Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

“Iranian Unit to Be Labeled ‘Terrorist’”

It’s about time we started calling these weirdbeards what they are. From the Washington comPost:

The United States has decided to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country’s 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a “specially designated global terrorist,” according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group’s business operations and finances.

The Bush administration has chosen to move against the Revolutionary Guard Corps because of what U.S. officials have described as its growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East, the sources said. The decision follows congressional pressure on the administration to toughen its stance against Tehran, as well as U.S. frustration with the ineffectiveness of U.N. resolutions against Iran’s nuclear program, officials said.

U.N. resolutions…ineffective? Get outta here! Continuing:

The designation of the Revolutionary Guard will be made under Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding. It authorizes the United States to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities. The Revolutionary Guard would be the first national military branch included on the list, U.S. officials said — a highly unusual move because it is part of a government, rather than a typical non-state terrorist organization.

“Anyone doing business with these people will have to reevaluate their actions immediately,” said a U.S. official familiar with the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the decision has not been announced. “It increases the risks of people who have until now ignored the growing list of sanctions against the Iranians. It makes clear to everyone who the IRGC and their related businesses really are. It removes the excuses for doing business with these people.”

Of course, this story wouldn’t be complete without the “bash Bush” angle, now would it?

The administration’s move could hurt diplomatic efforts, some analysts said. “It would greatly complicate our efforts to solve the nuclear issue,” said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for American Progress. “It would tie an end to Iran’s nuclear program to an end to its support of allies in Hezbollah and Hamas. The only way you could get a nuclear deal is as part of a grand bargain, which at this point is completely out of reach.”

So let me get this straight: if we want Iran to stop developing nukes AND to stop supporting terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, WE are being unreasonable? I would argue that those two positions are non-negotiable, and until Iran agrees on those two points, there’s nothing else to discuss with them. Good grief! Only a pointy-headed diplomat-type would be crazy enough to think that identifying terrorism (especially a group that has killed some of our soldiers in Iraq) is counterproductive to the disarming process.

August 15, 2007 - Posted by | Iran

2 Comments »

  1. See, the issue I have with much of this is that what right do we have? The UN is supposed to handle such issues, isn’t it? While the UN is admittedly inneffective in such things, where is it our place to be the world police?

    Case in point, we told India they are now allowed to test nuclear weapons. I know we’re a world superpower, but is that our place to decide? I really don’t think so. Perhaps pushing the UN to actually handle such issues would be a great idea these days. What exactly is the UN’s role in the world, if dealing with global issues isn’t it?

    Comment by wailin | August 15, 2007

  2. See, the issue I have with much of this is that what right do we have?

    With matters of countries (or even terrorist entities) killing our soldiers and civilians, I’d say it’s pretty clear that we have a “right” to act accordingly.

    The UN is supposed to handle such issues, isn’t it?

    The UN is supposed to handle a lot of things, none of which do they do very well.

    While the UN is admittedly inneffective in such things…

    That’s putting it mildly.

    …where is it our place to be the world police?

    Who would you rather task to monitor American interests? America, or the UN? I’m opting for the former.

    Case in point, we told India they are now allowed to test nuclear weapons. I know we’re a world superpower, but is that our place to decide?

    If we feel that our interests are best served by intervening, damn skippy.

    Perhaps pushing the UN to actually handle such issues would be a great idea these days.

    Yeah, they’ve done such a bang-up job with that “Oil For Food” thing, Darfur, their “peacekeepers” raping girls in the Congo, etc. Trusting the UN to properly handle global affairs is like trusting Ted Kennedy to drive you to the airport.

    Comment by Crush Liberalism | August 15, 2007


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers