Monday, April 6, 2015

The World is in Danger! Bad "Deals" mean Bad News!!

United States President Barack Hussein Obama is a young man. I'm old. I'm almost old enough to be his mother. OK, not quite but he certainly is a different generation from me. I grew up watching the news and reading newspapers. I remember things that are from history books for his generation. This, besides lots of other things, gives me a very different perspective on what is happening in the world.

I may have lost (misplaced) my new kosher for Passover toothbrush and toothpaste, which are easy to replace, but I'll never forget the overconfidence and complete misreading of the threat and effectiveness of the Vietcong versus the well-equipped modern American armed forces. Those scrappy ill-equipped guerrilla-fighters defeated the Americans in more ways than one.

So when I see headlines like "Obama: Iran Can’t Fight Us, Iran: Death to America,"
“Iran’s defense budget is $30 billion. Our defense budget is closer to $600 billion,” Obama tells Thomas Friedman. “Iran understands that they cannot fight us.” (Daniel Greenfield, Front Page Mag)
I have no doubt that the United States is in big trouble. To me this is a major case of deja vu. Is Obama really too young, or just too closed-minded, to remember the scenes of the Americans fleeing Vietnam?

To think that the USA is so foolish that it hasn't learned anything is truly frightening. The entire world is in danger because of this ridiculous "deal!"


Leah said...

Gut moed, Batya. It's got nothing to do with memory or anything like that. He's too busy trying to figure out where he made his mistake when he said there are 57 states in the US....
This man has his head buried so far up a new way to bow down in subservience to evil nations that he can't come up for air to care about anyone. That is the truth- he does not care ...keep saying it over and over again, he does not care...he does not care...
He wants to do business with the evil is his goal- his agenda...

NormanF said...

Tom Friedman is a well-known pro-Israel journalist.

That's part of the reason Obama picked him for this interview.

If you don't get my sense of humor, what I said won't probably get your attention.

I'm hoping it does since this charm offense concocted between this mutual admiration society of Obama and Friedman is nothing like what they represent.

bobbyd said...

You, like so many others think our WH Occupant is a loyal, patriotic American. Sorry, but you and SOOOOOO many others are badly mistaken. His parents were small 'c' communists as have been all his friends and mentors except for those who were/are race bigots. For a short course on 'him' watch Dinish D'Souza's DVD's for the short course. He's neither stupid nor crazy. He's been carefully educated and trained for this job and he's succeeded beyond 'their' wildest dreams. He's got a little less than 2 years to go, so be afraid, very afraid:-((((((

Batya said...

Leah and Norman, agree. Bobby yes he is dangerous and the ignorancr and stupidity of American voters endanger the world.

Sammy Finkelman said...

46 minutes of Obama trying to sell vaporware:


Thomas Friedman Op-ed column written as a result of the interview:

The big difference that Obama has with Netanyahu is not over whether Iran wants a bomb or would violate the agreement.

Obama is perfectly prepared to concede both of these points might be true.

The big difference is that Netanyahu is not prepared to rely on nuclear deterrence to prevent Iran from using an atomic bomb.

To Netanyahu, for Iran to have a BOMB is already UNACCEPTABLE.

Caveat: It might be acceptable to Netanyahu if Iran would forswear the destruction of Israel.

After all, Pakistan does not have a policy of destroying India.

While North Korea occasionally threatens vague things, it never promises war on South Korea.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Obama: The notion that Iran is undeterrable — “it’s simply not the case.

“And so for us to say, ‘Let’s try’ — understanding that we’re preserving all our options, that we’re not naïve — but if in fact we can resolve these issues diplomatically, we are more likely to be safe, more likely to be secure, in a better position to protect our allies,

And who knows? Iran may change.

If it doesn’t, our deterrence capabilities, our military superiority stays in place. …

We’re not relinquishing our capacity to defend ourselves or our allies. In that situation, why wouldn’t we test it?”

In other words, Obama is arguing there’s no downside.

Also, that he completely believes in the power of deterrence.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Not only would this deal probably be bad, if it existed, the deal itself is a hoax. It's vaporware.

Reading some of the stories is like reading something out of the Onion.

Do you know they were negotiating using a white board, so that the Iranian delegation would not have to contact Teheran for instructions, because if they did, they’d probably tell them not to agree to something?

I'm not sure what Kerry's plan was: For their interlocuters to sneak the final agreement past Ali Khamenei and get his approval in the dark in the middle of the night, after first fooling a few trusted aides?

"...The board served a major diplomatic purpose, letting both sides consider proposals without putting anything on paper.

That allowed the Iranians to talk without sending a document back to Tehran for review, where hard-liners could chip away at it, according to several American officials interviewed for this article, who all spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

“It was a brilliantly low-tech solution,” one White House official said. (It also had its drawbacks. One American wrote on it with a regular marker, then had to scrub hard to wipe out some classified numbers.) "

See also: diplomacy-permanent-marker-sparks-panic-at-the-iran-talks

The whiteboard appealed to the Iranian team “because if they get paper, they’ve got to take it back to Tehran”, the State Department official said.

Kerry had his own version committed to paper to consult on the go….

….It was not lost on American diplomats, that the Iranian statement hit the press before the State Department’s fact sheet. Nor has it gone unnoticed that the two statements have a different twist on what happened.

“We understood we would have different narratives, but we wouldn’t contradict each other,” the State Department official said."

Sammy Finkelman said...

This says that Iran issued only a non-legally binding “press release” of guidelines for an agreement that said the U.S. – that’s where Congress comes in – and the European Union will immediately lift sanctions imposed on financial, banking, insurance, investment and all services related to oil, gas, petrochemicals and car industry, and the United Nations shall abrogate its previous resolutions.

And in return Iran shall arrange things so that it is able to (“qader khahad boud” in Farsi) reduce the number of its centrifuges in Fordow and stop enrichment there for 15 years, and the nuclear facilities at Fordow shall be developed into a center for nuclear research and advanced Physics.

That research will evidentaly include continuing on with plans for advanced centrifuges.

Batya said...

Sammy, thanks!