The American Spectator

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 10:00AM

"Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow"

Including Israel?

"He added, according to the Washington Post account, "International law is not an empty promise."

International law - specifically the Convention Against Torture, signed by President Reagan - *compels* prosecution of torture allegations. Torture allegations have been made against America, ergo torture allegations are *compelled* by "international law".

So, are countries bound by that "international law" that compels torture investigation and bans Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, or no?

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 10:16AM

There is no other country on the planet that threatens to bomb and invade other countries - in itself a violation of "international law", which the Fox News Right reveres so sporadically - as often or as matter-of-factly as the United States. What rational leader wouldn't seek nuclear weapons with the lone superpower so frequently and so invariably threatening to bomb and invade so many other nations? It would be eminently *irrational* to not endeavor to acquire the ability to deter an attack from a nation that threatens invade and attack countless countries as a matter of policy. The United States, since the end of WWII, has bombed and invaded far more countries than any other nation. Who wouldn't want the ability to defend against that sort of aggressiveness?

That being said, the intelligence community has reported time and time again that there is no evidence of a nuclear-weapons program in Iran. For that, I think Iran deserves our praise.

Three cheers?

Johnno| 9.25.09 @ 10:23AM

Yes, with the middle finger.

Tim| 9.25.09 @ 10:37AM

Lord Haw-Haw.

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 11:22AM

Soon, Iran will have the second plant finished and the US will bow to Iran's supremacy, and the Zionist state will dissappear!

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 12:28PM

Should the AmSpec webmaster desire, he can check the IP of this post above and see that it was not mine.

Johnno| 9.25.09 @ 12:36PM

Stop whining, Turddard; it's not attractive.

Come to think of it, neither are you.

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 2:08PM

Ah - so it was you. Well, you got me there. Good one.

*yawn*

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 3:04PM

It was my own post, after all, folks: Forgive me for my frivolousness. It's silly Friday and I'm feeling especially stupid.

Johnno| 9.25.09 @ 12:41PM

Why try to disavow your 11:22AM post, Toddard? It's no different than your other crazy screeds.

Si Vis Pacem| 9.25.09 @ 11:25AM

Michael Ledeen reports that the Regime is in very serious trouble, and may soon fall. The Regime may also soon acquire its whithery bombs.

What is the stance of the Opposition forces?

Tim| 9.25.09 @ 2:40PM

Ironic, that may explain why they are "trying" to pick a fight now. Unfortunately for them, Obama is a tough man to antagonize.

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 12:29PM

"Iran has been a critical issue for the United States and Israel for a very long time. Seventeen years ago, in January 1992, the U.S. Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the House Republican Research Committee, asserted that there was a "98 percent certainty that Iran already had all (or virtually all) of the components required for two to three operational nuclear weapons.” That same month, Binyamin Netanyahu told the Knesset that "Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb… (The nuclear threat) must be uprooted by an international front headed by the U.S.” In that same year, Robert Gates, then director of the CIA, asked, "Is [Iran’s nuclear program] a problem today?" He answered, "Probably not. But three, four, five years from now it could be a serious problem." Three years later, a senior Israeli official declared: "If Iran is not interrupted in this program by some foreign power, it will have the device in more or less five years."

Officially, both the United States and Israel now agree that Iran is unlikely to be able to produce a bomb until about 2013 or 2014—the same five-year window that was being predicted seventeen years ago in 1992."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/b.....-war/full/

Dixie Pixie| 9.25.09 @ 1:35PM

Obama says “International law is not an empty promise."
Cue “Team America World Police” theme music.
Send in the the maniacal wooden puppets.

Red Phillips| 9.25.09 @ 5:03PM

It is so much more relaxing being a conservative non-interventionist. We don't have to set around fretting and hand-wringing all the time about far away stuff that has little relationship to the actual defense of the United States. Y'all interventionists should try it sometime. It might even improve your health as a side benefit. All that worry isn't good for you.

Daisy| 9.25.09 @ 7:19PM

Red, are you Alfred E. Neuman? Or do you just share the jug ears, missing front tooth and one eye that is disquietingly lower than the other?

At least your motto, "What, me worry?" is the same.

You're real good lookin', babe; sharpest tool in the shed, too.

Richard Baker| 9.27.09 @ 10:11AM

International Law? Remember, Saddam Hussein was bombarded with 16 or 17 "sharply worded" UN resolutions, which he ignored, of course. He already had enough toilet paper.

electgogo| 10.29.09 @ 11:29AM

The contents of article are wonderful!!!Great!
brand new discounting Laptop Batteries
brand new discounting Laptop cpu fans