MSNBC: Deal reportedly reached on U.N. Iran resolution

Big fat whoop.

Yawn.

According to Leftist Propaganda Tool MSNBC, "Six world powers, including the United States and Russia, have reached a deal to seek a new U.N. resolution on Iran's nuclear program, European officials said Friday.

Does anyone REALLY think that Iran will fulfill the terms of said "deal?"

Of course the Left does. Furthermore, look at how faithful North Korea was regarding its "deal." The international community, in six-party talks, purportedly struck a deal with the rogue Kim Il Jung regime whereby his country would disband his nuclear weapons program.

"North Korea had agreed in February 2007 to begin dismantling its nuclear program in exchange for aid and other concessions.

Scientists began disabling its reactor in November, and in June blew up the Yongbyon cooling tower in a dramatic show of its commitment to the pact. Eight of the 11 steps needed to disable the reactor were completed by July, North Korean officials said."

Now they've "reversed course."

"North Korea barred U.N. nuclear inspectors from its main nuclear plant on Wednesday, and within a week, it plans to reactivate the plant that once provided the plutonium for the explosive test two years ago, a senior U.N. nuclear inspector said. The North ordered the removal of the U.N. seals and surveillance equipment from the Yongbyon reactor, a sign it is making good on threats to restart its nuclear program."

And now the international community believes rogue nation #2, that being Iran, will fulfill the terms of its deal?

Not bloody likely.

Here's the "teeth" of the deal: "The proposed new resolution is a compromise — no new sanctions but a tough statement to Iran that Security Council resolutions are legally binding and must be carried out."

I'm sure Iran is shaking in their boots. That will show 'em!!!

I had a conversation with quasi-radical liberal co-worker discussing the flashpoint topic of Iraq; I had queried said co-worker, pondering why it was okay for the Clinton Administration to insist to the world that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction while engaging in a low-intensity war with Iraq for eight years, but yet when George W. Bush ENFORCED the 14 resolutions that Saddam violated, he became a pariah.

Smugly, the aforementioned liberal stated that Clinton's "actions" were acceptable because he used the United Nations as a vehicle to halt Saddam's weapons program. Of course, as I replied, this is the same United Nations that engaged in the Oil-for-Food scandal, allowed Security Countil member countries (Russia, France, and Germany) to engage in clandestine business opportunities with Saddam, and hosts such purveyors of human rights, Saudia Arabia, Libya, etc. on its United Nations Human Rights council.

That's a bundle of credibility, if I do so say myself.

And now we really think the new "League of Nations" will actually enforce an Iranian weapons resolution?

Haven't we been down this road before?

Australia's "The Age:" Iraq War was a failure

According to Australian "The Age," "Iraq is an example of a profound failure of US policy. Afghanistan must not fall victim to a similar failure by either of the rivals for the White House."

It was?

Our invasion to remove a psychotic murderous despot who violated 16 U.N. sanctions was a failure?

The fact that we established a DEMOCRACY in a hotbed of theocratic, human-right violating, totalitarian countries was a failure?

How was it failure? Because we couldn't convince feckless European countries with close ties to Saddam to assist in the military option?

Some points:

"Senator Obama, who opposed the war from the outset, says he will withdraw America's combat troops from Iraq by mid-2010. "We made a strategic error," he says of the invasion."

First, Obama was not a Illinois senator during 2002, which precluded him from taking a stance on the Iraq War. More than likely he, like his Democratic brethren who authorized military action in 2002, he would have voted FOR said military action. Second, undoubtedly the Bush Administration made strategic errors AFTER we topped Saddam's Baathist regime; but let their be no doubt that the invasion and the way our military prosecuted the war was NOT a strategic error. One could almost grant the opposition that it would have been better to leave Saddam as a counterweight to the growing Iranian hegemony, but a moot point exists.

Second, we in the United States hear too often from foreign countries that we have not ingratiated ourselves around the world. For that matter, we have tarnished our image by "occupying" a Muslim country, say some.

Of course, those dissenters forget that according to the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (DAC/OECD), "the United States remains the largest donor of "official development assistance" at $23.53 billion in 2006."

Those same naysayers also forget the the billions of dollars in foreign aid we give during global catastrophes; for example, we gave over two billion dollars in foreign aid, the most of any country, in response to the 2004 tsunami that struck Indonesia, Sri Lanka, etc.

Or the critics disregard the fact that we deposed of a violent thug in Saddam Hussein, a man who used chemical gas on Kurdish dissidents in Halabja (just one event in a campaign where Saddam called for the extermination of the entire Kurdish population; he ultimately butchered 182,000 people), killed 148 Shiite militants in 1982, murdered 8,000 members of Masoud Barzani's clan (leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, reduced the population of the Shiite Marsh Arabs from 250,000 to 30,000 through starvation and forced migration, and ultimately murdered approximately 500,000 Shiites in the aftermath of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Furthermore, according to About.Com: Civil Liberties:

"Although most of Hussein's large-scale atrocities took place during the 1980s and early 1990s, his tenure was also characterized by day-to-day atrocities that attracted less notice. Wartime rhetoric regarding Hussein's "rape rooms," death by torture, decisions to slaughter the children of political enemies, and the casual machine-gunning of peaceful protesters accurately reflected the day-to-day policies of Saddam Hussein's regime. Hussein was no misunderstood despotic "madman." He was a monster, a butcher, a brutal tyrant, a genocidal racist--he was all of this, and more."

So where's the love? Why is the United States vilified? It is because the appeasers in ineffective Europe and other supporters of Saddam's murderous regime did not want the thug deposed? Is it because they did business with the man, despite numerous United Nations sanctions? Or could it be they despised the United States for finally growing a set and usurping the murderous tyrant?

Rage Against the Machine: Bush should be tried for war crimes

It pains me to say; it pains me deeply, but I need to vehemently disagree with the rhetoric of one of my favorite bands. According to Jason Gregory of Gigwise,

"Rage Against The Machine frontman Zack De La Rocha has called the US president George W Bush to be tried as a war criminal.

De la Rocha's comments came during the band's headlining set at the T in the Park Festival in Scotland last weekend.

Addressing the crowd, he said: "They said we had said George Bush should be assassinated. We did not say that. We said he should be tried for being a war criminal."

As an avid guitarist and music-wannabe-aficionado, I was instantly entranced as a college freshman by the unique blend of funk, hardcore, and hip-hop that Rage Against the Machine conceived. As an 18 year old who really didn't know better, I was also attracted to the fiery brand of leftist rhymes De la Rocha articulated.

But for the last eight years, we've been bombarded with concocted rhetoric regarding the Iraq War spewed from various liberals, their Democratic enablers, and ultimately disseminated vis a vis the Mainstream Media. In liberal fantasy-land, President Bush is a pariah, while the true crimes against humanity committed by Iraq despot Saddam Hussein and his Baathist cronies are either overlooked or completely forgotten.

It's truly unbelievable.

Let's review the facts for those of you still deficient on your history of the past 18 years:

1. After the 1991 Gulf War, a CEASE FIRE was signed; for the duration of the 1990's, the United States Air Force and Navy, primarily, engaged in low-level military action against the Iraqi government, destroying fighters, radar installations, and other military targets. These attacks were not without provocation, however, as Saddam's military perpetually violated terms of the cease-fire by entering the no fly zones that existed over Iraq or building military installations in said no fly zones.

2. After the resultant 1991 cease-fire and the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a United States-led military coalition, Saddam violated sixteen United Nations violations, which called ultimately for military action against the Iraqi government.

3. Iraq flouted by using chemical weapons against the Iranians during the 1980's Iran-Iraq War.

"Iraq's chemical weapons program was mainly assisted by German companies such as Karl Kobe, which built a chemical weapons facility disguised as a pesticide plant. Iraq’s foreign contractors, including Karl Kolb with Massar for reinforcement, built five large research laboratories, an administrative building, eight large underground bunkers for the storage of chemical munitions, and the first production buildings. 150 tons of mustard were produced in 1983. About 60 tons of Tabun were produced in 1984. Pilot-scale production of Sarin began in 1984. Germany also supplied reactors, heat exchangers, condensers and vessels. France, Austria, Canada, and Spain provided similar equipment."

Furthermore, Iraq also used chemical weapons on its own citizens, primarily the Kurds in Halabja.

"The Halabja poison gas attack occurred in the period March 16–17, 1988, during the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons (CW) were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja, killing thousands of people, most of them civilians (3,200-5,000 dead on the spot and 7,000-10,000 injured^[1]). Thousands more died of horrific complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.^[2] The incident, which Human Rights Watch (HRW) defined as an act of genocide, was as of 2008 the largest-scale chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history."

Furthermore, De la Rocha added, "'If in protest to their war you burn down the American embassy...it's up to us, generation after generation to beat the system which perpetuates war. Wake up,' he said."

So how is Bush a war criminal? Because he used British and Russian, but intelligence gathered during the Clinton Administration? Because he merely acted on claims made by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, et al. made during the 1990's? Because it was time to depose a wily but pathological dictator, who slaughtered over 500,000 of it's civilians?

Can anyone truly answer this?