The utilization of military force always commands our attention, especially in countries like the U.S.A. and Germany that uphold personal liberties and democratic governance. Perhaps an invitation should go to Chancellor Angela Merkel, the most powerful woman on Earth, to address the force issue in relation to Ukraine. American citizens need to focus on the moral dimension of deploying our vast military forces abroad, as well as assess whether the killing will work out for our empire and ourselves. We are moral voters in control of a huge military apparatus, but we aren’t sure force effectively stops ISIS and Boko Haram. We are the last empire standing, after all, world-weary global cop with over-stretched resources. Ninety-seven years late, Oswald’s Spengler’s gloomy Decline of the West may be upon us.
If the Russian Federation secretly dispatches some “on leave” soldiers into eastern Ukraine and assists separatists in killing more Ukrainian Army guys from Kiev, as the world’s imperial cop we have to loudly reject Putin’s sly use of force. Angela Merkel of Germany and the French President François Hollande have led the European Union in absolutely renouncing the use of military power against the Russian aggression. Some in NATO want to advance lethal “defensive” weapons to Kiev, including anti-tank missiles, but Merkel and the French will not accept that.
At a February 7 Munich security conference, Chancellor Merkel stated that using military force by beefing up Kiev’s army will not produce the outcome the West desires. “I do think that military means will lead to more victims”, she said, and with support from France, she urged President Obama to hold back on sending additional lethal weapons to the chaotic war zone via NATO.
Senator John McCain has called this statement by Chancellor Merkel a type of “foolishness,” and soon GOP Senators may dare to send another “open letter” to Vladdy Putin.
Yet no country today speaks with more authority about war and the bad results from abusing military force than the modern German democracy led by Merkel, who has served as chancellor since 2005. After the German debacles of WWI and especially WWII and the wider Holocaust, Merkel accurately reflects the wishes of most 21st-century Germans that neither NATO nor Germany should wage war. It is this philosophical position about using force and violence that separates 21st-century Germans and most Americans. Our worldview is that we are trying to run a global empire and preserve international peace, while Germans are done with “big ideas” like world empire or Communism or Socialism or fervent religious belief. They want a strong economy and decent social welfare. Their abhorrence of war makes postmodern Germany a crucial voice in the EU discussions about how to counter Putin’s unrelenting aggressions.
Merkel well understands the uses of state power — she lived under the Stasi in East Germany — and she certainly knows what a bully and opportunist we face in wily Putin. She speaks elegant Russian and has met with Putin many times, usually to little avail. Even so, just prior to February 7, she and Hollande hastily rushed to meet with Putin at the Kremlin, trying to renew the frayed “Minsk” Ukrainian truce agreement (from September 2014). This trip of supplication immediately brought up American cries of “appeasement” and disgust, with references to 1938 when the British PM Chamberlain kissed Hitler’s ring in the latter’s favorite city, Munich.
After initial reactions to her apparent toadyism, I think we can see that Chancellor Merkel is actualizing a more spiritual 21st-century credo that contends “military force solves little.” The Wehrmacht’s huge conquests 1939–1943 led to terrible suffering, and the Allies proceeded to stomp Germany and Germans into the ground in 1944–1945, inflicting enormous pain and death back on Germany and in the “Bloodlands.” Thus, Merkel views Putin accurately as a 20th-century throwback, one who copies Adolf Hitler’s opportunistic international behavior in a few ways. Hitler speciously claimed he had to rescue the three million “Sudetenland” Germans marooned in then-Czechoslovakia (1938), and today Putin not only lies about the invasion, but he also lies in asserting Mother Russia has to protect the Russian speakers in Crimea and the Donbass.
Merkel wants to stop Putin with stronger sanctions, using steady economic pressure, and with more and more conferences. When she unequivocally rules out German or NATO military action against the Russians, she’s wise in her refusal to assent to the American imperial preference for using force, and killing some at the imperial periphery.
Yet it’s no time for American Sniper heroics or pretending we do all this and spend $600 billion on defense just for “democracy” — admit our empire exists! Merkel points at Vietnam and Iraq and asks those of us who vote in the American empire: Did these military actions produce desirable outcomes for the U.S. and the West? How did Korea and Afghanistan Part 1 work out?
The American debate over force in Ukraine and in the Middle East needs to have a moral dimension, just as David Brooks pointed out in his March 10 New York Times column: “We won’t have social repair unless we are more morally articulate.” Let’s invite discussion about the use of force to settle international disagreements over national borders.
Isrraeli PM Netanyahu has now lectured Congress against Obama’s ongoing negotiations with Iran, in support of force. This was his third appearance before Congress, tying Winston Churchill’s record. Remember that Merkel and Germany remain good NATO allies with the U.S.A., despite the NSA’s inexcusable spying on her telephone. But our current crisis with Putin and his outright invasion of eastern Ukraine surely matches the Middle East in importance since almost 6,000 people have died so far in Ukraine.
Let’s invite our good friend, the prudent and wise German chancellor, the longest serving European head of state, to give the EU position on how to meet the Russian invasions of Ukraine without utilizing deadly force, thus saving many lives. Angela Merkel will introduce a moral dimension to our discussion about warring on other humans.
Dan McCaslin has taught history at Crane School since 1980.
Comments
Well-written and thoughtful article, Dan.
I’m not sure we have much of a say when it comes to the military. I’m not sure that the politicians have that much power over their own actions, either; by that I mean that some of these incursions into foreign lands make no sense whatsoever unless you follow the money. There is a campaign underway, you know, so be careful what you wish for or how much hope and change you ascribe to your vote.
As for Putin, have you never known a guy who will try to needle you into a fight? The Ukraine isn’t as big a deal to him as you might think, but it is an historically tasty morsel for him to have on his plate.
I’m not sure you have Germany pegged rightly---the appearance of peaceful motives has long been one of their hallmarks; Hitler himself applied the use of the word numerous times.
It could be that Merkel is drawn, albeit subconsciously, to the type of fascism shown by Putin. George Orwell once said of fascism: “We ought not to underrate its emotional appeal.” Putin is a world player and knows his international audience is almost as necessary as that of his own people.
Most certainly invite Merkel to address Congress, if there is any discussion or support for such an endeavor. But I fear that the reality involves two very “separate but equal” issues: sanctions do little but wind tighter the spring of reaction against them; military force may solve little, but it is the default position of the modern world.
nativeson (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2015 at 3:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
nativeson - Putin is supporting the elected government in Ukraine. There was coup in Kiev by US-backed Nazis and NATO that removed the elected head of state, Yanukovych, a rerun of past US actions around the world, currently in Venezuela. "Separatists" and rebels" are really the elected government forces. You'll get much more accurate international news from sources outside of the US.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-...
http://www.voltairenet.org/article185...
14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2015 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
nativeson - Putin is supporting the elected government in Ukraine. There was coup in Kiev in January 2014 by US-backed Nazis and NATO that removed the elected head of state, Yanukovych, a rerun of past US actions around the world, currently in Venezuela. "Separatists" and rebels" are really the elected government forces. You'll get much more accurate international news from sources outside of the US.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-...
http://www.voltairenet.org/article185...
14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2015 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dan McCaslin:
"…how to meet the Russian invasions of Ukraine without utilizing deadly force…"
A load of rubbish.
I believe the most recent count is that there have been 37 claims, not a single one with a shred of evidence, of Russian invasions of Ukraine.
Those who, like Dan McCaslin, parrot the US government lies and propaganda regarding Ukraine, always start the story well beyond the US government's admission that it spent $5 billion of our tax dollars undermining and then overthrowing the legitimate Ukraine government (albeit corrupt, as have been all Ukraine governments — though no less corrupt than the US government).
One would think that someone who teaches history has some notion that the US, since 1953, has overthrown or attempted to overthrow more than 80 governments, most of them democracies [ http://www.alternet.org/world/america... ].
Apparently not, so here's a brief history lesson for history teacher Dan McCaslin, as well as anyone else who still looks to NYT-CNN-AP-WaPo-ABC-CBS-MSNBC-Fox-HuffPo-Reuters-BBC-NPR-PBS… for their views of the world:
"In the early 1980s, a European top NATO admiral said that American colleagues at the Pentagon had told him, unequivocally, that the US and UK would not hesitate in creating a new European war if the situation ever arose that Europe and Russia, then the USSR, were to develop close relations."
— This Is Why Washington Has Sought To Create A Crisis In Ukraine
[ https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/... ]
With John Kerry's US State Department infested with neocons and psychopaths recycled from Cheney/Bush...
the Wolfowitz doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowit...
...described by Senator Edward M. Kennedy as "a call for 21st century American imperialism that no other nation can or should accept" — is still the basis of the Obama administration policy toward Russia and China.
With the US attempt to transform Syria from a low-level covert war to a far more brutal and destructive overt war foiled in late 2013, Ukraine became the door these criminals and psychopaths thought they could batter down to force Russia into a direct war against NATO. Hence the false reality that western media has been pushing into the bamboozled minds of what's left of its audience; more than 90% of that media is now controlled by just six transnational corporations, every one of which earns tens of millions of dollars for each war they dupe the willfully ignorant US population into supporting...
Continue reading at:
'UKRAINE: Lois Capps gets her war: Neo-Nazis burn dozens to death in Odessa; Neo-Nazi armor heading east, attacking Russian-Ukrainians'
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/S...
JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2015 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
7 out of 10 irredentists surveyed recommend liberating imperial enclaves from corruptistan territories. That's all I know, peace out.
atomic_state (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2015 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Putin has also eliminated Russia's debt to Rothschilds banks and eliminated Rothschild bankers in Russia.
It's not surprising that Jacob Rothschild's share in Freescale Semiconductor's patent increased from 20% to 100% when MH 370 was shot down by Rothschild's Black Rock; or that Putin was promoted as the scapegoat for the crash by Rothschild-owned Reuters and AP and Havas. Black Rock is run by double U.S.-Israeli national Larry Fink [4]. Beyond the interconnectivity at the upper echelons between, on the one hand, Blackstone, BlackRock, Rothschild, George Soros, Scotiabank, Evercore Partnership, Protego, and, on the other hand, Kissinger Associates and the controversial AIG insurance group, whose president is the US-Israeli Maurice Hank Greenberg, the corporate identity of Freescale Semiconductor warrants close scrutiny.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article183...
It's encouraging that Reuters is now banned from Iran as a result of its war-mongering disinformation.
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/04/...
14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2015 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Historical context...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5n8U...
must include Victoria Nuland's planning of the coup in Kiev.
random_kook (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2015 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
random_kook: It sounds like the EU has said f**k the US in response to Nuland.
http://www.thevinnyeastwoodshow.com/2...
14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2015 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
agree 14no that "the EU has said f**k the US in response to Nuland." And in fact it's the EU, without US, that tries to solve the Russia/Ukraine issue and not the UN. Nativeson asks "As for Putin, have you never known a guy who will try to needle you into a fight?" It's a difficult choice for the EU: do nothing to counter Putin's aggression and he will continue to press; over-react to his "needling" and give more lethal weapons to Kiev and hammer his forces IN the Donbas and he'll lose face at home and feel forced to ratchet up his forces...? The deaths of 6000, destruction of cities, shooting down the Malaysian airliner [by separatists] seems like a bit more than just needling.
When Yanukovych was elected he promised to follow the will of the people [or, western 2/3rds of Ukraine, anyway] and then under Putin's pressure reneged; I was happy to see the Maidan revolution and he was ousted. Since BOTH sides scream fascist and Nazi at each other, and I'm not on the ground there [neither is Tieber], it's difficult to really know what's happening. Merkel's middle path with tightening sanctions seems a cautious way to go...ball in Putin's court.
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2015 at 11:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is it not "Ukraine", as opposed to "The Ukraine"?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2015 at 11:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
true, apologies, and it's Donbas not Donbass as the writer has. But Bill: who are the fascists in this crazy quarrel in Ukraine?
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2015 at 11:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DB, you ask "who are the fascists in this crazy quarrel in the Ukraine?"
That word "fascism" is flung about, usually by those who don't like something enough to insult it. Benito Mussolini was the founder of "fascism" and he defined it thusly:
1."Everything in the state". The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.
2."Nothing outside the state". The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.
3."Nothing against the state". Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens.
nativeson (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2015 at 3:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good stuff, nativeson, but what I meant was that in Ukraine if BOTH sides hurl the epithet "fascist" and "Nazi" against each other it isn't a helpful term in that context. Because Stalin starved 3,000,000 Ukrainians to death in 1933, when the Wehrmacht invaded a lot of Ukrainians joined in with the Nazis because they hated the Reds so much. It's really complex. Will more combat and arming up both sides settle much in these historic bloodlines?
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2015 at 4:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I like Ike.
atomic_state (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2015 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Watch the Odessa Massacre
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxcB0...
and other videos in the series exposing the Right Sector for their fascist ideas for the future of Ukraine. This is the side the US supports. That Yanukovich chose against the EU treaty is no excuse for this conflict. In fact the EU agreement is economic exploitation. Russia was offering a better economic deal. Regardless, the US had no excuse to destabilize the situation. Ultimately it was done for the benefit of US oil interests. Now we are back in a cold war and nuclear arms race. Let's stop covering up the cause and put US foreign policy under the microscope.
random_kook (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2015 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Under the microscope, one the first things we see is Joe Biden.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2KA7...
At the start of what is publicized as an anti-terror operation, which means Kiev troops travel to the countryside to kill peasants who stand in the way of fracking.
And then we see Joe's son, Hunter Biden, in charge of the hedge fund that is doing the fracking.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/company-...
random_kook (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2015 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Just weeks after a European-brokered ceasefire greatly reduced the violence in Ukraine, the US House of Representatives today takes a big step toward re-igniting -- and expanding -- the bloody civil war.
A Resolution, "Calling on the President to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity," stealthily made its way to the House Floor today without having been debated in the relevant House Committees and without even being given a bill number before appearing on the Floor!
Now titled H. Res. 162, the bill demands that President Obama send lethal military equipment to the US-backed government in Kiev and makes it clear that the weapons are to be used to take military action to return Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine to Kiev's rule.
Congress wants a war in Ukraine and will not settle for a ceasefire!
The real world effect of this Resolution must be made clear: The US Congress is giving Kiev the green light to begin a war with Russia, with the implicit guarantee of US backing. This is moral hazard on steroids and could well spark World War III.
The Resolution conveniently ignores that the current crisis in Ukraine was ignited by the US-backed coup which overthrew the elected government of Viktor Yanukovych. The secession of Crimea and eastern Ukraine were a reaction to the illegal coup engineered by US officials such as Victoria Nuland and Geoff Pyatt. Congress instead acts as if one morning the Russians woke up and decided to invade Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
There is no mention at all of US backing for the coup -- or even that a coup took place!"
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archi...
Here's the roll call votes:
H RES 162 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 23-Mar-2015 7:08 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree
BILL TITLE: Calling on the President to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Republican
Yeas - 214
Nays - 10
NV - 20
Democrat
Yeas - 134
Nays - 38
NV - 16
TOTALS
Yeas - 348
Nays - 48
NV - 36
loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2015 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's horrible, and it's insane to believe that we have a representative government, and what's even worse is that Ukraine is currently a distraction from the more recent same-old US imperialism in Venezuela, a long-term project originally targeting Hugo Chavez as a means of gaining access to Venezuelan resources.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.i...
http://afgj.org/venezuela-national-da...
http://dominicanewsonline.com/news/ho...
Youtube videos on US troops in Ukraine
https://www.youtube.com/results?searc...
Protests against Kiev fascist government in Canada April 27 2014, Brussels 8 months ago
https://www.youtube.com/results?searc...
The only reasons to believe US news is a preference for disinformation or denial of reality.
Obama (Trilateral Commission, CFR) is going all-out for WWIII.
14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2015 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
loon reveals his usual loony consciousness when inaccurately writing about "The secession of Crimea and eastern Ukraine" -- at minimum, it's an "annexation" and according to the EU [not just USA!] Russian forces outright INVADED and conquered the Crimea, and are attempting this in e. Ukraine now as well. One reason Putin opponent Nemtsov [spelled wrong I think] was assassinated is that he was just about to publish NAMES of regular Russian soldiers killed in e. Ukraine.
Agree it's unsettling for the US House to pass this resolution about arming up Kiev with more lethal weapons -- the author of this article stresses how the EU, right next door to Ukraine, absolutely opposes this stupid action. Merkel "got" the "f**k the EU" Nuland comment. Do you see that this resolution mimics the 47 Repub. Senators wholly inappropriate letter to Iran vs. the nuclear weapons treaty still under negotiation?
Agitprop by pro-Russian, pro-Putin, advocates likes Tieber and 14no scams lays all the blame on the USA, and we do have some. But how do they explain away Obama's refusal to let Ukraine into NATO??
Further, Yanukovych absolutely turned his back on the EU and promised financial assistance from them -- he was elected on the premise he WOULD move closer to the EU! -- and the Maidan Revolution of Feb. 2014 was a people's revolt vs. a leader who reversed the position about the EU treaty on which he was elected. Interesting he fled to Russia, eh?
While wikipedia isn't a great source [Ukrainian Revolution], check out the detailed footnotes if you need more data.
Why do you conflate all this with the situation in Venezuela, 14no??
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2015 at 8:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Relevant paragraph from wikipedia "2014 Ukrainian Revolution" -- and dig into the footnotes to verify the statements quoted here below:
"Yanukovych sought to establish closer relations with the European Union (EU) and Russia in order to attract the capital necessary to maintain Ukraine's standard of living without affecting the local population significantly.[27] One of these measures was an association agreement with the European Union which would provide Ukraine with funds contingent to reforms in almost all aspects of Ukrainian society.[28][29] Yanukovych, at first, accepted the contingencies as fair[30] but ultimately refused to sign at the urging of Russia.[31] Thereafter, Yanukovych signed a treaty and multi-billion dollar loan with Russia instead, which sparked civil unrest in Kiev that ultimately led to violent clashes as law enforcement troops cracked down on protesters.[32] As tensions rose, Yanukovych fled the country to Russia and has not returned. Russia has accused the United States and the EU of funding and directing a coup.[33] Prominent Ukrainian politicians and security officers, however, testified that Yanukovych was 'not so much overthrown as cast adrift by his own' internal allies in his last days in power.[34]"
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2015 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That's a long wiki page but with no mention of Joe Biden or John Brennan, or even Victoria Nuland. I guess it's been "sanitized."
So much for wikipedia.
random_kook (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2015 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Exclusive: In a rare moment of honesty, a Western news outlet, Forbes, admits that the people of Crimea expressed their legitimate will in last year’s referendum when they voted to abandon Ukraine and rejoin Russia, an inconvenient truth for the U.S. State Department and press corps, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
A central piece of the West’s false narrative on the Ukraine crisis has been that Russian President Vladimir Putin “invaded” Crimea and then staged a “sham” referendum purporting to show 96 percent support for leaving Ukraine and rejoining Russia. More recently, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland claimed that Putin has subjected Crimea to a “reign of terror.”
Both elements have been part of the “group think” that dominates U.S. political and media circles, but this propagandistic storyline simply isn’t true, especially the part about the Crimeans being subjugated by Russia.
Consistently, over the past year, polls conducted by major Western firms have revealed that the people of Crimea by overwhelming numbers prefer being part of Russia over Ukraine, an embarrassing reality that Forbes business magazine has now acknowledged."
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/22...
Alright DavyBrown, let's hear some spin!
loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2015 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
(Loon - Forbes has had some excellent climate and "97% consensus scam" articles; Larry Bell)
It's pretty depressing to see someone using Illuminazi sources on the Illuminazi coup in Ukraine, and sources from the coup headquarters reporting on the coup. Ethnic cleansing in regions where Yanukovych got over 80% of votes has created an estimated 2 million permanent Ukrainian refugees; people who have no homes to return to; the fortunate ones who weren't killed in the genocide of Yanukovych supporters. TWNR broadcast video of the door-to-door murders of Ukraine civilians months ago - US-backed military murdering entire families; bodies of children and old people everywhere.
I think quoting statements by remote political bodies like the EU removes the emotional impact of Ukraine genocide on its residents; not possible using Ukraine news sources and interviews with victims of the coup.
http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/e...
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/0...
http://illuminati-media.blogspot.com/
map of voting in 2010 election
http://observationalism.com/wp-conten...
14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2015 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
(Loon - Forbes has had some excellent climate and "97% consensus scam" articles; Larry Bell)
It's pretty depressing to see someone using Illuminazi sources on the Illuminazi coup in Ukraine, and sources from the coup headquarters reporting on the coup. Ethnic cleansing in regions where Yanukovych got over 80% of votes has created an estimated 2 million permanent Ukrainian refugees; people who have no homes to return to; the fortunate ones who weren't killed in the genocide of Yanukovych supporters. TWNR broadcast video of the door-to-door murders of Ukraine civilians months ago - US-backed military murdering entire families; bodies of children and old people everywhere.
I think quoting statements by remote political bodies like the EU removes the emotional impact of Ukraine genocide on its residents; not possible using Ukraine news sources and interviews with victims of the coup.
Read the 1822 Treaty of Verona; Congressional Record 1916
http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/e...
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/0...
http://illuminati-media.blogspot.com/
map of voting in 2010 election
http://observationalism.com/wp-conten...
14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2015 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
U.S. BREEZE and RAPID TRIDENT II military maneuvers came on May 21, 2014 by Vice President Joe Biden’s office.
Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, is a newly-named director of the Ukrainian natural gas and oil company Burisma Holdings, Ltd., owned by Ihor Kolomoisky, the Ukrainian-Israeli mafia oligarch, who is known as the «Chameleon».
http://greatgameindia.com/mh17-chamel...
14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2015 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fracking Ukraine is big business for democrats, just ask Hunter Biden...
nativegeo (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2015 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You are 100% correct on this issue, loon. Crimea has long been part of Russia and Sevastopol has long served as USSR and now Russia's primary warn water naval port. They did vote fair and square to stay with Russia. This brought the issue into the current generation for this decision.
The two areas are long associated since the Crimea was also the home of several Russian royal palaces in the pre Revolution days of the Russian Empire. Only the dissolution of the former USSR made this former long-standing "Russian" connection awkward, particularly after the western part of Ukraine wanted to join the EU.
The strategic position of Crimea and its long association with Russia obviously needed resolution before any further action was taken by Ukraine to join the EU. The dunderheads put in charge of western Ukraine with the help of the US pretty much assured the EU will want no part of them for a long, long time. But this situation remains fluid.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2015 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sevastopol is Russia's only warm-water port; the only Mediterranean access and a Russian naval base.
14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2015 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Known for it's bathing beauties, caviar and windswept beaches, Sevastopol is also home to the world's largest flea circus.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2015 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sure, the machinations of the USA are unlovely, but no one asks why we didn't pull Ukraine into NATO when they wanted in...? Sevastopol remained an independent Russian Federation enclave within Ukraine with full access, thus, no need to INVADE Crimea to secure it.
Yesterday's Guardian has a report on a Russian conscript COVERTLY sent to Ukraine, name, rank, serial number everything: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015...
Other reports indicate at least 12,000 Russian soldiers into Ukraine for months now. If it is legitimate to take over e. Ukraine -- then why does Putin consistently LIE about it when the facts on the ground are very evident, with photos and everything?
Jarvis: if the EU wants nothing to do with Ukraine, why did they just extend them enormous amounts of money and credits?
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2015 at 10:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DavyBrown - " why we didn't pull Ukraine into NATO?" Because Ukraine is a sovereign nation, and its national alliances aren't subject to US political policy.
Putin defended Ukraine's democratically elected government in support of the majority of Ukraine citizens who chose Yanukovych as their head of state, opposing a US-backed Nazi coup for over a year.
Kiev is openly raising armies of Nazi militants to go east and mass murder Ukrainians. Russian-speaking Ukrainians are termed “subhumans ; the NATO-backed regime is clearly attempting regional genocide. Humanitarian aid from Russia, transparent and coordinated with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), has been denied entry into eastern Ukraine after baseless accusations made by both Kiev and NATO backers that it was a “Trojan horse” To further poison attempts to relieve desperate civilian populations surrounded by literal Nazis in eastern Ukraine, British propaganda from the BBC to the Guardian and Telegraph claim columns of Russian armor are moving into Ukraine. Photographs show evidence of this inside Russia; none crossing the border. The credibility of British propaganda can be gauged by some of its prominent networks – the Guardian and BBC.
The Guardian’s article, “Russian military vehicles enter Ukraine as aid convoy stops short of border,” includes fabrications seen in other global conflicts In November 2012 it claimed the Syrian government “shut down” the Internet, despite all evidence pointing to NATO and its proxies. The Guardian stated, “Syria shuts off internet access across the country” ; no evidence, and with the Syrian government denying involvement, the Guardian shamelessly accused Damascus of cutting off the Internet, fueling a propaganda campaign designed to make the government in Damascus appear overbearing, tyrannical, and despotic... since then, the Guardian has admitted that it was the NSA, not the Syrian government, behind the outage.
globalresearch.ca/media-disinformation-russian-tanks-in-ukraine-consider-the-source/5396043
14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2015 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Because,
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles...
the question of whether to send arms to Ukraine raises the issue of who to send them to.
One faction employs Hunter Biden:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/0...
and the other was elected president.
random_kook (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2015 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What is the U.S. national interest in Ukraine?
A major outcome of our alliance with Stalin during WW II was to cede all of Eastern Europe to the Soviets. When the communists were in charge we turned our backs on Hungarians, Czechs, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Poles, Ukrainians, Georgians, Romanians, etc., but now that Russia is no longer communist we suddenly have an overweening interest in "protecting" Ukrainians from Putin?
dewdly (anonymous profile)
March 28, 2015 at 1:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Ukrainian Bolsheviks after WW I defeated nationalist government in Kiev and formed the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic that in 1922 became one of the founding republics of the Soviet Union. At first Soviet policy on Ukrainian language and culture made Ukrainian the official language, in the 1930s it turned to "Russification" and really Putin is just re-establishing that. Ukraine as an independent state really only begins in 1991, and Ukrainians have had a love-hate with Russia for centuries. Stalin begin the wider "holocaust" in 1932-1933 when the Soviets starved/murdered 4 - 5 million Ukrainians farmers [kulaks]! Hitler "admired" this and it gave him ideas for his holocausts of several ethnic groups, notably the Jews in the bloodlines (yeah yeah, deadly, just stop now OK? Deniers can go to hell!)
The EU interest is in the natural gas flow through Ukraine, and the western 2/3rds of current Ukraine is pro-EU. US interest should be muted, and the writer of this piece sort of agrees with you, deadly, when you ask "what is the US interest"?
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
March 28, 2015 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It appears that the U.S. "admired" Stalin's actions in the Ukraine enough to ally with him to defeat Germany which presented the only bulwark against the westward expansion of communism.
Though the Holodomor had decimated the Ukrainian population just a few years before, tens of thousands of Ukrainians joined the Waffen SS to fight against Stalin's troops which had been brought from the East - that is to say, they were not Ukrainians. The Waffen SS was composed of non-German volunteers from every country in Europe - it was an international force against communism.
Most people are unaware that prior to WW II there were two successful communist "revolutions" in Germany - one in Berlin and one in Munich. Europeans were very much aware of the communist threat from the east and from elements within their own countries. Nevertheless, Britain and the U.S. joined Stalin against nationalist sentiments and the result was an enormous expansion of Soviet control. In addition, Britain lost its empire and is now in danger of sinking under the weight of Third World immigration. The "victory" over nationalism in Germany was to be a victory over nationalism everywhere.
dewdly (anonymous profile)
March 28, 2015 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
many errors, deadly, I mean deadly: US entered WW II when Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, and Japan was allied with Nazi Germany so we were into it with den Deutschen, also. Sure, plenty of Ukrainians joined the Germans since 4-5 MILLION HAD BEEN MURDERED BY STALIN AND USSR! Yeah, sure, there were these Ger. "soviets" and Kurt Eisner was Pres. in Munich until he was murdered and the Weimar Republic took over. Also there was Bela Kun in Hungary, etc. USA joined UK early in Dec. 1941 and they HAD to ally with Stalin since Nazi Germany was winning.
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
March 28, 2015 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DavyBrown the historical expert can list all of the things the US did to provoke Japan into invading Pearl Harbor, now doubt?
loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 28, 2015 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
yeah, we were denying imperial Japan access to essential natural resources in the Pacific like oil and natural rubber; but dewdly's trying to say we "allied" with Stalin somehow because we admired his Holodomor actions....this is poppycock and more of his Hate USA baloney. USA hated Stalin and Soviet Communism; after Hitler betrayed Stalin and invaded Russia, and Japan pounded us at Pearl Harbor Dec. 7 1941 we were only "allied" on the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We honestly didn't care about Ukraine very much, and today it's the EU that wrestles with Putin's again-nationalistic Mother Russia stuff. Let's NOT send lethal aid to Kiev regime via NATO, but support EU sanctions and strengthen them.
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
March 28, 2015 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The same critics of Merkel and Obama's refusal to give Kiev lethal weapons vs. Putin are hammering Obama for his wish for peace with Iran and the framework nuke deal we just worked out in Switzerland. Neo-cons like Paul Wolfowitz [Jeb Bush camp], Paul Bolton (Ted Cruz camp) and other FOOLS who advised USA to invade Iraq in 2003 now stomp on this historic agreement with Iran. Rand Paul has abandoned his "no foreign wars" approach and in his ugly pursuit of the Repub. nomination has now joined the "let's make war" forces in the USA. http://touch.latimes.com/#section/527...
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 3, 2015 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Davy, there is no agreement with Iran. Barry just stopped sanctions against Iran, and got nothing, zip, nada in return. Plus Barry told Israel just a short time ago they were exaggerating Iran's threat anyway.
So which one is this, peace in our time, or a photo op vanity exercise for Valerie Jarrett as Barry runs out the clock on his failed administration.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 3, 2015 at 10:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry Jarv, I see a Nobel Peace Prize for this deal.
Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
April 3, 2015 at 11:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
agree H-G; some have reading comprehension problems: I wrote "framework" and no sanctions have been rescinded or lessened. Some guys just think if they LIE often enough a few will believe them. Aw, some just need some fish to shoot in a barrel. Jarvis-Narcissus.
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 4, 2015 at 1:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rather than “peace”, here’s what the nuclear deal with Iran has the world signed onto for the future:
http://www.conflictandhealth.com/cont...
Iran’s nuclear capability is likely closest to the bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: “A strike on Tel Aviv with two 15-kiloton weapons would potentially slaughter 17% of the population—nearly 230,000 people.”
But the Israelis have been at this much longer, and have the Jericho II ICBM, which could reach to Tehran, and carrying larger warheads:
“An Israeli attack on the Iranian capital of Tehran using five 500-kiloton weapons would, the study estimates, kill seven million people—86% of the population—and leave close to 800,000 wounded.” “A nuclear assault on the city of Arak, the site of a heavy water plant central to Iran's nuclear program, would potentially kill 93% of its 424,000 residents.”
Nobel “Peace” Prize? Why not? In perpetuity, even; after all, one was handed out a few years ago to someone with absolutely no qualifications for such an award.
nativeson (anonymous profile)
April 4, 2015 at 5:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Apparently some folks are reading only the headlines and not the actual lack of an actual agreement. There is none. Period.
But if Obama can get one Nobel for doing nothing there is no reason to stop the panel from rewarding a second award for zero either. And folks, I did vote for Obama one time so I have no initial personal bias to hate his stupidity and universally putting politics above substance just because he is Obama.
nomoresanity (anonymous profile)
April 4, 2015 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
WSJ has two excellent articles about this alleged Iran agreement if people want to get the real story behind the headlines today. Deal or no deal? No deal.
Barry just wants some photos Valerie Jarrett can hang on his presidential library walls. Which is exactly as long as this "agreement" will last. Everyone else sniffed the desperation of Barry's negotiating skills and used it to their full advantage.
No one is laughing a those 47 senators any longer. They put Iran on notice there will be consequences; not Barry who was just looking for the best camera angle.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 4, 2015 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nobel Peace Prize committee (not associated the Swedish Nobel Prizes for science and literature) recently tossed the idiots who gave Barry one more unearned participation trophy, while Barry caused a river of blood to flow across the Middle East and North Africa.
Barry just finished telling Israel they had nothing to worry about Iran having a nuclear bomb with their name on it. So what exactly did Barry deliver, if he already declared Iran was no threat to anyone? Add one more notch to Barry's belt holding up him mom jeans.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 4, 2015 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
buchanan schooled klannity bigtime on Iran......and i can't stand buchanan.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4148461780...
bibi has 200 plus nuclear warheads, Iran has zero. bibi has been playing the GOP for years to have our soldiers fight his battles for him.
lawdy (anonymous profile)
April 4, 2015 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Arms Control Association:
Israel has not publicly conducted a nuclear test, does not admit to or deny having nuclear weapons, and states that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
Nevertheless, Israel is universally believed to possess nuclear arms, although it is unclear how many weapons Israel possesses. The following arsenal estimates are based on the amount of fissile material—highly enriched uranium and plutonium—that each of the states is estimated to have produced. Fissile material is the key element for making nuclear weapons.
India and Israel are believed to use plutonium in their weapons, while Pakistan is thought to use highly enriched uranium.
India: Between 90-110 nuclear warheads.
Israel: Between 80-100 nuclear warheads, with fissile material for up to 200.
Pakistan: Between 100 to 120 nuclear warheads.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 4, 2015 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Arms Control Association:
Iran is pursuing a uranium-enrichment program and other projects that could provide it with the capability to produce bomb-grade fissile material and develop nuclear weapons within the next several years.
Iran: No known weapons or sufficient fissile material stockpiles to build weapons.
However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the institution charged with verifying that states are not illicitly building nuclear weapons, concluded in 2003 that Iran had undertaken covert nuclear activities to establish the capacity to indigenously produce fissile material.
The IAEA is continuing its investigation and monitoring of Tehran’s nuclear program.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 4, 2015 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Backing the Libyan “rebels” was wrong; backing the “Arab Spring” was wrong; backing the anti-Assad rebels in Syria was wrong, and this deal with Iran is extremely wrong and portends yet more evil from Iran’s creepy regime.
nativeson (anonymous profile)
April 4, 2015 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You will enjoy reading more about Iran's curious nuclear power history with its long-time partner Russia. Iran is under pre-existing agreements to ship all its spent fuel back to Russia, for disposal or "re-processing".
So Barry just agreed to support Russia's nuclear power industry. Vlad is glad. And so too is Germany's Siemen's manufacturing industry, who apparently was needed to make Iranian nuclear systems seismic proof in the past.
G5+1 partners were not exactly neutral in this "understanding" and we know China always wins, no matter what. Barry gets a photo op, but the US does not get much more.
And Israel gets nothing at all. US campuses rejoice at the thought, which have become quite anti-Semitic of late. Part of the Anti-Privilege, Anti-Patriarchy, Anti-Colonialism and Anti-Israel indoctrination running rampant on college campuses now. Oy.
World Nuclear Organization history of nuclear power in Iran: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Cou...
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 4, 2015 at 7:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
incorrect, Israel does tacitly acknowledge that it possesses nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them around the Middle East and beyond. lawdy mentions "200+ nuclear warheads" for the IDF; I do not think Israel is any immediate trouble. If they really thought so, the Iranian program would be blown out already including the Arak reactor. Peace with the Persians is the best for Israel in the long run, as many Israelis believe.
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 6, 2015 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Davy, Israel acknowledges nothing. No one is saying they have 200 warheads and Lawdy was quickly proven to be an unreliable blowhard.
Persians peace with the rest of the world is the best policy in the long run, not Peace with Persians. They were the ones who chose to go rogue, Davy, not the other way around.
I see no evidence Iran is sincere in their efforts to belong to the larger global community. They won't need permission or an "understanding" when they finally decide to take a new course of action. They will just do it. Right now they are content to be brats and use their oil to hostage anyone who comes within their sphere.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 6, 2015 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's quite common knowledge that Israel possesses between 150 and 300 nuclear warheads, some posters need to wake up and smell the coffee: http://www.theatlantic.com/internatio...
While NO supporter of the Ayatollahs, the USA's CIA had the democratically elected President of Iran, Mossadeghe, murdered in 1953; we installed the Shah in power and his SAVAK viciously persecuted Iranians for many years. The Iranians did not "choose to go rogue" on their own, unfortunately. We need to deal with them. Let's see how the framework of this potential agreement works out.
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 7, 2015 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Arms Control Assn:
Non-NPT Nuclear Weapons Possessors:
Three states—India, Israel, and Pakistan—never joined the NPT and are known to possess nuclear weapons.
Israel has not publicly conducted a nuclear test, does not admit to or deny having nuclear weapons, and states that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Nevertheless, Israel is universally believed to possess nuclear arms, although it is unclear how many weapons Israel possesses.
The following arsenal estimates are based on the amount of fissile material—highly enriched uranium and plutonium—that each of the states is estimated to have produced.
Fissile material is the key element for making nuclear weapons. India and Israel are believed to use plutonium in their weapons, while Pakistan is thought to use highly enriched uranium.
India: Between 90-110 nuclear warheads.
Israel: Between 80-100 nuclear warheads, with fissile material for up to 200.
Pakistan: Between 100 to 120 nuclear warheads.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 7, 2015 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Atlantic Mag: Former President Jimmy Carter said so in 2008 and again this year, in interviews and speeches in which he pegged the number of Israel’s nuclear warheads at 150 to around 300.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 7, 2015 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
2013 :Israel possesses some 80 nuclear warheads — rather fewer than once thought, and lower than the nuclear arsenal of countries that are officially in possession of atomic weapons — according to the new 2013 yearbook put out by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), a leading think tank on global security issues.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 7, 2015 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So we have varying reports from 80-100-300 nuclear warheads just for Israel, where we have some degree of an existing relationship.
And you actually believe you are going to know what is going on in Iran, who already has a clear track record of lying and avoiding all regulatory inspections. Great place to start bargaining a "framework" from.
This is hardly Barry's finest hour. But it will make one heck of a photo op for his presidential library with his own patronizing narrative underneath it once he gets to yet again write his own "autobiography". I hear Bill Ayers is sharpening up his #2 pencils as we speak.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 7, 2015 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jarvis, its killing you inside that barry soetero hussein kenya pulled off another win with iran deal and put another flatspot on your forehead.
damn, that's funny.
lawdy (anonymous profile)
April 7, 2015 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Barry got nothing out of this deal, which is not even a deal yet and probably never will be. He got a photo op for his rabid fans trying to turn it into something it is not. Russia walked off with all the potential prizes being able to re-establish their long relationship in the nuclear fuel game. Maybe you didn't know this?
G5+1 can't stand Barry Soetoro and Iran is having grave doubts as well. They even want the US Congress to approve the final deal, because they don't trust him. But this is as good as is gets for you Soetoro fans so cheer away. You will have to settle for whatever crumbs fall your way.
But now that I have your attention, when will Barry approve nuclear reactors to meet our own US clean and safe energy needs. Gasp, you mean he will not?
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 7, 2015 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)
the 1 in the G5+1 is Germany, and despite NSA spying on her phone, Merkel is still firmly with our twice-elected President...together, just these two have managed to stop NATO from giving more lethal "tank-killer" missiles to the Kiev pro-Western regime. The Poles, the Baltic States, some Czechs, the Netherlands, others in NATO want to arm-up Kiev, but Obama and Merkel still prefer dickering...smart moves. Same issue is with these IRAN negotiations -- having Israel bomb the sh!t out of Iran and Natanz and their other known sites (inc. Arak reactor) is preferable??! You are joking; most who live on the ground in Israel hate this alternative. It means that later when the Iranians or whoever get nukes they'll just use them immediately on Israel. This is smart how???? No, trade land for peace, like trading the Sinai to Egypt.
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 5:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
But land isn't just an idea. Once traded, what guarantees are there that it won't be used to launch further attacks into Israel? None, or even if there would be all sorts of guarantees, it has been noted in the past that human beings have a tendency to lie, especially when dealing with something or someone they don't like.
"Palestinians" are Hamas, Hezbollah, or whoever is backing them, not the majority of people who simply want to live in peace and quiet.
nativeson (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 6:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Barry in his typical unscripted eloquence to the rescue: "What we will be doing even as we enter this deal is sending a very clear message to the Iranians and the entire region that is anyone messes with Israel, America will be there."
WSJ today spends the next 10 paragraphs trying to deconstruct what the heck Barry just said. One more example of Barry looking us directly in the eye and lying with words and hollow gestures signifying nothing, other than starring in the momentary theater of his own mind.
I also think the phone is off the hook in Yemen and elsewhere and they probably did not get his message.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
About the Iranians supporting rebels in Yemen while the US negotiates with them about atomic energy, John Kerry said: "the United States could “do two things at the same time.” and that: " the United States is not going to stand by while the region is destabilized."
He argued that the United States could help push back against Iranian attempts to project its influence around the region, while at the same time rewarding Tehran for providing guarantees that it was not building nuclear weapons." End of quotes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/wor...
Yeah, seeking promises from and rewarding an avowed enemy has always worked, hasn't it? What could possibly go wrong?
nativeson (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
nativeson, you don't answer my key query: so in the aftermath of an Israeli strike on Iranian nuke facilities (let's say we also let them use our bunker-buster bombs they need) what then...? Israel continues to hunker down, its leaders needlessly alienating the USA and turning American Jews more and more to J Street, Israel becomes even more of a military democracy and turns the West Bank into another hell-hole like Gaza? Many Israelis with young kids don't find this picture appealing or very secure.
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Barry lied about the deal of the century? I am shocked:
"Iran has described an agreement to curb its nuclear program as “not acceptable” days after the United States hailed the new framework deal.
Following the announcement of a framework accord that the United States described as a major step in rolling back Iran’s nuclear work, leaders in Tehran began to accuse the Obama administration of lying about the deal’s parameters."
(Washington Free Beacon)
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
DavyBrown: there is no answer to war, you know that. Besides, I'm not advocating war betwixt the two nations (or any more than that), but I see absolutely no use in lying about "trying to patch things up" with Iran by promoting a phony deal and lying about it to the American public---actually lying about it to the international public.
Two things are possible: either Kerry et al are completely and totally naïve and simply don't understand that the Iranians are lying devils, or they know that they only want the "deal" so they can get to manufacturing a-bombs faster and are enabling them to do just that. Take your pick.
To hell with the Satanic Ayatollahs and their ilk. Clamp down tighter on the sanctions.
nativeson (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree, clamp down tighter on the sanctions and don't begin reducing them until we're satisfied with complete verification. But you are actually advocating "war", native, since rejection of the framework plan means Israel will have to hit Iran, you know that, don't prevaricate on this. REad what that idiot Netanyahu, the would-be faux Moses, has said repeatedly.
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What was the lie?
Here's how the BBC, as opposed to the ridiculously biased right-wing sheet from which some people prefer to take their ideological sustenance, presents the story:
"Ayatollah Khamenei has decided to sit on the fence, for the time being. He says he will neither endorse or reject the agreement.
A lot of details will have to be dealt with, he says, before the preliminary agreement from last week will turn into a final agreement at the end of June - the deadline the two sides have set themselves for a comprehensive solution to Iran's nuclear problem.
But by not rejecting it, he has, in effect, consented to the premise of the agreement - that Iran would limit its nuclear activities in return for the lifting of sanctions. And that is a major step for the hardliners in Iran, including the country's leader."
This seems closer to the truth than the misleadingly triumphant nonsense with which reality-challenged ideologues need constantly to soothe themselves.
pk (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
absolutely correct, pk; and there was jubilation among middle-class pro-Western Iranians who just want to better their lives economically.
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well if you prefer BBC narrative (pre-digested analysis) over direct quotes, that is your choice pk. Why defend the indefensible. Looking for enough sugar coating to make this turkey palatable is good enough for you?
Okay. Get where you are coming from. Meanwhile, history marches on. Barry's legacy of looking us directly in the eye and lying directly to our faces continues.
(Trigger: No real turkeys nor the country of Turkey were harmed in this comment. Yet.)
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well if you prefer BBC narrative (pre-digested Leftist analysis) over direct quotes, that is your choice pk. Why defend the indefensible. Looking for enough sugar coating to make this turkey palatable is good enough for you?
Okay. Get where you are coming from. Meanwhile, history marches on. Barry's legacy of looking us directly in the eye and lying directly to our faces continues.
(Trigger: No real turkeys nor the country of Turkey were harmed in this comment. Yet.)
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
such an ignoramus: if pk's citation had been to the UK's GUARDIAN maybe the leftist epithet fits, but it does not fit the BBC. sheesh.
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Reminder, it didn't take an agreement for Iran to become a responsible nuclear nation. They could have done this on their own at any time. Their "jubilation" came because their dear leaders claimed the sanctions were being lifted immediately. Liars meet liars - not a plan for a good future.
I do agree, "pro-Western middle class Iranians" deserve better from their own government. But it is their government who needs to provide this for them and they need to make internal changes themselves on their own.
How novel - personal responsibility. How Western. Except they have to check with us to see if we approve their appropriation of our cultural values.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Still waiting for the direct quote showing Obama's supposed lie.
pk (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Barry Soetoro:
Today, after many months of tough principle diplomacy, we have achieved the framework for that deal. And it is a good deal, a deal that meets our core objectives.
This framework would cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
pk, there will be no verification from JJ about the supposed "lie"; Jarv lies himself so he really has lost his compass and just throws out big lie after big lie, kinda dull, really.
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Which part of that statement is a lie? A framework was indeed reached. So that isn't a lie. Obama believes it was a good deal. So unless you can show that he doesn't really believe that, then that isn't a lie either. The framework is indeed designed to cut off pathways to an Iranian nuclear weapon. So describing it in that way also isn't a lie.
The only damage here would be to your own credibility, if you had any. And if anyone had any doubt, the fact that you seem to think referring to Obama as "Barry Soetero" scores some sort of point reveals the sorry level at which you're operating.
pk (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
look, pk, you're just one of the minnows he like to skewer in his "I like to shoot fish in a barrel" favorite comment...he's just jerking himself off...ignore. The fact is, let's see if we can get a verifiable deal, then Congress can vote on THAT later, this is how our Constitution works.
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some arguments are not worth fighting. I don't have enough Kool-Aid on my side. You win.
"The framework would cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapons" ranks right up there with Barry's Obamacare lies, his Al Qaeda lies, his Benghazi lies, his RedLine lies his "auto-biography" lies, etc, etc, etc, All washed away and off the books with enough Obot Kool-Aid. I concede. President Pinocchio is all yours.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Called on to show how Obama's statement is a lie, JJ can't, so he simply repeats that it is because it is, then backs away, tossing up as much additional nonsense as he can, hoping no one will notice how pointless his arguments always end up being.
pk (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Zut alors! Even the French are now claiming Barry's Fact sheet differs from their understanding of the Iran "framework":
The use of the more advanced IR-2 and IR-4 centrifuges, as permitted according to the French fact sheet, would enable Iran to more rapidly accumulate the highly enriched uranium needed to build nuclear weapons, accelerating its breakout time to the bomb.
The French fact sheet also specifies that Iran will be allowed to continue R&D work on the advanced IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges, the last of which can enrich uranium at 20-times the speed of Iran’s current IR-1 centrifuges, whereas the American parameters are less specific.
Differences between the texts issued by Paris and Washington also extend to the question of inspection and supervision of Iran’s activities, with the French document indicating that the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, will be able to visit any suspect site in Iran — so-called “anywhere, anytime” access — whereas the US document is less far-reaching.
The two documents also differ in their terminology as regards the scale and timing of sanctions relief as the deal takes effect.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DavyBrown, maybe Israel will knock out the heavy water plant at Arak, but I'd put more stock in what the Mossad might do than the IDF.
Accidents do happen, you know.
nativeson (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Too much to hope that you really would move on to one of the many Indy items on which you daily bless the world with your endless gleeful irrelevancies and misdirected comments. Raising a different set of issues changes absolutely nothing about your revealing inability to show that anything about Obama's statement as quoted by you is a lie, which makes you either ignorant or a liar. To quote Lou Reed, since I don't have to choose, I guess I won't.
pk (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oh I'm all for that, native, I hope several "glitches" mysteriously pop up in their program...a nice way out, too...only, how can Mossad or the IDF know they got all of it, eh??
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
But that's true of almost everything, especially in the Mideast, where the Bazaar (bizarre?) mentality must always be something to consider.
You never know who has an ace up his sleeve.
nativeson (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, and the IDF has about 150 - 200 nuclear "aces" up THEIR sleeve so perhaps we shouldn't be so terribly concerned about their security, eh? And sure, in a few months or so Bibi and the IDF will administer yet another bloody "lawn mowing" in Gaza or West Bank...they've done this 3x in 6 years: lovely. THESE kinds of killings are part, not all, of the cause for the rapidly increasing antii-Semitism on earth.
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, the easy way out of having to watch all those old people, women and children being killed is to not use them as human shields, as does Hamas, which among other barbaric atrocities has a great deal to do with the rapidly increasing hostility toward ALL Muslims on this earth.
nativeson (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2015 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
fantastic: now we have increasing Islamophobia, increasing anti-Semitism, increasing Chinese and Russian Federation aggressions, the Congress hammers the President and Legislative Branch tries to curb executive powers delegated to Pres. by the Constitution...what a topsy-turvy world, & the western empire fades, and NATO weakens... Stronger US intervention on Kiev's side via NATO would likely cause huge blowback, Putin's as likely to "double down" on force as he is to fall back in fear...he WANTS confrontation like a lot of bullies & thugs. Nativeson said this with hhis query, "have you never known a guy who will try to needle you into a fight?" What Putin wants is to rattle and destabilize the EU's solidarity. NB Bulgaria's President will NOT attend the formal Red Army May Day parade in Moscow, Merkel isn't going to the big parade either...good EU solidarity in this.
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2015 at 4:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I do not see any rising "Islamophobia". I do see that in-spite of a repeated and perpetual campaign to tell us that all of the terrorists that are Islamic, the vast majority of them, are just terrorists that only happen to be Muslim, that the strange and linear relationship between being a Muslim and being barbaric keeps escalating. Calling honest acknowledgement of who is committing terror a type of religious phobia is beyond intellectually dishonest.
Some defect in Islam nurtures a significant number of people that are barbaric and sub human and no other major religion propagates this type of sickness in the modern era.
nomoresanity (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2015 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
it was nativeson, nomore, who wrote about "the rapidly increasing hostility toward ALL Muslims on this earth[.]" 4/9 1:57pm -- and he is correct for the most part. When some desperate down-and-outers commit terrorist acts and clothe the justification in Islamic rhetoric, this has led to a big increase in Islamophobia, at least in Europe and USA. Didn't realize nomore is an expert on world religions when he writes about "Some defect in Islam" ... then is there a "defect" in Judaism because the Israeli State holds conquered and colonized people down in Gaza and in West Bank? I don't think so, it's fearful powerhungy politicians, who happen to be Jewish, running that government: Netanyahu, A. Lieberman, men who spill the blood of 500 Gazan children. Anti-Semitism is on the rise because of Israel's bIoody repression. AND the repeated failures of heavy IDF killing in Gaza do show us that more killing in Ukraine won't help there, either.
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2015 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
now we learn from NYRevBooks Tim Judah that Frau Merkel WILL consider letting NATO arm-up Kiev forces with lethal tank-killer missiles if the pro-Russian separatists do attack Mariupol on the Sea of Azov... Putin then has to accept heavy losses and repercussions at home. Does he double down or back away...do bears ever back away?
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 20, 2015 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Judah's reports on Ukraine are always worth reading and this latest one that DavyBrown references is particularly alarming with regard to the expansionist sentiments expressed by Putin's minions in the Russian-controlled regions.
The dangers of further escalation and an eventual proxy war between Russia and the West (in some ways similar to the one now underway in the Middle East between those backing Sunni vs, Shi'a factions) are very real.
zappa (anonymous profile)
April 20, 2015 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What's expansionist about taking Putin back the Crimea which always was part of Russia, after they voted to be taken back along with a few border towns where both Russian language and culture are also their permanent heritage? Sound more humanitarian than expansionist to me.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 20, 2015 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Read the article in the NYRB , JarvisJarvis (or is it "JabbaJabba" with that twisted syntax of yours?) Warning: It's long and contains many BIG words.
One of your Putinistas is quoted about the goal of "recreation of a Russian state that would eventually take in everything that had once belonged to pre-revolutionary, imperial Russia. That would mean most of modern Ukraine and the three Baltic states." There, I did your work for you, but read the article anyway. You may learn something not found in two paragraph, simplistic summaries found in your usual news sources on the web.
zappa (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2015 at 5:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
zappa, if you let unattributed quotes drive your foreign policy concerns be sure to include "Death to the USA" and "Death to Israel" that Barry Soetoro is now willing to embrace too.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2015 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
zappa knew you couldn't handle the Judah article in NYRB: too many complex terms and different info from what you get on Breitbart.
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 22, 2015 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Now that winter passes, the Ukraine combat intensifies once again. Zappa is correct that Putin wants Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia "back" since they were once Soviet Socialist Republics -- and THEY hated it and are very grateful for NATO membership and protection. Poland feels the same way. We've just witnessed a convoy of 21,000 NATO soldiers parading through some of these areas simply to show Putin NATO still has teeth, and likely to piss him off. Something has to give here...
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2015 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)