Said Barack Obama.
ADDED: John Bolton (U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, 2005-06) in The Weekly Standard: "Abject Surrender by the United States/What does Israel do now?"
Even modest constraints, easily and rapidly reversible, do not change that fundamental political and operational reality....
Israel... must make the extremely difficult judgment whether it will stand by as Iran maneuvers effortlessly around a feckless and weak White House, bolstering its economic situation while still making progress on the nuclear front....
[I]n truth, an Israeli military strike is the only way to avoid Tehran’s otherwise inevitable march to nuclear weapons, and the proliferation that will surely follow....
पोस्ट्स
४७ टिप्पण्या:
...because of course, the last ten years hasn't been enough time and space, and the next six months will make a huge difference.....
"If I get a peace deal with Iran, people will stop talking about the Affordable Care Act."
Thought Barack Obama
“After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.” - Megan McCardle
If you like your health care, then you can keep it.
OK....so...um...Iran will continue to use negotiations to advance their programs.
"Like the speech of an idiot,full of sound and fury (Or bull-shit) and signifying nothing"
I am reading William Manchester’s biography of Winston Churchill, and by coincidence am at the part covering the infamous Munich agreement with Hitler. The players and issues are different, but there is a chilling similarity to the frantic efforts to accept anything rather than live up to obligations and do something. The response of the press, what we could call the MSM today, was no better.
Well and good - until Iran tests a nuclear missile over the Indian Ocean.
A few months ago when bombing Syria was a categorical imperative, a "senior Administration official" told journalists that Assad's use of chemical weapons would make Iran a US ally because Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran. (Iran did not abandon Assad.) Last week, a "senior Administration official" told journalists that the carbombing of the Iranian Embassy in Beirut would make Iran a US ally in the fight against terrorism. (Iran has been a state sponsor of terrorism for more than 30 years.)
It seems that, regardless of the identity of the "senior Administration official," the Administration is full of cockeyed optimists when the subject is Iran.
The people who voted for this man and his administration have done great harm to this nation and the world.
This man's ideological bent, his associations and his lack of real world experience were KNOWABLE. And yet, they chose to be seduced by pretty words and creased pants.
Re: "Well and good - until Iran tests a nuclear missile over the Indian Ocean."
Obama's deal with Iran is that this is not to happen until he is out of office.
Maybe someone in Iran can start coding for the Obamacare website.
"So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful for impotence."
Said Winston Churchill, 12 November 1936, of the government of Stanley Baldwin. Churchill could have been speaking yesterday.
You can keep your insurance plan if you like it. You can keep your doctors too. Trust me.
To the 70+% Jews who voted for him the second time, feeling better now?
Obama is just wanting to have a foolish looking legacy. He avows that Iran won't build nuclear weapons?
Fool.
When the Iranians explode a nuclear device, or their appointees do, barry's ass should be drug into the street and terminated with extreme prejudice. Fucking lib coward.
If you like having your head in the sand, you can keep your head in the sand.
Do the Israelis feel safer?
Do I feel safer?
No and no.
How can a deal which has as one of its supposed objects the security of Israel be completed without the participation of Israel?
This is no deal. A deal would involve all of the interested parties.
Sooo F'ing stupid on sooo many levels.
The Persians have been enriching Uranium for years and at the same time dragging out talks for years. This is simply a deal that allows:
-Persia to continue to enrich and move closer too a bomb
- Get some sanctions lifted, and they are harder to put back in place and have less impact for a while after restarting
- Obama gets to feel good and claim a short term political victory at the expense of his asserted long term policy goal of nuclear disarmament
Obama is all about short term politics, over everything else...
"To the 70+% Jews who voted for him the second time, feeling better now?"
The relative passivity of American Jews on this issue is puzzling and disturbing. It's easy to say it's because Jews are so predominantly liberal that they won't confront a supposedly liberal president.
But I wonder. Is there an intimidation factor here? Have the pro-Arab anti-Israel factions on campus and in Washington gotten into Jewish heads? Or is Israel beginning to seem far away for more American jews?
I have no doubt that the Iranians and others mean it when they say they intend Israel's annihilation. I do not understand why so many, Jews included, do not seem to take this at face value.
And yes I know Iranians are not arabs.
Obama only has two modes: Take no prisoners Domestic confrontations, and abject surrender to any foreign opposition
Suppose that "Western Civilization" fails to prevent the second attempt to annihilate the Jews in less than 100 years?
What moral standing would we have left?
Re: "Suppose that "Western Civilization" fails to prevent the second attempt to annihilate the Jews in less than 100 years?
What moral standing would we have left?"
No need for moral standing when there will be rationalization: there will be a collective shrug and a sense of 'this is how it was meant to be, I guess'.
Others will cheer in secret, still others, openly.
It is easier to accept after the fact then prevent before it. The world will be accepting.
Ah yes, the Munich references are predictably coming up. I see Bill Kristol is also citing them over at the Weekly Standard today. And I remember the same cast of characters citing them in 2002-2003, which of course worked out well.
It turns out that peace is shovel ready under Obama.
I assume the stated goal is to include Iran in the community of nations, enticing its regime through carrots and sticks into the laws and obligations of the civilized world.
Of course, Iran's always claimed they were playing by the rules, while continuing the most nasty things behind the scenes.
We've arguably sacrificed a lot of time and hard work spent limiting the damage they can do in order to get this piece of paper.
The people who control Iran go back to the revolution, and are basically thugocrat, (terrorist-sponsoring, ridiculously untrustworthy in seeking their aims of regional domination and deliverable nukes).
Call me skeptical to say the least.
Canary metaphors are plentiful and worn. Still I see Israel as something of a canary for open Western values in the world. And it is gravely at risk.
If I were Netanyahu, I would probably strike Iran. But the first question pertinent to that is whether Israel has the conventional capacity to do what needs to be done. I don't know the answer to that question. And a nuclear strike would exacerbate the problem associated with the second question.
That is, will Israel be able to withstand worldwide treatment formerly accorded to South Africa because of apartheid? If Israel strikes that will happen, and Obambi will lead the parade.
These are dark days for Israel and for anyone who cares about human freedom and dignity, just as was Munich. Kerry and Obambi are just as was Chamberlain. Utterly shameful.
Tregonsee said...
I am reading William Manchester’s biography of Winston Churchill, and by coincidence am at the part covering the infamous Munich agreement with Hitler. The players and issues are different, but there is a chilling similarity to the frantic efforts to accept anything rather than live up to obligations and do something. The response of the press, what we could call the MSM today, was no better.
11/24/13, 8:46 AM
The reality of Munich was much more grey. Chamberlin was playing for time. He knew that Brittain was incapable of defeating the Germans in 1938. The agreement was intended to buy sufficient time for Brittain to re-arm and it did although barely. There would not have been an effective Fighter Command in 1940 had Brittain not had a respite to build up Fighter Command.
This is a bad deal.
@david,
The relative passivity of American Jews on this issue is puzzling and disturbing. It's easy to say it's because Jews are so predominantly liberal...
No, David, that sizable chunk of the American Jewish community isn't being passive & they are looking out for their own. It's just that their first commitment is to the Democratic Party & not to their nominal faith, and "their own" is now their fellow Democrats.
At this point in time, a larger percentage of Southern Baptists are pro-Israeli than are American Jews.
Easy to imagine the barely suppressed hilarity of the Iranians dealing with John Kerry.
"Trust...but verify."
Just verify.
The guy couldn't even create a website, and now he wants to create Time and Space?
On a recent episode of House Hunters International a buyer was looking for a house in Tel Aviv. Each house they looked at featured a bomb shelter which was casually referenced by the realtor in the same way a butler's pantry might be highlighted here in America.
That the left can continue to ignore the very real threat Israel faces as a feature of their daily affairs is staggering. And ignorant.
Do not overlook the fact that by having Kerry do this, Obama sticks it to Hillary.
cubanbob,
"The reality of Munich was much more grey. Chamberlin was playing for time. He knew that Britain was incapable of defeating the Germans in 1938."
He knew no such thing, he merely supposed it. As we found out after the war, the German general staff was seriously contemplating deposing Hitler if the Allies resisted at that point because they knew Germany wasn't ready then.
Talk about missing the forest for the trees; we've now halted a nuclear bomb program (which the liberals, by the way, repeatedly denied existing) and will be giving Iran billions of dollars with which to promote international terrorism.
"If I were Netanyahu, I would probably strike Iran. But the first question pertinent to that is whether Israel has the conventional capacity to do what needs to be done. I don't know the answer to that question. And a nuclear strike would exacerbate the problem associated with the second question."
Israel's conventional capacity now includes Saudi airspace and, probably, airfields.
Pray God that before I go I get someone across the negotiating table like one of these nitwits. Are they bad at it or what!
Micheal Israel is too small a country to be able to launch a strategic air campaign to stop the Iranians. Only the US has that capability.
"He knew no such thing, he merely supposed it. As we found out after the war, the German general staff was seriously contemplating deposing Hitler if the Allies resisted at that point because they knew Germany wasn't ready then."
Kirk playing alternative history is fun but pointless. National leaders can only act with the information they presently have, they capabilities they presently have and in relation to the capabilities they percieve the ad aeries have.
cubanbob,
So how was it Churchill "knew" something completely different from Chamberlain and Baldwin, then?
If Iran get nukes, Iran will use them against Israel.
How do I know that? I don't. No one can know the future. But Iranian leaders have repeatedly said that Israel is illegitimate and should be destroyed. They have bankrolled terrorists to kill Israelis. The Iranians, as Shiites and Persians, long to become the leaders of Islam in (at least) the greater middle east.
So, if you were the Government of Israel, and you were now convinced that as long as the present US administration is in charge of US policy we will do nothing effective to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, then what choice would you have but to destroy Iranian nuclear weapons capability? If, that is, you can do so.
If you can't do so . . . . Well, the State of Israel was a noble experiment.
Obama's goal has been to eliminate Israel since he was a practicing Muslim as a preteen in Indonesia.
His second goal has been to eliminate the USA's military capacity by dollar destruction and energy strangulation.
All of the rest of his Socialist policies are only done to create distraction.
How can a deal which has as one of its supposed objects the security of Israel be completed without the participation of Israel?
I suppose comparisons to Chamberlain and Munich would be in poor taste here.
The relative passivity of American Jews on this issue is puzzling and disturbing. It's easy to say it's because Jews are so predominantly liberal that they won't confront a supposedly liberal president.
Progressive Jews hate conservative Christians more than just about any group in existence. They've long-viewed the "Religious Right" as a far bigger threat than Islamic extremism, which is indication that they don't know what the hell they're talking about.
Suppose that "Western Civilization" fails to prevent the second attempt to annihilate the Jews in less than 100 years?
Western Civ believes that all of the problems in the Middle East are caused by the one democratic regime in the area.
He knew that Brittain was incapable of defeating the Germans in 1938.
Ironically, Hitler's military officers were aware that any confrontation from Britain or France at that point would lead to a quick annihilation. Chamberlain didn't think they could beat Germany.
Germany KNEW it couldn't beat France or Britain then.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा