Europe - Do Their Leaders Have the Guts?

by roybatty 56 Replies latest social current

• 

  roybatty

  Regarding Iran's nuke program, the evil George Bush stood on the sideline and let the Europeans do it their way via diplomacy through the U.N. Well, Iran has basically told them to screw off and has now re-started it's nuke program and seems to have no intention to stop their development of nukes. This U.N. delegation has now given Iran the "eleventh hour warning" which they will laugh at. Soon it will be brought before the U.N. security counsel and a recommendation to impose sanctions against Iran will be made and voted upon. Of course Russia and China will veto this matter and no U.N. sanctions will be imposed on Iran.

  Now, the million dollar (or million euro) question is will the nations of western europe have the balls to impose their own sanctions against Iran? I doubt it. Just as europe stood around with their finger up their nose when nuke technology was stolen from them and sold to Pakistan, I'm doubtful they will do much to prevent Iran from developing "the bomb." And at that point I wonder how many board members from europe will post something along the lines "europe not doing enough to stop the spread of nukes."

  And the difference between Israel having a nuke and Iran having one, well, hmmmm....I seem to have missed the news report on the anti-US demonstrations in Israel with people chatting "death to America."
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Blair has the guts - but for some reason certain people dont like him
• 

  roybatty

  Blair has the guts - but for some reason certain people dont like him

  I'm not advocating Bush and Blair get into a gunfight with Iran. I just see "North Korea, early 1990's, U.S. and europe doing nothing" happening all over again. Funny how I now see people on this board bashing for "not handling the situation with North Korea" - something that would have been much easier BEFORE they got nukes. Duh.
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Funny how I now see people on this board bashing for "not handling the situation with North Korea" - something that would have been much easier BEFORE they got nukes. Duh.

  Oh I agree completely - that is why Iraq happened - doing something before they got WMD - which even if none were found , they would have eventually got and had used before on the Kurds etc. But then I am in the monority for thinking the war in Iraq was a good idea
• 

  EscapedLifer1

  But then I am in the monority for thinking the war in Iraq was a good idea

  Whoever said that the majority is always right? Actually, from what I've seen, the majority usually act more on "mob" mentality than thought and reason.

  That's exactly why the "founding fathers" rejected a pure democracy for the democratic republic that we have in the US. They knew better than to allow the generally uneducated, un-read, emotionally reactive, short sighted general populace have complete control.

  In other words, the same folks that whine that the US is hypocritical for trying to keep despotic psychopathic governments from having WMD's.

  Let the flame fest begin!!!

  Brandon
• 

  EvilForce

  Um....Under Clinton N. Korea had / developed - Zero nukes
  Under Bush - 8 to 12
  
  But for arguments sake what would a pan-Europe nuke run Iran look like?
  
  The Germans would build the nuclear warhead to .000001 millimeter tolerance. Only the highest engineered warhead will do.
  The French would supply the nuke plant's cafeteria with Brie.
  The Swiss would supply the timing / triggering devices.
  The Dutch would restart the slave trade to include the Tourag from N. Africa to work on the reactors.
  The Irish would serve as crash test dummies for testing.
  The Italians would do the design / styling on the warheads.
  The Spainards would run administrative functions....well at least Monday thru Thursday w/ 2 hour siestas....oh and 7 weeks holiday per annum.
  The Czechs will complain that the Slovaks got security guard duty.
  The Slovaks will complain that the Czechs got cigarette vending duties.
  The Poles will rise up and unionize everyone under the auspices of Solidarity fighting the communist.....Islamic.....whatever.... overloads.
  Luxumborg will not be involved in any way, shape, or form. But they will finance the entire operation.
  The Danes will provide the global mapping needed for the nukes "brains".
  Russia (yes my American brothers Russia actually IS in Euorope) will provide the fissible material.
  Norway will claim that the nuke building in Iran allows them to increase their whaling by 15% in the North Sea. (Don't ask...don't know...they're Norweigians after all.)
  The Swedes will provide the mobile launch pads. And yes they will be powered by Volvo.
  Greece will smuggle 10% of the parts out of Iran and smuggle back home. They are still pissed about losing to the Romans.
  The Turks will fight Greece for smuggling. Those dirty Greeks stole Cyprus!
  Little do the Turks & Greeks realize but the Sicilians will steal their swag and with the Portuguese ships will ship them to the highest bidder.
  The former Yugoslav Republic's warring factions will still be pulling the rickshaw and taxi duty from the airport to nuke plant.
  The English will sit back until the project is over and then declare that since Iran was once a British subject that the queen is now entitled to overseeing the program and wants a 20% cut.
  And of course Tehran will become the new chic Euro Trash hang out for all fashionable, chain smoking, uber thin, arrogant, anti-American, university students.
  
  
  LOL - ok have I insulted eveyone now? LOL
• 

  EscapedLifer1

  EF,

  that was hilarious!!

  Brandon
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Um....Under Clinton N. Korea had / developed - Zero nukes Under Bush - 8 to 12

  100% correct but what you forget is that Nukes are not developed overnight - so yes they may have come to fruition under Bush but they were being developed under Clinton. Oh an by the way it was a DEMOCRAT president that dropped the only two nukes on civilian populations !
• 

  EvilForce

  Stil...come on now. You know that the Bush admin repudiated ANYTHING Clinton. If Clinton did it or thought that way...by God they were going to do the opposite. Do you have any idea of what actually happened with N. Korea in the 90's??? Obviously, you disagree with what Clinton did. Please tell me what YOU would have done differently?
  I'm not against Republicans as a rule. It's you conservatives that like to label things Republican/Democrat. I can only contemplate what this country could have been if we could have had a McCain / Bradley election instead of a Dumb / Dumber election in 2000. But I'd hazzard a guess....much better off!
  Now back to the Europe bashing PLEASE Still....stay on topic. LOL
• 

  roybatty

  Um....Under Clinton N. Korea had / developed - Zero nukes
  
  Under Bush - 8 to 12

  Evil, you need to revist the 1990's and the Clinton administration's "stick your head in the sand" approach to nukes in Asia. Remember Clinton sending Carter to North Korea to meet with Kim Jong and the two of them signing an agreement that North Korea would cease developing nukes if given "aid" from America? We gave them money,food, oil, etc. Basically it was blackmail. So here we are in the 1990's giving the North Koreans all kinds of free stuff and thinking that they aren't developing nukes. You'd think we would have negociated some type of verification process....nah, we trust you guys in the north. Then what happens? Oops, we find out that they lied to us and developed nukes. On top of this, they used the aid that we gave them to help pay for this work. Ooops. Then the cherry on top happens in 1998 when Clinton's military chief of staff tells us that the North Koreans don't have an active ballistic missle program but a week later the North Koreans fire a missle right over Japan (which lands later off the coast of Alaska). DOH!

  Meanwhile, the Chinese see that Clinton has the balls of a nat and decides to set up a three-way deal between themselves, North Korea and Pakistan. Clinton is thinking that the Chinese will help prevent the North Koreans from developing the bomb, all the while they are actually helping them. lol. The three countries trade with each other and each get what they want. China gets better missle tech. from Pakistan, Pakistan gets a working design of an atomic bomb from China and North Korea gets the supplies from China that it needs to develop a better nuke. One big happy family while Clinton and europe just stand around with their thumbs up their ass. Hmmmm...maybe all the warhawks and neo-cons and their plan for a pre-emptive strike had a point.

  Now this brings us to the year 2000 and the Bush administration. In the face of this new nuke threat, Japan, South Korea and India have desired to now have their own nukes. IMO Bush has been active in strongly discouraging this. And when India went ahead anyway, Bush put into place real sanctions.

  Anyway, the whole point of this thread is to point out that it's so easy for someone to say "Hey Bush YOU SUCK" and yet not have any realisitc solution that they support. Radical muslims in Iran having nukes scares the hell out of me. Insane North Koreans who are willing to starve to death millions of their own people in order to build nukes scares the hell out of me. One day suicidal leader will have his finger on the button to launch a nuke and when he says "DEATH TO AMERICA" he's going to be able to deliver on that threat.