...in a German election - "Bush-Bashing, Anti-American Sentiment and Pacifist Fear", according to David Mendienkritik's blog. In particular, he is referring to Shroeder's declaration, in response to President Bush's comment that "no options are off the table" in Iran:
... Mr Schroeder said diplomacy was the answer.
"I've read that military options are also on the table," he said. "My answer to that is: 'Dear friends in Europe and America, let's develop a strong negotiating position towards Iran, but take the military option off the table'...We have seen it doesn't work," Mr Schroeder told Social Democrats at the rally in Hanover, to rapturous applause from the crowd.
Mr Schroeder's speech will also revive memories of the last election campaign three years ago, when he strongly opposed the idea of attacking Iraq.
Then, as now, his Social Democratic Party (SPD) was far behind in the opinion polls, and the position on Iraq is generally believed to have been a factor in helping him win the election.
I could go on for hours, but I'll limit myself to two points:
1) WE HAVE SEEN IT DOESN'T WORK??? Was it a "strongly worded communique" from the EU that drove the hated Taliban out of Afghanistan? How many years of UN sanctions failed to drive Saddam out of Iraq (while enriching parasites at the UN and within the EU)? How much German diplomacy was needed to convince Libya's Khaddafi to give up his WMD program?
None of the above, stupid Kraut - only American moral clarity and superioir strength were capable of doing that.
2) Germans have changed not at all in the last century. Always blaming their problems on outsiders, Shroeder plays to the audience he knows so well by substituting "America" for "Jews", albiet with the same results. He knows what he's doing; he knows to whom he's preaching, and he is playing to their basest hatred. Way to lead, Gerhard ! But I guess he's perfect for the Germans, a people whose moral depravity seems like a bottomless well...
And while Shroeder tries to tie American hands (John Kerry should be at his side), what are the mullahs in Iran up to? Via Pejmanesque:
Iran's ultra-conservative President has announced a hardline cabinet, signalling a tougher line in negotiations with the West and sounding the death knell for the reform movement in Iran.
Despite promising a Government of moderation, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave key posts to prominent religious conservatives and new faces from the ideological Right, many of whom are former military commanders.
Although hailing from different right-wing political factions, which analysts say could lead to political in-fighting, the cabinet is united in believing that Iran must not bow to international pressure over its nuclear ambitions.
Remember, dear mullahs, Bush's statement on Israeli TV on Friday that "all options are on the table" in dealing with Iran. If you beards think Bush is gonna knuckle under to a couple of cowardly Euro-weenies, well, you haven't been paying much attention lately...
Link to Medienkritik here (with links to BBC aticle quoted): http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2005/08/no_surprise_sch.html
Link to Pejmanesque here: http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/011164.html
2 comments:
"Was it a "strongly worded communique" from the EU that drove the hated Taliban out of Afghanistan? "
No, nor was it the force of arms.
The Taliban are still in Afghanistan.
They are not politically active.
http://www.pakistantimes.net/2005/08/13/top8.htm
"Pakistan has deplored a recent editorial in The New York Times that placed the blame squarely on Islamabad for the difficulties U.S. and Afghan troops are facing in fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.
“Transferring blame for continued violence to infiltrators from Pakistan is unfair,” Mansoor Suhail, Press Minister at the Pakistan Mission to the UN, said in a letter to the Times published Friday.
“Unwarranted criticism against Pakistan at this critical juncture will only strengthen those opposing Pakistan’s policy of moderation and of fighting terrorism,” Suhail wrote.
Afghanistan, he said, has been largely stabilised despite disturbing attacks by foreign quarters, tribal and political rivals, narco-criminals, as well as neo-Taliban forces. "
They are still there. Wait for the seeds to grow when the peacekeeping forces are withdrawn.
Remember, dear mullahs, Bush's statement on Israeli TV on Friday that "all options are on the table" in dealing with Iran. If you beards think Bush is gonna knuckle under to a couple of cowardly Euro-weenies, well, you haven't been paying much attention lately..."
A little thought for you.
I understand that the Argentinian Fire Ant has gotten well established in parts of the US. If you have a nest handy (and you would know it was there for sure) then I want you to try a little experiment for me.
Take off your shoes and socks, take a crowbar or similar implement, jam it down into that nest and stir for about 2 minutes. Then, if you are able, stand and watch what happens over the next five minutes or so.
The effect will be somewhat similar to the US trying to knock over any more of the Islam states.
It will not be Iran that will necessarily be difficult. But I would bet my boots that invasion of Iran will mean the end of any meaningful relationship with Pakistan.
THEN THERE WILL be cause for "invasion to stop the spread of WMD" because we all know that Pakistan DOES HAVE nuclear weapons and the means to deliver.
So now we have Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan as enemies.
How long do you think the likes of Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Egypt would stand silently aside?
Remember that at least one of them has one of the keys to the survival of the West to hand - oil.
So, if the neo-con cone-heads in Washington think it is a good idea to go for Iran on any pretext at all, then you as Americans had better start asking the HARD questions like "Why?" and "SHOULD WE?" very soon indeed.
Post a Comment