“We say: reductions must be made. And President Obama has even said, “I dream of a world without [nuclear weapons].” Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite. Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council resolutions. Since 2005, Secretary-General, the international community has called on Iran to engage in dialogue. An offer of dialogue was made in 2005, an offer of dialogue was made in 2006, an offer of dialogue was made in 2007, an offer of dialogue was made in 2008, and another one was made in 2009. President Obama, I support the Americans’ outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing. More enriched uranium, more centrifuges, and on top of that, a statement by Iranian leaders proposing to wipe a UN member State off the map. What are we doing? What conclusions are we drawing? There comes a time when facts are stubborn and decisions must be made. If we want in the end to have a world without nuclear weapons, let us not accept the violation of international rules.”

http://ambafrance-us.org/spip.php?article1432

Why did the president not present this same evidence to the Security Council, the body with ‘the authority and the responsibility to respond’? Why did he not challenge world leaders to deal with the same Iranian threat that he privately was pressing upon U.N. bureaucrats? There is only one possible answer: President Obama does not have the political will to do what it takes to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Again, Tano has ducked the question. The real issue is whether the “current engagement” with Iran and the breach of any “deal” we negotiate with them is backed by the consequence of military force, and the Mullahs know that with Obama, IT ISN’T. So, the “verification” that Tano is purportedly so supportive of, is really just going to be the US repeatedly verifying that Iran has broken the deal and then negotiating another deal that Iran will not comply with. We’ve already seen how well this has worked for the opportunistic nation of North Korea. NK was a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty until it threatened to withdraw in 1993 because it was caught violating the Treaty and building weapons. Clinton made a deal with them that included billions in aid and oil and of course we found out during the Bush years that NK had taken the aid and oil and ignored their obligations under the agreement. Bush then made the same stupid mistake of brokering ANOTHER deal with NK (one reason certainly being the fact that the Left had crushed the American people’s will to support defending the Nation’s national security interests with military force). Now, of course, we know that NK has not honored that deal either and there’s been absolutely no consequences whatsoever.

Iran has watched all of this and learned that the US, particularly with Obama as President, has NO RESOLVE to defend its national security interests (or global security) with anything more than diplomatic chit-chat. Thus, the talks scheduled for next month will be nothing more than a pointless charade and any deal that is negotiated will be ignored by Iran. They WILL breach the agreement and we will agree to another agreement. They will breach that agreement and another one will be negotiated. And on and on until the new agreement will be that Iran does whatever it wants and unless WE AGREE to leave them alone, they will blow millions of people to kingdom come. That is the path that we are on. Tano knows it, the Left knows it, Iran knows it, and Obama knows it. It’s more important to Obama that he be perceived as a great statesman and skilled diplomat than actually protecting our national security interests because he knows that his leftist supporters will not hold him accountable for Iran reaching full nuclear capability on his watch (meaning YOU, Tano), and would abandon him if he took the military action that is essential to preventing it.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a regime run by a gang of savages that deny the Holocaust, hang gays in the town square in broad daylight, and murder Iranian citizens in the street for protesting fixed elections. But Obama thinks there is something to be gained by treating these animals like respected statesmen and negotiating with them? It’s so patently absurd that it should provoke unrestrained hilarity with enthusiastic pointing and laughing at Obama, but it’s actually not funny because current US foreign policy is enabling rogue nations accomplish their objective of holding the rest of the world hostage.

Which means they not only CAN build a reliable ICBM, but HAVE.

But then again, why would we expect a fool like Barack Obama to know that? All Barack Obama knows is that they want to eradicate the Jews, and that’s good enough for him and his fellow Obama Party members to support them.

Pop quiz Tano, what is a satalite launched into orbit on? an ICBM.

And for those of us who still use logic in their arguements… If they’re hiding another enrichment facility, why should we believe their rocket tech is as far behind as it appears.

Oh, and to shut down the ‘Bush knew too’ arguements, would you really have rallied behind him or questioned the intelligence?

I guess I would accuse you of being a liar if I thought you smart enough to understand the English language. My “shrug” as you call it, was a critique of Jennifer Rubin’s quoted comment that the discovery of this plant impacts on the type of missile defense we should have.

Missile defense capabilities are determined by the nature of the missiles that one may need to defend against. Building an enrichment facility does not impact the type of missiles a nation has.

Where in my comments is any reference to any opinion I might have about Iran as a nuclear power? You just makin’ sh*t up.

Whoever has said anything about trusting them? You dont need to trust someone in order to negotiate a deal with them. Verification of the terms of a deal is always an essential part of the deal.

‘shows just how bound and determined they are to develop a nuclear weapon.”

And so what does that have to do with the placement of missile defense in Eastern Europe vs. in the Mediterranean Sea and in Turkey? The variable in question here is their delivery systems, not the warhead.

Israel has had “the bomb” for decades and the Arab world has been “comfortable” with the fact, because they know that Israel is not a lunatic run country that would pollute the area with radio-active fall out and kill themselves in the process.

The Arab world, however, knows that Iran is run be lunatics and that they would use their nuclear bombs as a gun against the head of anyone in the area who opposes their demands. The Mullahs and their chosen leaders are too wrapped up in their view of principle and paradise to be trusted to act rationally.

Liberals talk of nuclear disarmament, but they also “understand” the “fairness” of letting every tin-pot dictator into the nuclear bomb club. Remarkable.

Which is what, Tano? You refuse to define it or explain what its objectives are. We know you support whatever Obama says or does without exception, so tell us what the “current engagement” is and why it’s a good plan. More importantly, I would like you to explain how the “current engagement” is calculated to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. During his campaign, Obama said that a nuclear Iran is “unacceptable.” However, the only way that statement is true is if Obama is willing to use military force to prevent Iran from having operational nuclear weapons. Obama will NEVER use military force to stop Iran from doing whatever it wants. I know it. You know it. But worst of all, the Mullahs know it. So, of course, it’s just another lie that Obama told on the campaign trail because what he really meant was that a nuclear Iran IS acceptable if Iran doesn’t halt its nuclear ambitions based on the sheer persuasive power of Obama’s charisma alone or in response to those draconian sanctions we keep hearing about. Tano, do you really believe that Iran would stop developing nuclear weapons because the UN imposed sanctions? The talks between Iran and six world powers don’t even start until next month, but Iran’s nuclear negotiator has already stated publicly that sanctions will have no effect on the program:

The revelation of a secret plant further hinders the chances of progress in scheduled Oct. 1 talks between Iran and six world powers. At that meeting—the first in more than a year—the five permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany plan to press Iran to scale back on its enrichment activities. But Tehran has declared that it will not bargain on enrichment. Iran’s nuclear negotiator dismissed the threat of new sanctions in an interview released Friday. Saeed Jalili said that Iran has ”the right to uranium enrichment, and we will never give up this right,” the German weekly Der Spiegel reported. ”We have lived with sanctions for 30 years, and they cannot force a great nation like the Iranian one to its knees,” Jalili told Der Spiegel. ”They do not scare us. On the contrary: we welcome new sanctions.”
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/105241

So, Obama’s response to Iran’s negotiator that they “welcome new sanctions” is what? Sanctions? Wow. Harsh. That’ll teach ‘em.

Barack Obama denied that this plant ever existed and that Iran wasn’t lying about its nuclear ambitions.

Why should we expect him to be any more intelligent or truthful about Iran’s missiles?

What a lame excuse of trying to justify the neocon dead-end policy – one that was recognized as such by even the Bush administration, which abandoned it and started the current engagement with Iran.