Iran Watch - Analyzing the Rhetoric

Upon reading the news this morning, I came across the following article -

Rice: No Point in More Iran Negotiations

Lately I have not been reading the articles surrounding the Iranian standoff because quite frankly they were all saying the same thing. But this is an important article.

Here the U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, is signaling that the war effort has reached the next step. So I thought it would be important to analyze some of the key phrases and ideas behind the upcoming war with Iran. But before we even begin to understand the situation properly we must first understand the nuances and beliefs behind those making the decisions.

First, in order to conserve space and time we will start with the assumption that the world is being guided into a global(socialist/communist/totalitarian) government by individuals that lead the nations. There is abundant evidence to reinforce this assumption, however that is a separate argument.

Second, these individuals goal is furthered by empowering the vehicles of this One World Order: the United Nations, International Atomic Energy Agency and International Criminal Court.

Lastly, in order to achieve global rule the idea of individualism or sovereignty must be abolished. This will has started with supposed 'rogue' (what are they rogue from?) nations and is now carrying on to other non-rogue states. In regards to Iran, their supposed 'right' to possess nuclear technology is in question.

Our article starts...

"France, with the support of the United States, rejected Iran's request for more negotiations on the Islamic republic's nuclear program, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying Wednesday "there's not much to talk about" after Iran resumed atomic activities.""

...regarding an upcoming meeting of the IAEA....

"French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said European nations were seeking the "greatest possible consensus" on dealing with Iran, and the upcoming meeting was a "very important moment."

"Rice said Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapons capability or "to pursue activities that might to a nuclear weapons capability."" "Later, during a speech at Georgetown University, Rice said the international community was united in its belief that Iran "stepped over a line when it broke the seals" at its main uranium enrichment facility and resumed reprocessing nuclear fuel."

"The Iranians want to make this about their rights. It's not about their rights," Rice said. "It's about the ability of the international system to trust them with the capabilities and technologies that could lead to a nuclear weapon."

The Real Effect
Unfortunately Condi, this is about Iran's right to possess nuclear technology. Either a nation possesses this right and is sovereign or it does not. What the globalists are doing is controlling the discussion. By limiting discussion to Iran's compliance to "the international community" they bypass the discussion on the validity of their argument.

Let us suppose that a neighbor of mine was a raging alcoholic that was attempting to purchase a firearm. The neighbor can use the firearm for multiple purposes and his alcoholism has little to do with his right to purchase a firearm. He has committed no crime and it is largely possible that he intends to defend himself with the weapon from a rash of robbers plaguing the neighborhood.

Now, in my quest to deny my neighbor his firearm, I solicit the help of other neighbors and we invoke the mantra of 'safe communities' to justify our desire to deny our neighbor his weapon. Does the presence of more people of like mind justify our position? Do our supposed collective rights and desire for our idealistic 'safe communities' supersede his rights to defend himself? I believe the answer to this is a definitive no.

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that Iran signed, there is no prohibition against nuclear research. Yet, just because Iran might wage war does not justify other countries in their opinion to preempt Iran's sovereign right to engage in peaceful research. Remember, might does not make right. And just as a refresher, let us recall the United States record of so called 'Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq. (Read Devvy Kidd's article Iran, Bush & Communist China)

Consider if you will Bush's call for Global Democracy. He is not speaking of freedom nearly as much as he is speaking of his perception that the majority be able to inflict their will on the minority. Yet in most cases majority is determined not by sheer numbers, but by possession of technology and weapons.

Notice how each successive World War and conflict has increasingly relied on the perceived 'international will'. Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, Iraq, the list goes on and on.That my friends is de-facto global government.

In the following months, let us pay attention for an official declaration of war by Congress, I'm assuming that we will not see one but instead will see an informal and unconstitutional (illegal) military action to support the whims of the United Nations.