Preannouncing Failure In Mideast

Matching outfits

Obama unveils “don’t ask don’t tell” policy for Iranian nukes.

Obama said he hasn’t seen the kind of progress in negotiations that “could finally create a framework for a secure Israel living side by side in peace with a sovereign Palestine.

Six weeks ago :

UNITED NATIONS — Exhorting world leaders to push past years of cynicism and pessimism, President Barack Obama challenged the countries of the United Nations on Thursday to unite around peace efforts that he said could achieve agreement within a year to create an independent Palestine and a secure Israel.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Preannouncing Failure In Mideast

  1. R. de Haan says:

    Prepare for a domino effect toppling the US backed regimes and a big war.
    The more confident Iran gets the more the risks for war will rise.

    Arabs and Persians only respect strength and power.

    The acts of a wimpy double speak President sends the wrong signals to our enemies and our allies.

    The Middle East will blow up in his face.

    • James Sexton says:

      Most of them, though, understand that he’s a lame duck with only 2 years left in office. He’s lost the ability to represent the U.S. in foreign diplomacy.

  2. peterhodges says:

    he is only saying what his israeli masters told him to say

  3. peterhodges says:

    nothing about iran in the article. maybe you meant continuing don’t ask don’t tell regarding israels nukes

    anyway i suspect israel has worked something out with the mullahs given the dial back in warmongering lately…have to google who exactly said it, but israel even stated the that they did not have a problem with bushehr because it was just a power station under international monitoring.

    and i think our so-called midlde east policy problems go back a ways

  4. peterhodges says:

    steve, do you also believe that iraq was pursuing WMD back in 2003? or that they supported al qaeda? or were responsible for 911?

    • There must have been some reason why Bill Clinton and the UN chose to starve half a million Iraqi children over WMD sanctions. You tell me.

      When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.

      … many say that, although president Bush led this invasion, that president Clinton laid the groundwork with the sanctions and with the previous bombing of Iraq. You were president Clintons U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations…. the U.N. sanctions, for example … led to the deaths of more than a half a million children, not to mention more than a million Iraqis.

      Governor Richardson: Well, I stand behind the sanctions. I believe that they successfully contained Saddam Hussein. I believe that the sanctions were an instrument of our policy. [Emphasis Added]

      To ask a question that was asked of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright, do you think the price was worth it, 500,000 children dead?

      Governor Richardson: Well, I believe our policy was correct, yes

    • James Sexton says:

      Peter, a question. What is mustard gas?

      • peterhodges says:

        i am not sure if you are kidding, but it gave me laugh

        i don’t think anyone argues we were after the mustard gas 😉

      • James Sexton says:

        Really Peter? WMD is now specifically what? Is mustard gas less lethal than other WMD? Were we to trust Saddam with the gas but not other WMD? Are you saying it(the invasion) would have been ok if we’d found other forms of WMD, or that mustard gas is somehow more acceptable when only used on Kurds?

        The fact is, we didn’t go there to find the stuff, we went there to prevent a madman from possessing the stuff. And we did. All the rest of the BS is simply partisan hindsight and envy from the other side because they lack the fortitude to make such decisions.

  5. Bruce Ryan says:

    matching outfits= priceless!

    there is a bit of the population that believes in him, God bless em.

  6. peterhodges says:

    as far as i am concerned bill clinton is just another mass murderer in the pay of the owning class

    i did ask about 2003, not 1991, 1994, or 1999.

  7. James Sexton says:

    Of course the irony is, because of all the partisan attacks against Bush and his policies towards Iraq, now this nation lacks the political will to confront the area’s potential powder keg and stand idly by while a group of terrorists obtain nuclear weapons and delivery systems. To all that participated in that “politics over country” madness, you should get down on your knees and thank God every day and night there are people in this country that can rise above punditry and actually do things necessary to keep this nation safe. Listening to squirrels of such ilk makes me wonder about the future of this nation, to paraphrase Merle.

    • peterhodges says:

      so i gather you bought the “iraq/n is a threat” line.

      i am not sure if a lack of political will has anything to do with partisanship, from what i can tell it comes from more people waking up to the fact that the government lies, and that policy never changes regardless of who holds what office. as if those in government even remotely consider what the people think.

      it’s all about $$$$

      debt and war are the twin pillars of the one party state.

      • James Sexton says:

        Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein was a threat. He’d proved it several times in the past. You want to disagree about us going, that’s fine and your prerogative. But given his history, his complete rejection of diplomacy, and his rhetoric, we can be certain he posed a danger to American interests. Today, he does not. Neither does Iraq nor the people of Iraq. I maintain, the U.S. and its interests are safer today than they were before we took Saddam out. I think the people of Iraq are better off today. At least they control their own destiny. I believe the region is safer.

        Consider, while Saddam was in power, there was always a certain fear, and a certain knowledge that he would once again invade another country. Be it Iran or Kuwait or some other nation. All in a very unstable area of the world with U.S. allies and interests in the midst of the area. While the place is still a quagmire, the area, no, the world is a bit better off without that tyrannical despot.

  8. peterhodges says:

    thanks james, i appreciate the civil effort to explain your position and i understand where you are coming from.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s