Aggressive common sense, politics and whatever else - as I see it.
Dinosaurs, nuclear codes, actuary tables and banning books. Matt Damon lays out his arguments against Palin. It seems Iranian media is pleased with Damon’s statement as well. Strangely, they almost seem more impartial than the U.S. media.
Cross posted at Malagent’s Forum.
Iraqi Ayatollah Ahmad Al-Baghdadi Talks about the Annihilation of America, Muslim Conquest of the World, and Declares His Support of Nuclear Bombs in the Hands of Muslim and Arab Countries
Following are excerpts from speeches and interviews with Iraqi Ayatollah Ahmad Husseini Al-Baghdadi, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on May 5, 2006, on Syrian TV on May 3, 2006, and on ANB TV on April 14, 2006.
Continue reading ‘Annihilation of America, Muslim Conquest of the World’
“Israel must be wiped off the map,” Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said it himself. He has denied the Holocaust, and his actions are motivated by a dangerous apocalyptic view of Islam. Meanwhile, Islamic extremists are in hot pursuit of nuclear weapons as they stand as gatekeepers to the Persian Gulf oil flow. Closer to home, President Bush has stated that the greatest threat to America is nuclear terrorism.
So when do we stop with the appeasement and get this regime out of there? We don’t need to go to war with them necessarily but the leaders of Iran have got to go.
Oh how quickly Americans, particularly liberals forget. I remember Al Gore giving a speech criticizing Bush Sr. for not going to war with Iraq - now I have found the video of that speech here.
Here’s Gore in 1992, telling America that George H. W. Bush needed to rush to war in taking out Iraq’s terrorism-linked, wmd-seeking Saddam Hussein. I’m pretty sure this substantially proves that liberals will blindly follow whatever supports their preconceived ideas, i.e “I support Gore because the media says he’s smarter,” when all along they support Gore regardless. The knee-jerk reaction is to always see what supports our ideas and to downplay that which contradicts them. You can’t reason with a bigot; no matter what the issue is, you’re darned if you do and you’re darned if you don’t.
From RightLinx.com
My response to that is this collection of quotes from a few people.
Continue reading ‘Who Said Saddam Hussein Had WMDs?’
The following are excerpts from an interview with Iranian chief negotiator on nuclear affairs, and member of the Iranian Supreme Council for National Security Hosein Musavian, which aired on Iranian Channel 2 on August 4, 2005
Musavian: Those (in Iran) who criticize us and claim that we should have only worked with the IAEA do not know that at that stage — that is, in August 2003 — we needed another year to complete the Esfahan (UCF) project, so it could be operational. They say that because of that 50-day (ultimatum), we should have kept (the UCF) in Esfahan incomplete, and that we needed to comply with the IAEA’s demands and shut down the facilities.
The regime adopted a twofold policy here: It worked intensively with the IAEA, and it also conducted negotiations on international and political levels. The IAEA gave us a 50-day extension to suspend the enrichment and all related activities. But thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year, in which we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan.
[...]
There was a time when we said we would not work with Europe, the world, or the IAEA, and that we would not comply with any of their demands. There were very clear consequences: After 50 days, the IAEA Board of Governors would have undoubtedly handed the Iranian dossier over to the (U.N.) Security Council. There is no doubt about it. As for those who say we should have worked only with the IAEA — this would have meant depriving Iran of the opportunity to complete the Esfahan project in the one-year extension.
Esfahan’s (UCF) was completed during that year. Even in Natanz, we needed six to twelve months to complete the work on the centrifuges. Within that year, the Natanz project reached a stage where the small number of centrifuges required for the preliminary stage, could operate. In Esfahan, we have reached UF4 and UF6 production stages.
[...]
We suspended the UCF in Esfahan in October 2004, although we were required to do so in October 2003. If we had suspended it then, (the UCF) in Esfahan would have never been completed. Today we are in a position of power: (The UCF) in Esfahan is complete and UF4 and UF6 gasses are being produced. We have a stockpile of products, and during this period, we have managed to convert 36 tons of Yellow Cake into gas and store it. In Natanz, much of the work has been completed.
[...]
Thanks to our dealings with Europe, even when we got a 50-day ultimatum, we managed to continue the work for two years. This way we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan. This way we carried out the work to complete Natanz, and on top of that, we even gained benefits. For 10 years, America prevented Iran from joining the WTO. This obstacle was removed, and Iran began talks in order to join the WTO. In the past, the world did not accept Iran as a member of the group of countries with a nuclear fuel cycle. In these two years, and thanks to the Paris Agreement, we entered the international game of the nuclear fuel cycle, and Iran was recognized as one of the countries with a nuclear fuel cycle. An Iranian delegate even participated in the relevant talks. We gained other benefits during these two years as well.
[...]
Host: Mr. Musavian, there is a point that our viewers might find interesting - the comparison between Iran’s nuclear activity dossier and North Korea’s.
[...]
There is a belief that if we adopted the North Korean model, we could have stood much stronger against the excessive demands of America and Europe.
[...]
Musavian: During these two years of negotiations, we managed to make far greater progress than North Korea. North Korea’s most important achievement had to do with security guarantees. We achieved the same thing a year ago in the negotiations with the Europeans. They agreed to give us international guarantees for Iran’s security, its national rule, its independence, non-intervention in its internal affairs, its national security, and not invading it.