The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth

Exposing the Liberal Lie through current events and history. “Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.” ****** "We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free." RONALD REAGAN

My Photo
Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, United States

Two Reagan conservatives who believe that the left has it wrong and just doesn't get it!

HISTORICAL QUOTE OF THE WEEK - "Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other." ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Sunday, September 03, 2006


"Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam, the Mahdi." Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I begin with this quote from Iran's President to attempt to bring a complete understanding as to why Iran is a severe danger and the mind set behind this regime. This quote from Ahmadinejad explains the very core of Iran's nuclear ambitions and why this Islamic fanatical regime is so defiant to the world and poses a real threat both to The United States and Europe. With the goal of the Iranian Islamic, "revolution, " being to usher in the, " reappearance of the Twelfth Imam, the Mahdi, " brings with it one requirement that defines the direction of this regime. According to Islamic prophecy before the Twelfthh Imam, the Mahdi reappears world wide Armageddon must first take place. Therefore the , "mission, " of this regime is world destruction with Iran as the instigator and the victor to usher in the return of the Mahdi. With this as a regime mission and goal why then does the world expect Iran to bow to threats from a very weak and powerless United Nations ? The answer can only be one of two options. Either member nations fear Iran or they do not understand to its fullest extent what this regime intentions are or what they are preparing for. I realize that other reasons why the reaction is as weak as it is range from Russia's financial stake in Iran to many of the member nations agreeing with Iran's regime and their fanatical ideas. But most of the European nations, The United States and Canada I believe either do not accept or truly realize how fanatical this regime actually is. This , "mission, " fully explains their ardent support of terrorism, their need for nuclear weapons and why their current program is NOT just for energy as they have tried to claim. Iran regardless of the rhetoric calling for further negotiations has no intentions of backing down or stopping uranium enrichment until the capability of having a working and weapons capable nuclear program exists with missile capability bringing about the necessary Armageddon to complete their mission. Their continual call for negotiations is only a means to delay and deceive the world into believing that through talk Iran may bend, while giving this Islamic fascist regime the time needed to complete their nuclear weaponry program.

As the August 31 deadline for stopping the enrichment program came and past the world responded with a resounding...."ah they didn't stop, oh boy now what do we do!" This total non response only shows that no one knows exactly what to do. The UN and member nations keep talking sanctions but there is no agreement even after issuing a deadline as to what direction the sanctions can take. Many agree that the sanctions should only affect the travel and life style of those who run the country. Namely Iran's President, cabinet, parliament and the theocratic Mullahs who rule the country. Of course this extremely weak response if imposed will succeed in absolutely nothing except to continue to embolden Iran in its defiance and strengthen their resolve. Not even the five permanent members of the Security Council can reach any type of agreement as to direction for sanctions or any other response. When deadline day came and past for instance Russia, who had agreed when the deadline was issued to join the permanent members in imposing sanctions if Iran did not meet the deadline, immediately announced that they would not cooperate. Which again is not a surprise since they have a financial interest in Iran through trade and weapons sales and technology as well as nuclear technology. China too backed down for similar reasons as well as oil and gas purchases that both countries receive from Iran. Iran knows this thus will never take any UN initiative seriously. Even our ambassador John Bolton who usually speaks from a position of strength on issues in an interview on the 31st sounded very vague and weak as to what direction should be followed when the deadline passed. Additionally any type of response from the UN will not even begin until foreign ministers meet on September 19 with only mild sanctions being suggested by the UK and France. This despite the announcement by the International Atomic Energy Agency that as late as last Thursday Iran was enriching uranium gas by processing it through its centrifuge cascade.

It is obvious that sanctions especially weak and meaningless sanctions are not now nor ever will be the answer. A trade embargo could slow Iran's intentions but only if Russia and China were to not only agree to comply but actually stop trade with the rogue state, which is highly unlikely because of their dependency on Iran for oil and gas. This too Iran realizes and uses its oil muscle as a means to manipulate the market and insure that China and Russia remain steadfast in opposing trade sanctions or embargos. Where then does this leave the world in responding to Iran ? Any response through the United Nations will be meaningless and weak therefore following the UN route should be abandoned by nations who take Iran's threat as serious and real. There are nations like the United States that take this threat real and see the danger that it brings. But as was mentioned earlier in this post, do these nations truly realize that this fanatical regime because of its stated mission of ushering in the Twelfth Imam and worldwide Armageddon understand the very real and immediate threat that Iran brings upon the world ? Any meaningful action against Iran must be organized by nations that believe in Iran's threat and are willing to act outside of the UN. Additionally and unfortunately that action is quickly taking on the look of some type of military response since every diplomatic attempt has and will continue to fail because of Iran's defiance and its intended goal. A blockade of all trade traffic by sea, air and land approaches could be the first step, but will take a concentrated effort of many nations as well as the US and European nations who face the Iranian danger. This type of complete cooperation is unlikely but if enough cooperation is acquired is a real possibility. Other responses would include air attacks against Iran's nuclear facilities and possibly the infrastructure to eliminate further reception of trade and development. These are but a few thoughts that could slow if not stop Iran's nuclear development. What is clear is that unless a meaningful and real response is developed soon the entire world including those who see Iran as a trade and fuel ally will face the beginnings of the fulfillment of Iran's Armageddon mission to reign in their fanatical Islamic Twelfth Imam and nuclear weaponry.

Ken Taylor


Blogger Rob said...

Look, there is not going to be air strikes or a blockade. That is simply not going to happen because Russia, China, and India - all large economic trading partners with Iran are not going to go for it. In addition, Iran is the number 2 producer of oil in OPEC and oil prices would be significantly impacted that would not be in our country's best interest. That is why our European allies, including Great Britain, are totally against military action.

At this point, there are two things that need to be done. One, the U.S. needs to work on developing better intelligence capabilities in Iran. We simply do not know enough right now. Second, we need to pipe in western culture over the airwaves so that Iranians can see more of western culture. Funding opposition groups is fine, but the U.S. is horrible at "picking winners." We usually end up funding the wrong folks.

Iranian distaste for U.S. policy goes back to our CIA's overthrow of their government and installation of the Shah. The Shah ended up being a brutal dictator that oppressed the Iranian people - thus giving rise to the current form of government.

12:08 PM, September 03, 2006  
Blogger The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

I agree that better intell is a necessity because the extent of much of Iran's capabilities is still a mystery. Also agree that western culture to the people in Iran who disagree with the current government is a very real avenue. Setting up trade avenues to do this would not be wise since it will only give the regime the idea that the US is legitimizing their ambitions. Thus the westernization will have to follow other avenues. The problem is that however it happens because of this regimes expressed mission and goal over throw will be the only means in stopping the threat and fullfilling the mission and even this would take some type of military action if nothing else but finding means to arm the opposition.


12:26 PM, September 03, 2006  
Blogger Rob said...

I disagree that military action is the going to be required. The fact is that we just don't have the intelligence capabilities to assess the danger, so any military action is premature. In the fight against the old Soviet Union, we did not arm a resistance and that regime certainly seemed much more dangerous than the current Iran.

3:17 PM, September 03, 2006  
Blogger The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

One of the main differences between the USSR and Iran is that they though Communist still paused before causing a final destruction because they would rather live than die. Fanatical Islam has as its goal death both to the infidel and in glorious martyrdom. This ads a distinct danger that the Soviets did not pose. If Iran gets nukes they will use them.


9:17 AM, September 04, 2006  
Blogger Rob said...

I'm sorry but just as there are today, there were those who argued for first strikes against the Soviet Evil Empire. Kennedy was encouraged to launch military strikes during the Cuban missile crisis by members of the Joint Chiefs.

I'm curious, do you actually know any Iranians or Muslims? My next door neighbor is Iranian and has family in Iran. My brother married into a Muslim family. The overwhelming majority of Iranians and Muslims are moderate folks. They just want to live in peace. Certainly there is a lot of posturing going on by the Iranian regime, and it is working to secure better and better economic proposals. They are using oil and the threat of nuclear weapons as leverage, but they are years from developing a nuclear bomb. It is both dangerous and ridiculous to assume that they will launch a first strike with nuclear weapons if they get nukes - no one can say for certain.

Unlike hypocrites like our president who claim to believe in the sanctity of innocent human life, I don't advocate killing hundreds and perhaps thousands of innocent civilians in air strikes against a country that is (1) years away from a bomb and (2) may or may not have designs on ever launching a nuclear strike. There is a time and place for military action, but not without better human intelligence about the country. If nothing else, that should be the lesson of Iraq. Bombing first and asking questions later is foolish policy and not in the long-term interests of the U.S.

10:29 AM, September 04, 2006  
Blogger MDConservative said...

“Look, there is not going to be air strikes or a blockade. That is simply not going to happen because Russia, China, and India - all large economic trading partners with Iran are not going to go for it.”
- Just to make a point, which I know will be received with “and that is going well”, but I will make it anyway. Which Security Council resolution was it that said the US should start air strikes against Iraq, and ultimately enter on the ground?

As much as you would like the UN does not run Americas foreign policy, nor the DoD. As for striking now, we have had this back and forth before… but the moment we are able to reinforce protection for troops currently in Iraq and Afghanistan I would commence surgical strikes on their nuclear development sites. No, it would not stop them but it would throw a wrench in the works. I am not involving politics in my decision. It is based off the fact that Iran should not have the bomb, and if needed we should use our brawn (military) to stop it if our brain (diplomacy) cannot.

Although I agree we need more intel and we should fire up the CIA’s role in getting resistance groups to work with us from within. As for picking losers in the past, if we pick the side that stops trying to get the bomb to pave the way for Armageddon… I’d say we picked a winner.

“Unlike hypocrites like our president who claim to believe in the sanctity of innocent human life, I don't advocate killing hundreds and perhaps thousands of innocent civilians in air strikes…”
- How about you take a little dose of reality from me. The majority of their Nuclear Development sites are in the middle of the desert. Away from “innocent life.” To harm their program surgical strikes on those sites would most likely not impact the civilian population at all. I do not advocate leveling Iran, or bombing the cities. I want to slow down the development, which can be done without this genocide you claim it would cause.

Now say we let them get the bomb (courtesy of the UN and weak-minded American lawmakers) and they DO use it against Israel. How many innocent lives will be lost there? And then the response, then Iran will be destroyed, how many innocent lives lost there? THAT is what I want to prevent. It may not be PC, or U.N.-C, but it would most likely save far more lives than it could ever cost.

“I'm curious, do you actually know any Iranians or Muslims?”
- No offense, but who cares? I am glad to know that they want to live in peace. That is fantastic. THEY are NOT the ones developing the bomb. THEY are NOT the ones that would be in control of it. THEY ARE the ones that would suffer the consequences should this regime be allowed to progress forward. You think that Muslims suffered undue criticism after 9/11? Can you only imagine if a country nuked Israel in the name of Islam? In a sense we ARE trying to save them!

10:29 AM, September 05, 2006  
Blogger Rob said...

It doesn't matter what the U.N. says, the U.S. would have to go it alone (except maybe Israel). We have significant economic interests with China, India, Russia, as well as OPEC, which prevent us from attacking. Our European allies are not for strikes. These are geopolitical and global economic realities. The U.S. economy would be devastated by $100/barrel oil and the risk of China and OPEC slowing purchases of U.S. Treasurys to fund our deficits and national debt.

The Iranian nuclear sites are in the desert? Given our clear lack of military intelligence it is a best guess - not fact. That is also the mentality that caused us to invade Iraq to get those pesky phantom WMDs.

I nearly laughed out of my chair with your troop increase comment. I am curious, just when do you suspect we will shore up our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan so that the surgical bombings will occur?

We may have to launch military strikes, but as I have been saying for months, we are years away from that option.

11:05 AM, September 05, 2006  
Blogger MDConservative said...

“I nearly laughed out of my chair with your troop increase comment.”
- Just for your edification I never mentioned a troop increase. Not Once. I said “protection.” I mean anti-missile systems in place to take out anything launched towards them from Iran.

I am so glad that OPEC is more important to you than stopping insane people from acquiring nuclear weapons. You had better watch out Rob, it almost sounds like you are a “big-business” protector. I thought that the left always argues that oil is never the reason to do something? But you ARE arguing that we should do what you say because of oil. So basically I suppose if the President decides that the sites must be taken out, we won’t hear the “no blood for oil” right?

“The Iranian nuclear sites are in the desert? Given our clear lack of military intelligence it is a best guess - not fact.”
- It is likely some are near civilian locales but the majority we could hit to temporarily disable and slow down the program are in the desert. Yes it is fact. This argument that the intel was wrong in Iraq so it will always be wrong. Guess what, I will give you a tip. Just declare our modern day intel has been wrong for 50 years. It is far easier. The bombing on Pearl Harbor was not caught by intel, so why don’t you just contend that EVERYTHING since then is false because of that error?

I love people like yourself that want to make it seem like my job and the peoples around me is so easy. Newsflash: It isn’t. I am sure you have NEVER made any type of mistake in your jobs in life. (Mind you, I do not subscribe to your theory that Iraq was clean of WMDs.) And let me guess you will say that your job does not involve bombs and people being killed in war, so the intel community should be held to a higher standard. You’re right, and we are. But every job has different consequences. And in my shoes, I am screwed either way. I say they are developing the bomb and here are places they are doing it. “Nope, you were wrong on Iraq.” Then Iran tests a nuclear weapon, either in country or on Israel, and you will declare I failed at my job because I didn’t raise the flags to stop it.

Please explain to me, how in your eyes the intelligence community can win? Even if we present proof we are confronted with: you failed in Iraq, or you are making things up for Bush… I mean there is no winning.

9:56 AM, September 06, 2006  
Blogger Rob said...

You actually think we are going to put up anti-missile batteries in Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent Iran from launching missiles at our troops? That is even more ridiculous than sending more troops to stabilize the situation.

Iran is never going to launch any missiles at American troops in Iraq - they won't have to. If we bomb Iran, the Shia majority in Iraq will rise up overnight against American forces. So instead of fighting mostly Sunnis (and trying to hold back all out civil war), we will find ourselves overrun by the Shia in Iraq.

Your whole "no blood for oil" paragraph is incomprehensible. However, I am curious, why do you only cite OPEC? There isn't a single country, except perhaps Israel, that is for strikes. It is painfully clear that you have no concept of the global economy and its impacts on the U.S. economy, or how our national debt and massive deficits are funded.

I am in favor of having congress set up a "Truman Commission" to look at the corporate greed and war profiteering that is so obviously taking place. I am also in favor of energy independence research, but this President does nothing but talk on those issues. None of that will happen because the Republicans are bought and paid for by big corporations and big oil.

I have no idea what you do, nor do I really care. Clearly you are not analyzing global economic issues and you have a very limited understanding of geo-political realities. But again, it is not about you. My point is not that gathering intelligence is easy or hard - it is that we simply do not have it. Without it, we end up making very costly mistakes like in Iraq.

11:29 AM, September 06, 2006  
Blogger Dave said...

Gah! No conservative seems to understand the term 'fascism'. Islamo-fascism is not a correct term.

4:11 PM, September 11, 2006  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

ninest123 07.20
coach factory outlet, chanel handbags, tiffany and co, burberry, tory burch outlet, louboutin, kate spade handbags, polo ralph lauren outlet, jordan shoes, polo ralph lauren outlet, replica watches, gucci outlet, michael kors outlet, longchamp outlet, michael kors outlet, prada handbags, ray ban sunglasses, burberry outlet online, longchamp, nike outlet, coach outlet, prada outlet, kate spade outlet, michael kors, oakley sunglasses, nike air max, michael kors outlet, nike free, louboutin outlet, christian louboutin outlet, oakley sunglasses, longchamp outlet, oakley sunglasses, coach outlet, michael kors outlet, michael kors outlet, ray ban sunglasses, nike air max, tiffany jewelry, louboutin shoes

2:36 AM, July 20, 2015  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

converse pas cher, true religion jeans, vans pas cher, air jordan pas cher, timberland, nike blazer, air max, hollister, nike air max, louboutin pas cher, michael kors, mulberry, air force, sac longchamp, ray ban uk, michael kors, michael kors, burberry, hermes, ralph lauren pas cher, ralph lauren uk, nike free, ray ban pas cher, nike roshe run, true religion jeans, north face, tn pas cher, hogan, sac guess, new balance pas cher, coach purses, oakley pas cher, longchamp pas cher, vanessa bruno, true religion outlet, lacoste pas cher, true religion jeans, north face, lululemon, hollister pas cher

2:37 AM, July 20, 2015  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

lululemon, herve leger, hollister, ghd, soccer shoes, nike air max, mcm handbags, celine handbags, bottega veneta, abercrombie and fitch, asics running shoes, p90x workout, giuseppe zanotti, soccer jerseys, nike huarache, chi flat iron, ferragamo shoes, north face outlet, longchamp, jimmy choo shoes, reebok shoes, nike trainers, nike roshe, nike roshe, new balance, beats by dre, nfl jerseys, nike free run uk, north face outlet, valentino shoes, mont blanc, babyliss, mac cosmetics, birkin bag, insanity workout, vans shoes, wedding dresses, abercrombie and fitch, instyler, nike air max

2:38 AM, July 20, 2015  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

gucci, pandora jewelry, toms shoes, links of london, ray ban, montre pas cher, supra shoes, swarovski crystal, juicy couture outlet, ralph lauren, pandora charms, iphone 6 cases, vans, pandora charms, replica watches, marc jacobs, louboutin, nike air max, baseball bats, juicy couture outlet, converse outlet, hollister, converse, swarovski, oakley, timberland boots, lancel, coach outlet, hollister, thomas sabo, hollister, wedding dresses, nike air max, karen millen
ninest123 07.20

2:39 AM, July 20, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home

website hit counters
Provided by website hit counters website.