Rice warns against delays on Iran resolution
There can't be any stalling," Rice said in response to a question about U.S. efforts to get Russia and China to sign on to a strongly worded rebuke to Tehran.
To no ones surprise, Russia and China have refused to back a UN Security Council statement demanding Iran suspend uranium enrichment.
Does anyone else see this as absoultely ridiculous? How long is all this UN action going to take just to get a simple resolution? When you step away from all the little things flying around in the news, this is one of the most important events of our time. This is something that will be written about in history books. All this political crap that we see on a daily basis won't. This is something that can and will directly affect the future's of not only Americans, but the world as well.
So, again I ask, how much longer will we have to wait?
Tags: Iran, Nuclear, Bush, UN, resolution, Rice
posted by David @ 7:36 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
I pretty much agree with you on your Iran stance. Something needs to be done. They cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.
As for the allegations, I hate to tell you, but that's been claimed since the invasion started three years ago, nothing new there. I just love how those who hate the President will listen to any stupid conspiracy theory or what one person said, but they won't pay any attention to millions of documents released recently that show pretty definitively that Saddam was at the least supporting al qaeda.
Do I think that Bush went to war a bit too quick on Iraq? Probably, but that doesn't matter so much when you consider that it needed to be done. Clearly, he was getting absolutely nowhere with the UN, Saddam was already in violation of numerous sanctions, and the whole world believed that he had WMD's (even those countries not on our side). So, did he need to go? Hell yes. Have we made mistakes in the war? Hell yes as well. Will we win this war? Hell yes.
Ok, I'm going to try to rebuke your statements as best I can. Here goes.
First, the world changed on september 11th, saddam didn't. So, the fact that some of the intelligence came from before 9/11 (in the clinton era), doesn't really make too much of a difference. There was no evidence showing that anything had changed in terms of getting rid of weapons after 9/11 in Iraq.
Secondly, I don't agree with you that Bush definitely knew that Iraq didn't have WMD. If that was the case, then what was this war really for? Oil? Give me a break.
Third, the war was not all about WMD's, even though the entire world thought he had them. Read this CNN article, it sums up what was actually going on in the run up to the war. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/09/time.saddam.weapons/
Fourth, I still believe that Saddam did have weapons before the war. He had a good six months to move them. I'm a scientic kind of guy which makes me realize that just because we have not found them doesn't mean they weren't there.
As for the Dubai thing, they changed on 9/11. Regardless of what some people say, I really believe they are on our side in the fight since 9/11. They have helped us out in that region tremendously. My other reason for supporting the deal was that when you listen to those who actually work at the ports and not senators, you realize that the companies that "control" the ports do not control the security. In addition to that a huge majority of our ports are owned by non American countries.
As for censorship of troops, I really don't know much about that, so I won't comment.
Post a Comment
<< Home