U.S., Britain Ought To Wipe The “Proud” Off The Face Of Iran

UPDATE:  Here Is another reason why we ought to wipe the “proud” off of Iran.

Someone ought to wipe the “proud” off the face of writer, Simon Jenkins, as well, while they’re at it.  Britain yet has a brain which has not been corrupted by leftists and inside traitors in Britain.  There is still moral courage, stamina and determination in Britain, despite being daily pummeled by the enemies of reason within which ever desire to provoke the people, goad them into selling their last vestiges of human resolve.  Britain sees how much stronger Iran is, or thinks it is, now that Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, and other Middle East nations have been weakened by internal revolt, Arab Spring it is often called.  Britain has a choice.  Do nothing and let Iran march towards the Armageddon Iran wants with the world, or – stop Iran before it is too late.  That is the answer to Simon Jenkins question as to why Britain is “ramping up sanctions against Iran“.

Jenkins calls Iran a “proud” country.  Well, yes, Iran is very “proud” in the sense of being arrogant, and Iran is pleased with itself for being so arrogant.  But Iran is also “proud’ in the sense of its anti-humane accomplishments with regards to how it treats women, Christians, Jews, gays and anyone not Muslim or who refuses to convert to Islam.  Iran is “proud” to be anti-Israel.  Iran is “proud” to be a haven for terrorists and terrorism and all the evil exploits they would conduct against America, Israel, Britain and anywhere else in the world not conscripted into radical Islamic jihadism.  Iran is “proud” it is attempting to develop nuclear weapons which it might then use as leverage against Israel, America and all of Britain’s allies.  And for some strange, delusional, unexplainable reason, Jenkins is “proud” of Iran, for what it is, for what it stands for, for what it hopes to be, to accomplish and to gain.  And Jenkins is “proud” of himself for being so “proud” of a “proud” Iran.  Else, why would he be such an ardent, a “proud”, apologist for a country that hates, despises and outlaws the very existence and thought of individual freedom and liberty?

Simon asks:

Do any of Britain’s leaders really think further economic sanctions will stop Iran’s nuclear programme?

Iran and it’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are hell bent on creating a nuclear program and nuclear weapons of extreme mass destruction, period.  Sanction alone, naturally, will not prevent them from slowing their progress.  Sanctions will stop the flow of legal monies entering Iran; it will stop the flow of commerce and trade, except for the nations allied with Iran.  Sanctions will perhaps slow Iran’s abilities to produce a nuclear weapon, but sanctions will not stifle Iran’s resolute ambition.  Iran has secret partners and secret travel routes in which to get the necessary ingredients for making nuclear weapons into Iran.  Sanctions, we understand, are not the solution by a long shot.  Sanctions only curtail the inevitable.  As Jenkins makes note:

Sanctions have been imposed on Iran for 33 years because there was nothing else to do. They have done no good and almost certainly been counterproductive in reinforcing autocracy.

Indeed, sanction would not deter a “proud” Iran from its ultimate goal.  So what is Jenkin’s advocating?  If not sanctions, what?  What is it about leftists anywhere in the world who see apathy and indecision, and doing nothing, as the best, the only, productive alternative?

Sanctions did not topple Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic or Muammar Gaddafi.

But war and revolt did.  Not apathy or indecision, not pacifism, and certainly not “peace” talk.  So what is Simon’s point?  War, rebellion and action toppled these evil dictators.  All sanctions ever do is stall for time, and give evil dictators the time they need to prepare for whatever madness they have cooked up.  So, why is Jenkins so stubborn about sanctions against Iran?

With an election in the offing, President Obama must show America’s pro-Israel lobby that he is tough somewhere in the Middle East.

Could it be that Jenkins is really an anti-Semite and he know that sanctions will hinder Iran’s plot to destroy Israel?  Could it be that Jenkins wants Iran to complete its mission of creating a nuclear weapon so it might point it at Israel, hold it hostage, blackmail America and Britain into bowing down before Iran?  Could it be that Jenkins is so anti-American, so pro-socialism, he is willing to see Iran become a nuclear nation so that Iran might further diminish America’s righteous role in the world in spreading freedom and true democracy, which is counter to socialism and its agenda?  And once Iran has nuclear weapons, who will prevent it from selling them to Hamas, the PLO, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or any other terrorist group or regime hostile to America?

Any fool may say, you cannot be too careful. It is the motto of the arms race. Israel has a nuclear capability for that reason, and that is why Iran wants one. A pre-emptive Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear plants might postpone their work, but make eventual war more likely.

If but for the fact there is a liberal Democrat in the white house, a military coward, Israel probably would have struck against Iran by now.  Israel cannot be so certain that such a weak President as Barack Obama would not condone it for defending its nation, its people.  Israel cannot be certain just how close Obama is to its enemies.

Although Israel has nuclear capability, aside from its fledgling alliance with America, that is the only other reason why Iran, or any other anti-Israel regime in the Middle east has not yet invaded Israel.  Iran wants nuclear weapons to even the playing field.  Iran has no compassion for humankind, no sympathy or sorrow for the human beings it now allows to be murdered in the name of Islam and Sharia law.  Iran has no feelings of sadness for the millions of people it would kill in a nuclear strike.  Israel, however, does have a heart.  That is why Israel does not use the nuclear weapons it now possesses.  But so long as Israel does possess nuclear weapons, so long as America remains an ally of Israel, (and under a conservative Republican administration that alliance will be much stronger) Iran will think very hard about striking Israel.  But once Iran gains nuclear weapons, Iran will not care.  Iran has no human emotions regarding the sanctity of life.  Therein lies the difference between Iran and Israel and Jenkins’ perverted leftism and what is common decency and rationality.

I would prefer it if Iran had no such missiles, but that is hardly for Britain to say when it demands “the right” to its own.

Nuclear missiles in the hands of Iran is a far greater threat to the world and to world peace than nuclear missiles in the hands of Britain.  Jenkins seems to believe that Iran has a “right” to nuclear weapons the same as any sane nation.  But Iran, of course, is not a sane nation.  Why can’t Jenkins differentiate between sane and insane?  Perhaps, as a leftist, Jenkins’ mind had warped the two concepts into one meaning.  A trick leftists use to justify their own madness.  If sane and insane can mean the same thing, if sane can also be insane, and insane can be sane, then there is no right or wrong, and everyone is free to believe and to do as they wish.  That’s the motto of hippies, who are themselves leftists.

Economic sanctions are coward’s diplomacy. They purport to high moral stance but are merely a low-risk way of bullying the world. The danger is that they encourage militarist lobbies to escalate the steps that lead to open conflict.

Absolutely agreed.  But if not sanction, if not war, then what is left to do?

But usually the answer to “what to do” about foreign regimes of which we disapprove is, quite simply, to do nothing.

That was America’s response to Hitler, for some years.  It was a long time before America finally “did something”.  And that was only after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor.  We declared war on Japan, but never on Germany.  Why must we wait for some nation to attack us, or our allies, first before we “do something”?  That is the “coward’s diplomacy”.  Neither America, nor Britain, is “bullying the world” by inflicting its military might and prowess against those nations seeking to wreak great harm and destruction against our allies.  It is, in fact, Iran which is “bullying the world”, trying to intimidate Israel and force America and Britain into apathetic submission.  Until Iran actually does have nuclear capability, it must remain on the defensive.  That is why Britain is “ramping up sanctions against Iran” and  why America is doing the same.  It is why the United Nations must accept these sanctions against Iran.

But if Jenkins is right about anything, it is only the fact that sanctions themselves only “encourage militarist lobbies to escalate the steps that lead to open conflict”.  So why not just have the bloody war and get it done with?  If war is going to happen anyway, what is the sense in prolonging it?  Doing so only allows the enemy time to plan, to outfit itself, to ready itself, to strengthen itself against us.

For the most part, other nations’ business is not ours.

The longer we leave “other nations business” alone, such as Iran, the more “proud” these nations will become; the more emboldened and brazen and the more dangerous they will be.  Sanctions will stop the speed at which Iran’s nuclear program is accelerating, but sanctions will not diffuse Iran’s resolve.  War will.  Without going to war against our “proud” enemies, we leave them to walk all over us.  We leave them all the more “proud”.

As for rattling a sabre whenever Washington says so, that is the most humiliating idiocy.

Without war, there is only surrender and what comes afterwards – bondage, slavery and then death in a lonely, lowly unmarked, shallow hovel where it won’t take long for all the creatures of the world above, and underneath, to root you out, dissect you and devour you.  Is that a pretty picture of the world we envision for ourselves and our children?  Is that a lesser “humiliating idiocy”?