"UN prevents spread of atomic weapons," says Obama appointee

The UN--may have been a great idea but has been taken over by marxists, socialists and third-world crap-weasels.

While it offers a way to get lots of pro-socialist speeches on the record, I think most rational, non-marxist adults have long-since realized that the UN is good for damn near nothing useful.

Peacekeeping? What a joke--UN soldiers typically stand idly by as one group rapes or executes another. After all, they don't have a dog in the fight, so why risk getting shot?

Enforcing UN-passed economic sanctions against rogue nations? Don't be silly: The top leadership at that corrupt body was actually taking bribes from Saddam Hussein to ignore Hussein's violations of the sanctions that were levied to try to get him to stop building WMDs after the U.S.-led alliance threw his army out of Kuwait. (If you're under 30 try googling "oil for food".)

Okay, how about something more serious: Preventing new nations from building atomic bombs. The case in point is Iran, which has ordered, installed and is operating machines whose sole purpose is to enrich uranium.

Enriched uranium has only two known uses: in nuclear powerplants, or to make atom bombs.

Iranian leaders say they're going for the former--and if they had no natural gas that might make sense. But Iran has vast reserves of both oil and natural gas. And in fact whenever you allow oil to flow out of the ground, any gas will come with it. So you have to either sell the gas (which in Iran would require spending hundreds of millions to liquify it), or compress it and reinject it into the underground oil reservoir (which again requires an up-front investment of millions of dollars).

Or you can simply touch a spark to it and burn it in the open air--wasting it. This is called "flaring" and it's done in much of the third world. The waste is considered an acceptable trade to extract the oil.

So...haven't inspected Iran recently but I'll bet they flare a million dollars worth of gas every week--enough to run several gas-turbine powerplants. These are highly efficient and virtually non-polluting. So why wouldn't the Iranians choose gas-fired power instead of far more expensive, waste-generating nuclear, at least for another few decades?

Simple: They're lying. (Shock!) They're really trying to build the Bomb.

And so far the U.N. has done exactly *nothing* to prevent this. (Again, Shock!)

So if a U.S. gubment official boasted that “the U.N. helps halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons,” and that “strong and sustained U.N. action makes crystal clear to governments that defy their international nuclear obligations that they will face isolation and significant consequences,” what would you conclude?

Sure: The official must either be deluded or lying.

The official was Obozo's UN ambassador, Susan Rice.

This is what you get when 52% of voters elect someone with a hidden track record and no practical experience.

Okay, before my wonderful, thoughtful Democrat sibs and in-laws go ballistic over this: I do realize that GW Bush didn't invade Iran to cancel their nuke program either. That would be because Dems had been screaming to high heaven since 2003 about his invasion of Iraq. But Bush's action in the latter at least gave the mullahs in Iran reason to believe that they just might be next on the list.

With Obozo there are no doubts: Everyone knows he'd never respond effectively to a real threat (though he only delayed a couple of weeks before sending in U.S. jets in Libya--which no one ever has believed to be a threat to us.)

Anyway, point was that UN ambassador Rice is either brazenly lying about "we've kept Iran from getting nukes" or else is incompetent.

In other news, "dog bites man."