WHY WE SHOULD ATTACK IRAN!
Simple - because Kofi Annan is certain that it would be a "real disaster" WHICH means it will most likely work. This is an excellent article over on Pajamas Media. I'm a great admirer of Claudia Rosett.
"Whatever his failings, Annan has at least racked up a record as a superb counter-indicator of good sense in defending the interests of the free world. If he feels moved to opine strongly, there is an excellent chance that the very opposite is true.
This is the man who as head of UN peacekeeping in 1994 declined to act upon warnings of the imminent genocide in Rwanda.
This is the man who as Secretary-General announced in 1998 that he could “do business” with Saddam — just before Saddam then kicked UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq for the next four years (to be fair, the UN under Annan did a lot of business with Saddam, but not exactly as advertised).
This is the man who according to the UN’s own Volcker inquiry sat on in-house information about Oil-for-Food corruption while the program was underway — but who praised the program when it ended in 2003, and insisted in 2004, as the scandal began to erupt, that he had seen no evidence of wrong-doing by anyone on his staff.
This is the man who in 2000 posed for photos with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, while assuring us peace was on the way.
This was the man who promised in 2006 that two Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah would be extricated with the help of an Annan-picked mystery “facilitator”; the identity of that facilitator remains a mystery to this day, and so does the exact fate and whereabouts of those kidnapped Israeli soldiers.
This is the man who in 2006, while Iran was violating UN Security Council demands to stop uranium enrichment, rushed to Tehran to shake hands hands with Mushroom-Cloud-in-Chief Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, telling him (by Ahmadinejad’s own account) not to worry too much about the resolutions of the UN Security Council.
If Kofi is against it, then I'm in favour of it! Send in the planes.
David Vance
14 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (14)
This is a battle that is going to happen one way or another, the only question is will it be on our terms or theirs?
More than likely thiers because the world won't act it can only react after the fact because to many governments prefer to do business with those that love oppresion rather than those that oppose it.
hmmmm... and after Iran who should we attack?
France....
Cait,
Good question, but I'm still trying to figure out who are the "We" that David refers to in his title. Surely, that would only refer to us Americans and not you [fill-in-the-blank]s.
Oh, can't we put France first :)
Why they're adding 1,000 troops to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, I saw it in the times today.
just because it's France, do we really need any other reason....?
NEWSFLASH
Troll agrees with Michael Moore!
It was a great episode, but not as funny as his Canadian Bacon in which we invade Canada.just because it's France, do we really need any other reason....?
lol indeed you do. Did you get a bottle of doggy French plonk?
France -- brilliant. Mind you, I also favour giving the Belgiums a surprise or two....
Iran was violating UN Security Council demands
Why do you care? Surely you should respect their audacity, considering you detest the mere notion of United Nations?
Daytripper
That is a brilliant point. Those who reject the UN sword should not demand others live (or die) by it .
Colm and Daytripper,
Fie on you guys. On the day one remembers a Pagan chick who was hatched from an egg and a Jewish chap who rose from the dead one can hardly demand logic of David Vance.
Perhaps invading Iran would provide us with greater chaos to take our minds off the chaos in Iraq.