“w” and Cheney et al gave us “either – or” diplomacy: “either you leave YOUR country, like yesterday, OR we won’t STOP bombing you!”
Under the cover of diverting the moron brigade,Obama has used “If – then” diplomacy: “IF you stop using weapons we don’t approve of and let other nations, not just us, participate in controls, THEN we will NOT start bombing you.”
Iran of course has been targeted by the U.S. and Israel for bombing since the day we took the Shah in. They have repeatedly stated they want nuclear energy to generate electricity so they can sell US their oil! IF they have a desire to have a nuclear deterrent, we and they know Israel, not just the U.S. has more than enough nukes to blow THEM off the map, is that any less logical than Israel and the U.S. insisting “Our side”, has to have them?
WE have done a pretty good job of shooting the sheep in Iraq and Afghanistan, when the supposed “target” was initially only ONE wolf in Afghanistan (A SAUDI CITIZEN), and ONE wolf in IRAQ, who WE kept in power to “control” Iran!!
“Either – OR”, has proven to be an ineffective, nay, absolutely STUPID and deadly policy. Maybe it’s time, after more than 60 years of nearly continuous wars, that the U.S. “nationalists” (and MIC) lost out, and common sense Americans recognized that negotiation, even WITH the PROMISE of force, but only if absolutely necessary, become our “if – then” policy for a change?
Yes, I note that those who’ve never had friends killed, standing right next to them, or killed folks, up close and personal, as well as “at a distance”, are the ones calling everyone else “wolf in sheep’s clothing”, while they themselves are chickens dressed as “mock hawks”.
Pincus just wrote of the FACT that the Obama administration began “talking” to the Russians about removing Assad’s chemical potential, in JUNE 2012! Yes, there was “if -then” philosophy at work, and sadly, it’s taken to long, but maybe there will be reason rather than “ricin”??
Interesting, but the truth is Carter fully supported the Shah. After he abdicated, the US encouraged the military to stage a coup against the Ayatollahs. Khomeini made it very clear from the beginning that he was opposed to foreign exploitation of Iran’s oil.We sowed the seeds for the rule of the Ayatollahs. In 1953, MI6 & the CIA overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh, who tried to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. He wanted to use the oil money to build a secular, democratic nation. BP had secured a 60 year deal to fix the price of oil on extremely favourable terms. (Intentional Brit spelling.) They weren’t about to give that up without a fight. Thanks to the help from the CIA, American oil companies were given a piece of the action.I would approach Rouhani with extreme skepticism. He has little real authority, nor did Ahmadinejad. Maybe the replacement of the bellicose Ahmadinejad with the more temperate Rouhani signals a willingness to negotiate.The Ayatollahs aren’t crazy or stupid. They are under a great deal of internal & external pressure. They’re more interested in staying in power in Iran & retaining influence in Iraq, Syria & Lebanon than competing in a nuclear arms race with Israel.
sw10mm over 10 years ago
The libs in the WH believe it, so it must be true, right?
chazandru over 10 years ago
I always enjoy reading you, MichaelW.Keep it up.Sincerely,C.
Enoki over 10 years ago
So, which one is Obama?
Dtroutma over 10 years ago
NIce irony, Michael.
“w” and Cheney et al gave us “either – or” diplomacy: “either you leave YOUR country, like yesterday, OR we won’t STOP bombing you!”
Under the cover of diverting the moron brigade,Obama has used “If – then” diplomacy: “IF you stop using weapons we don’t approve of and let other nations, not just us, participate in controls, THEN we will NOT start bombing you.”
Iran of course has been targeted by the U.S. and Israel for bombing since the day we took the Shah in. They have repeatedly stated they want nuclear energy to generate electricity so they can sell US their oil! IF they have a desire to have a nuclear deterrent, we and they know Israel, not just the U.S. has more than enough nukes to blow THEM off the map, is that any less logical than Israel and the U.S. insisting “Our side”, has to have them?
WE have done a pretty good job of shooting the sheep in Iraq and Afghanistan, when the supposed “target” was initially only ONE wolf in Afghanistan (A SAUDI CITIZEN), and ONE wolf in IRAQ, who WE kept in power to “control” Iran!!
“Either – OR”, has proven to be an ineffective, nay, absolutely STUPID and deadly policy. Maybe it’s time, after more than 60 years of nearly continuous wars, that the U.S. “nationalists” (and MIC) lost out, and common sense Americans recognized that negotiation, even WITH the PROMISE of force, but only if absolutely necessary, become our “if – then” policy for a change?
Yes, I note that those who’ve never had friends killed, standing right next to them, or killed folks, up close and personal, as well as “at a distance”, are the ones calling everyone else “wolf in sheep’s clothing”, while they themselves are chickens dressed as “mock hawks”.
Pincus just wrote of the FACT that the Obama administration began “talking” to the Russians about removing Assad’s chemical potential, in JUNE 2012! Yes, there was “if -then” philosophy at work, and sadly, it’s taken to long, but maybe there will be reason rather than “ricin”??
Enoki over 10 years ago
You could be right. And to be totally politically incorrect I’ll add that there are no black sheep present…
Uncle Joe Premium Member over 10 years ago
Interesting, but the truth is Carter fully supported the Shah. After he abdicated, the US encouraged the military to stage a coup against the Ayatollahs. Khomeini made it very clear from the beginning that he was opposed to foreign exploitation of Iran’s oil.We sowed the seeds for the rule of the Ayatollahs. In 1953, MI6 & the CIA overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh, who tried to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. He wanted to use the oil money to build a secular, democratic nation. BP had secured a 60 year deal to fix the price of oil on extremely favourable terms. (Intentional Brit spelling.) They weren’t about to give that up without a fight. Thanks to the help from the CIA, American oil companies were given a piece of the action.I would approach Rouhani with extreme skepticism. He has little real authority, nor did Ahmadinejad. Maybe the replacement of the bellicose Ahmadinejad with the more temperate Rouhani signals a willingness to negotiate.The Ayatollahs aren’t crazy or stupid. They are under a great deal of internal & external pressure. They’re more interested in staying in power in Iran & retaining influence in Iraq, Syria & Lebanon than competing in a nuclear arms race with Israel.