, what if the "hate-speech" was targeted at Muslims, not Jews? What would happen? The Muslim community would be hunting down and murdering that person.
Just some quick thoughts ...
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
