Increase the meds...and who left the door unlocked?
Posted on 05/08/2015 6:29:59 AM PDT by Dave346
GEORGE MITCHELL: ...So, the sanctions, which are the reason that Iran is at the table, which are effective because they're universal, not just unilateral U.S. sanctions, we'll go from universal to unilateral and therefore from effective to ineffective.
And what they will accomplish is the exact opposite of what they say they want: Iran then with a clear path to the bomb and the U.S. Congress having sidelined an agreement that was entered into by six major countries in the world.
CHRIS MATTHEWS, host: Take it a step further. I know you've done this in your head. I think the enemies of this deal, of this negotiation, want it to go that far. They want us to bomb Iran, kill any chance of rapprochement between our countries for decades to come. Killing it, because their biggest fear, and this includes Putin and the hawks in Israel and the hawks in Saudi Arabia.
Their biggest fear is that somehow Iran will settle down, it will become a regular country, but a powerful country. And it's in their interests that Iran not become a powerful country, even if it's tamed. They don't want it to be powerful. They want us to be at war with Iran and they want to try to destroy Iran. Tell me why that doesn't -- Putin isn't he even more afraid of an Iran-American friendship than he is of a nuclear-armed Iran? Doesn't he fear most that? Don't the Saudis fear that?
They're afraid of an old Iran like the Shah where we did get along with them? Am I being an extremist in my thinking?
MITCHELL, with nervous laughter: Ah, ha ha ha, I don't know.
MATTHEWS: Because I think they're out for real trouble, the enemies of this deal.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Since when has Chrissy ever gone on a “sane” rant?
If NewsBusters didn’t pay attention to MSLSD, they’d have no viewers. They’re in the middle of a big revamp anyway, which will fail too.
He thinks the Mullahs of Iran will “settle down” and become a real country. Such a dunderhead. The man is incapable of rational thought.
Which is different from what he usually does?
Chrisy==tin foil hatter.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
Patrick Henry
My God this man is insane...what does he even mean, and where did he get such a ridiculous idea?
He made more scene when he was trashed on booze,now all we get is the slobering,spittle infused remnants
Increase the meds...and who left the door unlocked?
Let me remind every one of a little bit of history. When Neville Chamberlain came back to the UK, waving that infamous piece of paper, saying that he has just gotten “PEACE IN OUR TIMES”, there were a few politicians in the UK who called this agreement what it was, a piece of surrender paper. Need I remind every one of WINSTON CHURCHILL? He, Winston, called this what it was, and said that all it will bring was WAR. The lamee stream media of that time villified Winston Churchill, but he was proven right. This will also happen with this agreement. All it will bring is WAR
Yes, by a huge margin. The man (Matthews) has lost his mind to think that while Iran still says "America is the great Satan and death to Israel" can be trusted with any deal. Does this man never see the rhetoric coming from Iran?
Has he not seen Iran pirate a USA protected Marshall Island flagged commercial ship in just the last week? Has he not seen Iran taunting American warships in just a couple days? Does he have NO research staff? Does he have no knowledge of how the Mullahs have broken every deal ever attempted?
This so-called commentator needs to be locked in a padded cell. He's gone insane in with his devotion to liberal causes. BTW, include John (I was in Cambodia on x-mas) Kerry and Obambi with him. If allowed, Iran is going to start a nuclear build-up in the Middle East. THE very last thing the world needs.
It is daily S O P
I need to understand this.
There are universal sanctions which is keeping Iran from getting a bomb.
If we remove all sanctions, let Iran keep their centrifuges and tell them they can build a bomb if they choose to in 10 years, Iran will not build a bomb. However if we put unilateral sanctions on Iran, they will build a bomb.
Riiiiiiiiiiight!
Did this guy even pass the 10th grade? What a moronic thing to say. If he could see pass his liberal looking glasses, he would realize a "regular country" could be a trading partner and create jobs for both and wealth for both. That will never happen as long as the terror-exporting Mullahs of Iran are in charge.
Then he says, "And it's in their interests that Iran not become a powerful country, even if it's tamed". So tell us Matthews, how DO you tame a nuclear power that is intent on destroying Israel and Western civilization in general? They say it almost monthly.
Its not ridiculous, Multilateralism vs unilateralism is one of the defining issues of US foreign policy in the post cold war period.
The cold war created a bilateral world(US&USSR), so when that ends does the world become unilateral or multilateral.
Look at the issue as being dependent on foreign policy doctrine.
NeoCon Republicans are unilateralists. The US is/was the last remaining super power after the soviet collapse, there fore the US is the world hegemon to provide the world order, which is a hierarchy of power with the US at the top. Multilateralism is undesirable and multilateral orgs like the UN or NATO prevent the world order. Multilateralism is weakness, leading from behind.
Liberal Interventionist democrats acknowledge that the US is the superpower, but should always act multilaterally, to give the US international consensus, to avoid a go-it-alone, cowboy foreign policy.
Realists, composed of republicans and democrats, acknowledge that multilateralsm is desirable, but if a course of action is in the US's interest, and a multilateral agreement can't be reached, then the US should act unilaterally. The Realists also say that if a particular course of action is not in the US's interest, then the US should not act, even if it offends or undermines our multilateral allies.
So, apply that to the P5 plus one negotiations.
But in the real world, policy and doctrine are often trumped by the lobbyists, so what does the Israeli lobby want. Or Wall Street/banks. Or the defense contractors. Or oil and gas.
Open Mic Catches Obama Asking Medvedev for Space on Missile Defense
March 26, 2012
"In a private conversation about the planned U.S.-led NATO missile defense system in Europe, President Barack Obama asked outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for space on the issue.
“This is my last election,” Obama told Medvedev. “After my election I have more flexibility.”
“I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” Medvedev said, referring to incoming President Vladimir Putin."
http://fox8.com/2012/03/26/open-mic-catches-obama-asking-medvedev-for-space-on-missile-defense/
__________________________________________________
Obama was talking with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev when neither of them realized that their conversation was being picked up by microphones. Here is what they said:
Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space.”
Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you ...”
Obama: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”
Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”
“This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” That statement tells us much about the president’s mindset.
The specific mention of missile defense is worrisome enough. Mr. Obama has retreated from the missile defense plan that was negotiated with European allies during the George W. Bush administration. Apparently, he is signaling Moscow that he intends to retreat further. The clear implication from the president’s comments is that he cannot tell the American people before the election what he plans to do after the election.
In addition, there is the phrase “on all these issues,” implying more is at stake than just missile defense.”
Article: Obama plans double cross on missile defense
When it comes to keeping America safe, we shouldn’t be too flexible:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/29/obama-plans-double-cross-on-missile-defense/print/
F. Michael Maloof|April 09, 2012
WASHINGTON – The Russian military anticipates that an attack will occur on Iran by the summer and has developed an action plan to move Russian troops through neighboring Georgia to stage in Armenia, which borders on the Islamic republic, according to informed Russian sources.
Russian Security Council head Viktor Ozerov said that Russian General Military Headquarters has prepared an action plan in the event of an attack on Iran.
Dmitry Rogozin, who recently was the Russian ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, warned against an attack on Iran. ..."
[snip] I think the enemies of this deal, of this negotiation, want it to go that far. They want us to bomb Iran, kill any chance of rapprochement between our countries for decades to come. Killing it, because their biggest fear, and this includes Putin and the hawks in Israel and the hawks in Saudi Arabia... Putin isn't he even more afraid of an Iran-American friendship than he is of a nuclear-armed Iran? [/snip]IOW, what is is FR nick?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.