U.S. to rest of world: We're hiding under your bed; booga booga booga!
(Original insipid AP article here)
Putin: U.S. policies create arms race
By DAVID RISING, Associated Press Writer
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned Saturday that the United States' increased use of military force is creating a new arms race, with smaller nations turning toward developing nuclear weapons.
Hey, Mr. Putin - What country invaded Afghanistan prior to the United States going in? And, um, were the Afghanis able to have relatively free (or any type of) elections after Russia's invasion?
Uh huh...STFU!
Speaking at a conference of the world's top security officials, including the Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, Putin said nations "are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations."
Hyper use of force? Hmmm...I guess that must refer to all of our threats to use nuclear weapons on neighboring countries. (Well, we probably would if Mexico, Canada - or even Cuba - were filled with Jooos.)
"One state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way," he told the 250 officials, including more than 40 defense and foreign ministers.
Yup...Americans are flooding illegally into Mexico and Canada at an unprecedented rate, overwhelming their social services and causing all sorts of mayhem.
And we're getting ready to roll tanks into Poland, France, The Czech Republic, Slovakia...oh, hang on a minute, that was the Nazis. My bad; Bush isn't really Hitler.
"This is nourishing an arms race with the desire of countries to get nuclear weapons," Putin said, but did not elaborate on specifics and did not mention the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Mostly to threaten America and Israel, the eeeevilest nations on earth.
The Russian leader also voiced concern about U.S. plans to build a missile defense system in eastern Europe — likely in Poland and the Czech Republic — and the expansion of NATO as possible challenges to Russia.
Gee...is it remotely possible that fairly recently-freed countries might wish to stay that way? (Not to mention the fact they're within likely range of Iran's missles.)
"The process of NATO expansion has nothing to do with modernization of the alliance or with ensuring security in Europe," Putin said. "On the contrary, it is a serious factor provoking reduction of mutual trust."
Yo, Vlad...just because Dubya gazed into your eyes and saw nothing but goodness doesn't mean we all feel that way.
On the missile defense system, Putin said: "I don't want to accuse anyone of being aggressive" but suggested it would seriously change the balance of power and could provoke an unspecified response.
Here's a big, unspecified digitus impudicus for ya.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates had little to say about Putin's remarks, noting only that "he was very candid."
Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Putin's charge that the U.S. "aspired to get unipolar power or acted unilaterally is just not borne out by the facts."
Sure. But why cloud the issue with facts when it's so clear that the United States is ineffably evil. C'mon...we all know it's true.
"Even our involvement in Iraq, certainly Afghanistan, is pursuant to United Nations resolutions," said Lieberman, I-Conn. "So that was provocative and wrong."
The real problem is that the U.N. dilly-dallied for too long to get in there and do what they do best: steal gobs of (mostly American) money and rape the locals. Ya snooze, ya lose.
Putin's spokesman Dimitry Peskov said the Russian leader did not intend to be confrontational, but acknowledged it was his harshest criticism of the United States since he was elected in March 2000.
"The reason for his comments is Russia's concern about the growing amount of conflicts and the malfunctioning of international law," Peskov told the AP.
International law isn't malfunctioning. It's dysfunctioning (sic).
Earlier, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Tehran needs to accept demands made by the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency on its nuclear program. The United States and several of its Western allies believe that Iran is using the nuclear program to produce an atomic weapon.
I thought they needed this technology for "peaceful electrical power". Because, y'know, it's not like they've got any other sources of energy sitting in the ground.
"There is no way around this," Merkel said. "What we are talking about here is a very, very sensitive technology, and for that reason we need a high degree of transparency — which Iran has failed to provide — and if Iran does not do so, then the alternative for Iran is to slip further into isolation."
On the sidelines of the conference, Larijani defended his country's nuclear program as peaceful, saying: "We are no threat to our region or other countries," while indicating a willingness to return to negotiations.
While holding a fantasy map of the Mid-East - sans Israel - behind his back. Nothing to see here, folks.
"We are prepared to work together with other countries for a comprehensive peace," he said.
Why have I gotten the impression that "comprehensive peace" in that region usually equates to "dead Jooos"?
Heading into the conference, Larijani said he planned to use the gathering as an opportunity to discuss Iran's nuclear program — the first talks with Western officials since limited U.N. sanctions were imposed in December.
There's really very little to discuss, Mr. Larijani. Shut down your nuclear program or it will be shut down for you.
The annual Munich Conference on Security Policy, now in its 43rd year, often is used as an opportunity for informal diplomacy.
"You okay with killing Jooos?" "I'm down with that; and 'death to America!, too." Followed by high-fiving over expensive champagne.
Merkel, whose country holds the rotating European Union presidency, emphasized the international community's support for Israel and said there was a unified resolve to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
But they said they weren't doing that; I say we give 'em the benefit of the doubt.
The conference this year focuses on "Global Crises — Global Responsibilities," looking at NATO's changing role, the Middle East peace process, the West's relations with Russia and the fight against terrorism.
"George Bush is the terrorist!"
Some 3,500 police were on hand to keep some 1,300 protesters in check, officials said. Scattered arrests were reported, but police said there were no major incidents.
Except for an altercation between giant puppets. Further, one protester was slightly injured by a burning American flag.
7 Comments:
Excellent fisking, as usual.
I have a question, maybe you or one of your erudite readers can help me with it.
What is this 'international law' the UN officials keep bleating about?
It is my understand that, as a sovereign nation, we in the United States answer to no "laws" except those that are homegrown. Is it possible that "international laws" are in fact just treaty agreements? And if that is true, calling those treaty agreements "international laws" would appear to be a back door way to legitimize the UN as a super-government.
Which, if the UN wants to be THE governing body, they can kiss my azz.
And Putin is a putz.
BrendaK -
A very fine question, which you pretty much answered yourself.
There are no "international laws". There are such things as treaties and multi-lateral agreements between specific countries, commissions covering such things as copyright and fishing, etc.
There is also the "World Court" - technically the International Court of Justice - which has no power to compel; parties have to all agree to appear before it.
And then there's the good ol' United Nations Charter, but since that is enforced so capriciously (i.e., generally against Israel or the U.S.) that I for one cannot take it seriously; ditto with the "World Court".
I'm sure the U.N. would love to be the world's governing body, but I'm doubtful that will ever happen; no country is really willing to give-up their sovereignity. (With the exception of France, perhaps, given their history).
I'd imagine some folks believe that "custom" (as in "long-established practices") may also be loosely considered part of international law.
But since there's really no such animal as international law, the concept is legally a crock o' dookey.
And by "dookey" I mean "shit". Just sayin'...
"Which, if the UN wants to be THE governing body, they can kiss my azz."
You're gonna have to get in line behind a lot of other folks, little missy; hey...NO CUTS!
"And Putin is a putz."
That very nearly inspires a parody of the Ramones' "Judy Is A Punk".
Thanks for reading and asking a thoughtful question, thereby rasing the level of discourse generally found here.
And by "discourse" I mean "angry and ill-considered fucking rants". Just sayin' again...
And by "discourse" I mean "angry and ill-considered fucking rants". Just sayin' again...
The preceding was not meant to indict commenters (as they've all been pretty nice), merely the proprietor of this scrofulous little blog.
Thanks!
Because I kid you not the constant reference to 'international law' really did confuse me. I'm an extremely literal person in some respects, and 'law' and 'treaty' are NOT the same thing.
And I like this blog and it's proprietor. Just sayin' is all.
i'm with brenda... on both counts: i like this blog and its proprietor and putin's an ingrate.
great fisking, fatwa... good question, brenda... hugs to both of you!
It is now Mar. 11 - you are woefully behind in rants.
I demand an independent accounting!
Also, I've heard it rumored Algore is the antichrist. What say you, pundit-guy?
Fatwa...Fatwaaaaaaaaa...
Write meeeeeeeee...
(That's the sound of unwritten rants calling to you)
Post a Comment
<< Home