The Europeans are intent on insuring their own desctruction

Making fun of stupid, self-destructive, socialist, liberals, will most likely be a recurring theme of this blog. Let's face it. It is just to easy! Anyway, the Guardian is a shining example usually of what is wrong with Europe and leftists in general.

In this example we will explore the blog of Rasoul Movahedian, who apparently is connected with the Iranian embassy in London. The article is entitled 'Iran is a Force for Peace'. Giggle. The real fun is that the Guardian links to it from their home page and hosts his blog. It is right under an unsourced article that says basically 'the US is lying about Iran, just like they did in Iraq'.

This is part of a pathelogical recurrence that for the life of me I can not understand. I mean, granted the left hates America, and the West on a global scale, but I just don't get their fascination with murderous Persian/Arab regimes. Why do they consistantly ignore the atrocities of the grubby little dictators, and blame America/Western Civilization first? This is a question that I have no answer for. Blame freedom first is a recurring theme. Before the Islamofascists it was the Communists in Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America. The still love them of course, but those that would slit their throats seem to be the latest target of their unbridled adoration.

But I digress...Let's look at this wonderful article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2018309,00.html

The latest salvo of rhetoric against Iran betrays a grand design to demonise the country and trigger a new adventurism in the highly sensitivePersian Gulf region. Again and again the "Iranian threat" is invoked as partof a neocon agenda to deepen US military involvement in the area. But its goal - to downgrade Iran's role in the region - is both implausible and illfounded.

Alright here we go. It is all the neocons fault. They just want to have military adventures here and steal our land. Sound familiar? It does to me. It sounds just like the pablum the Left dribbles consistantly. We don't want war with Iran, but I know for a fact that they will not be allowed to create the caliphate they want as long as people like Dubya are running the show here in America.

Iran, by contrast, has demonstrated throughout its history a belief in constructive engagement in international relations, at the same time as holding firm to its right to retain its important regional role. Our civilising contribution to the history of the region and the world is beyond doubt - and we are the region's largest democracy, so of course we hold influence. But that influence has never had any imperial aspiration. Iran's national security doctrine is defensive and does not consider military might to be an instrument of foreign policy.

Pass me some of what you are smoking! Constructive engagement? Like when you turned your country into a theocratic nightmare, and held 400 Americans hostage? Civilising contribution? Again this has got to be a joke. You are a backwards fascistic theocracy, that is ruled over by Islamist psycho-Clerics. Let's not get ahead of ourselves with the democracy stuff. Yes Iran holds elections for that sham legislature, and the President's office.

The problem is the Council of Guardians and the Supreme Leader (read aforementioned pshyco-Clerics), have to abet the candidates first. Even once they are elected they hold no true power. The Supreme Leader is holding all the cards. There has only been two of them since the revolution in 1979. As for imperial aspirationg, again how are you trying to kid. Your own President speaks of bringing about the end of the world, and creating a Islamic calaphate that rules the world. Your military has never been allowed to be used to enforce your anti-semetic hate-filled foreign policy.

Iran has friendly, neighbourly and constructive relations with all countries in the region. Neither Iranians nor Arabs wish to repeat the bitter experience of the 1980s that followed Saddam Hussein's attack. Iran has appealed to Shia and Sunni alike to refrain from acts of violence. It condemns all atrocities in the either's name. It neither interferes in the domestic affairs of Iraq nor supports violence inside Iraq.

You lying bastard. That pretty much sums up that paragraph.

Given that we have been the victims of Saddam's aggression, it's entirely reasonable that we try to establish security across our long common border with Iraq. But it is not Iran that has invaded and occupied Iraq. It is the US and its allies. Iran has supported the elected government of Iraq and will not spare any effort that can contribute to its reconstruction, development and security. After all, a more secure Iraq means a more secure Iran.

This seems perfectly reasonable. To bad it to is a lie. You have sown nothing but discord between Sunni and Shia, and are looking to take over Iraq as soon as America leaves. This is of course the reason we must stay and fight. The Iraqis must be given the power to protect themselves.

As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran retains the right to benefit from a civil nuclear programme. We demonstrated our sincerity to the world by sitting at the negotiating table for more than two years and suspending all our peaceful nuclear activities to show our goodwill; the result was nothing tangible, but a plan to develop Iran's peaceful enrichment technology.

Last year, however, on spurious legal and technical grounds, the case was further politicised by taking it away from the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, where it belongs, and to the UN security council. Resolution 1737, passed in December, was based not on facts but on suspicion, and undermined the credibility of the council. Political mischief should not be played out through the security council, and neither bellicose talk nor military adventurism will bring a halt to Iran's peaceful nuclear enrichment programme - a programme that sits within the bounds of the non-proliferation treaty.

Suspended what? You have been enriching uranium night and day, even though the Security Council told you not to. You have also refused very reasonable offers over and over. You have basically thrown your program in the face of the international community and dared us to do something about it. It is not within the bounds of the treaty. If it were the IAEA would not be up your ass about it.

Any threat on the part of the United States government to initiate another military conflict in the region can only trigger new crises, wildly jeopardising global security and stability. We believe in a solution through negotiation and dialogue, a dialogue that addresses concerns on both sides, and in the meantime guarantees our inalienable right to pursue peaceful nuclear energy activity.

Short-termism must not overshadow the pursuit of long-term cooperation. If the present mindset can be replaced by a mentality of constructive interaction, a mutually acceptable outcome remains a real prospect. Real impetus would come from a recognition of the rights and the role of Iran in the region and the world. We genuinely hope a new phase of unconditional and sincere negotiations will resume in that direction.

You no more believe in dialogue than the moon is made of cheese. Your President constantly claims that you will destroy Israel and/or America. Neither will happen. You will surely be destroyed first. Unconditional negotiations are an interesting thought.

I did not mean to talk about this article completely in depth, so I have not. The point is the Guardian represents the socialistic leftist view in Europe. That the have something like this on their site is a prime example. Looking at the comments makes it worse. Those that disagree with the man do so in an almost apologetic, and weak tone.

France and Britian must realize what is happening to them. They are being taken over, and are being set up to become Islamic third world states if they do not take control of it now.