–The Neville Chamberlain lesson, not learned

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Mitchell’s laws:
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening
the gap between rich and poor.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive,
and the motive is the Gap.

Sometimes no comments are needed.

Consider this:

“How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing.”

—Neville Chamberlain, 27 September 1938, 8 p.m. radio broadcast, on Czechoslovak refusal to accept Nazi demands to cede border areas to Germany.

And this:

The Obama Watch, Obama’s Strange Iran Negotiations
He turns down a bargaining chip from Congress.
By Scott McKay –

Two senators, Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Bob Menendez, have authored a bill to impose tougher economic sanctions on Iran if it ultimately refuses to honor the demands of the international community as regards its nuclear weapons program.

President Barack Obama has now pledged to veto that bill.

Obama said in a written statement last week that threatened a veto of the bill. “Imposing additional sanctions now will only risk derailing our efforts to resolve this issue peacefully.”

Not only has Obama rejected the bill, he touched off an intraparty squabble with Menendez and other Democrats by attacking it as the product of influence by “donors and others” — which many have interpreted as code for influential Jews protecting Israeli interests.

PowerLine’s Paul Mirengoff suggests (Obama’s) willing to give away the store to Iran in order to set the stage for a grand bargain with the mullahs that will magically solve the problems in the Middle East.

And this:

Iranian General: ‘Erasing Israel Off the Map’ Is ‘Nonnegotiable’

The commander of the Basij militia of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said in an interview that “erasing Israel off the map” is “nonnegotiable.”

“The Zionists should know that the next war won’t be confined to the present borders and the Mujahedeen will push them back,” he added.

Fars News also quoted Naqdi threatening both Saudi Arabia and the United States.

Any questions, college students?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

monetary sovereignty

The Ten Steps to Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Federally funded, free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually. (Refer to this.)
8. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here and here)
10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)

Initiating The Ten Steps sequentially will add dollars to the economy, stimulate the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

Monetary Sovereignty

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.


38 thoughts on “–The Neville Chamberlain lesson, not learned

  1. Agree with you Rodger. But, was hoping you’d (educationally) outline a counter strategy for our dealing with the most emergently dangerous Middle East power! How in your view should we proceed ………….

    Best health, wise man!


      1. I never saw you as being like this Roger. You want the US to start bombing a country (and slaughtering and harming their citizens) for no reason whatsoever. (Except maybe they belong to the wrong religion).


        1. That’s your interpretation? The wrong religion?

          Atomic bombs in the hands of our sworn enemies and a nation that very well could pull the entire Middle East into a nuclear firestorm — and you attribute it to my thinking they have the wrong religion??? Yikes!

          All that would be necessary to prevent the “slaughtering and harming” is for Iran to stop trying to create the Bomb. Is that so hard?


          1. Why is it OK for Israel to have nuclear bombs? (7 war since 1948) but not Ok for Iran to have nuclear energy (because thats want they want. And have bent over backwards to obtain this recent agreement with the West)


        2. O.K., you avoided this question: “What is the one step Israel could take, that will bring peace with the Palestinians.” And I understand why.

          And now you talk about Iran wanting “energy” not bombs. But there never was a question about them having nuclear energy. And you know it.

          In fact, this whole “victory” for Obama is supposedly to limit Iran to nuclear energy. If all Iran wanted was nuclear energy, there would have been no reason for years of negotiations.

          Your question seems to indicate that since Israel supposedly has nuclear bombs, you feel it is O.K. for Iran to have nuclear bombs. And why not all the other Middle East nations, too?

          Ignore, if you will, the fact that Iran and other Mid East nations continually threaten to obliterate israel, so giving them the bomb is just one crazy extremist finger on the button.

          Iranian General: ‘Erasing Israel Off the Map’ Is ‘Nonnegotiable’

          Please don’t play innocent about Iran only wanting nuclear “energy.”


          1. How about complying with UN resolutions. And agree to a two state solution based on the 1967 borders. (or give the Palestinians an equal vote).
            And stop believing everything you read esp in the likes of the NY times (or from Netanyahu) re Iran. Your thinking seems to be based on Israel good, Iran bad no matter what.
            And no I don’t think more countries having N bombs is ok. But Israel is hardly a moral upstanding country to point the figure at another one.


          2. Thank you, Israel. We gave you nothing, and you gave us more land. As we told you, we will wipe you off the map, so yes, thank you for the rocket launching sites, even closer to your major cities than Gaza.

            Gee, we thought Jews were supposed to be smart.


  2. I’m unsure what exactly your point is this post Roger

    But the Iranian Govt’s position on Israel now seems to be quite clear

    One day after senior Israeli government officials raised eyebrows at an international conference by remaining in the room when Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif took the stage to speak, Zarif told a German television interviewer that Tehran could restore diplomatic relations with Israel in the event of a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. “Once the Palestinian problem is solved the conditions for an Iranian recognition of Israel will be possible,” Zarif said in the interview


    1. “Quite clear”? You really believe that? Note the wording: ” . . . conditions . . . will be possible.”

      Not even “recognition will be possible,” which is vague enough, but “conditions will be possible.”

      And consider our own Obama government:

      State Department rejects call for Iran deal to affirm Israel’s ‘right to exist’

      A State Department official dismissed a plea Friday from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the Iran nuclear agreement include clear recognition of his nation’s “right to exist,” declaring negotiations are “only about the nuclear issue.”

      State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, in a terse response to a question about Netanyahu’s concerns, told reporters, “This is an agreement that is only about the nuclear issue” — a comment that indicates the Obama administration is not looking to enshrine Israel’s security into a final agreement.

      Remember, this is an Obama government — and historically, Obama has been no fan of Jews. Remember anti-Semite Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor?

      Any questions?


      1. You views on this subject seem to be based on very selective events or quotes

        After the last of these, Obama spoke more forcefully against his former pastor, saying that he was “outraged” and “saddened” by his behavior, and in May he resigned his membership in the church.[6]


        1. You may be right, but . . .

          Wright became Obama’s pastor in 1990, and Obama became “outraged and saddened” in 2008, only after the media began asking about Wright’s anti-Semitic remarks.

          So, Obama sat in the audience for 18 years before “deciding” he disagreed, and even then only under political pressure.

          Today, Obama finds a moral equivalence between Hamas, the terrorist group, and Israel, our friends and the only democracy in the Middle East.

          But to be honest, if being an anti-Semite disqualified a politician from office, half of Washington DC would be deserted.


          1. Have a look at the recent address to congress by a certain political leader.How many didn’t turn up to pay homage .. (and admit it. It was almost unbelievably)

            And Wright has since clarified his comments (and rightly so) re Jews v Zionists.

            And the way Israel treat the Palestinians is not an endorsement for democracy. In the middle East or anywhere.


  3. Move their own Caboodle to Nevada? Failing that, Rodger, what’s the ‘one step’ in your view?

    All ears! And, enjoyed this useful discussion!


  4. Nevada??

    The step is for the Palestinian leadership (problem #1, there is no leadership), to announce that in exchange for a peaceful two-state solution, they will acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist.

    Of course, this has been offered by Israel on three occasions, and rejected by the Palestinians every time.


    1. Although in 2009 Likud leader and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said for the first time that he supports the idea of a Palestinian state, with numerous caveats, a majority of Likud members oppose the two-state solution and the party as an institution has never endorsed it.
      Historically, Likud has strongly opposed the creation of a Palestinian state and has played a leading role in the Greater Israel movement, …


      1. Thank you for your quote from the IMEU, the anti-Israel propaganda mouthpiece.

        It’s useless to discuss this topic rationally. Hamas, for instance, has been declared a terrorist organization by most civilized nations, and has said it never will recognize Israel as a legitimate nation and is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

        So how can there be a two-state solution?

        Per Wikipedia:

        After the First Intifada began in 1987, considerable diplomatic work went into negotiating a two-state solution between the parties, beginning with the Madrid Conference in 1991.

        The most significant of these negotiations was the Oslo Accords, which officially divided Palestinian land into three administrative divisions and created the framework for how much of Israel’s political borders with the Palestinian territories function today.

        The Accords culminated in the Camp David 2000 Summit, and follow-up negotiations at Taba in January 2001, but no final agreement was ever reached.

        The violent outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000 had demonstrated the Palestinian public’s disillusionment with the Oslo Accords and convinced many Israelis that the negotiations were in vain.

        Following the conflict that erupted between the two main Palestinian parties, Fatah and Hamas, Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip, splintering the Palestinian Authority into two polities, each claiming to be the true representatives of the Palestinian people.

        Fatah controlled the Palestinian National Authority in the West Bank and Hamas Governed in Gaza.

        Again, how can there be a two-state solution? With whom could there be such an agreement?

        And yet again, you “forgot” to answer the question: “What is the one step Israel could take, that will bring peace with the Palestinians.”

        Since you clearly never will answer the question, perhaps we should focus on the subject of this post: The negotiations with Iran.


  5. Excerpts from the right-wing Washington Times:

    A deal with Iran built on lies
    Wesley Pruden

    Everything about the so-called deal with Iran, including the reputations of the men who negotiated it, is a lie. It’s likely to be a deadly lie for millions of people who will die on account of it. The world should mark well everyone responsible for it.

    The first lie is that an agreement for more talk is already “a deal.” So far the only agreement is to further pursue “a deal.” President Obama couldn’t wait to take a victory lap. But not even Mr. Obama, desperate to make something he can call “a deal,” says there’s an actual deal.

    Look closely at the slippery “clinton clauses,” as they were once called, in his announcement Thursday: “I am convinced that if this framework leads to a final comprehensive deal, it will make our country, our allies and our world safer.”

    That was Lie No. 2. The world won’t be safer, because when Iran gets the bomb, a half-dozen Islamic countries in the Middle East will start work on a bomb of their own.

    Once there’s an Iranian bomb, every crackpot mullah and deranged Islamic holy man will want one. Who’s to stop them? Israel?

    Israel can’t stop them, because Israel already is being investigated for the war crime of defending itself against random rocket fire from militants who hide behind civilians, dig attack tunnels in homes, and store munitions in schools and hospitals.

    We can’t ask little Israel to do what the most powerful nation on earth should do.

    Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, (said) “Our program is exclusively peaceful, has always been and always will remain exclusively peaceful.” (Lies No. 3, 4 and 5.)

    Once the final agreement is in place, the mullahs can proceed to do what they will say they are not doing, until their bomb is real and they can use it at will. Islamic good faith is good enough for Mr. Obama, who has a soft spot in his heart for Islam.

    In a half dozen years or less, we may “discover” that Iran already has atomic bombs, and by then it will be “too late” to do anything about it (ala North Korea).

    And, by then, the rest of the Middle East will be filled with atomic bombs, and terrorists, who look forward to meeting dozens of virgins in heaven, will have their fingers on the red buttons.

    Describing Mr. Obama as an appeaser, in the tradition of Neville Chamberlain caving at a similar nexus of history in 1938, misses the point.

    Mr. Obama may not be appeasing at all, but enabling. Everything about Barack Obama suggests that he believes America must be cut down to size, that it’s the arrogance of thinking America is something special, the exceptional nation, that is the source of intractable trouble in the world.

    Once America is brought to heel, men of wisdom, brilliance, kindness, intelligence and good will — rare men just like himself — can make the rough places smooth and forge a lasting peace.

    “Mr. Obama,” says the New York Observer, no particular friend of Republicans and conservative critics of the president, “is an amateur who is enthralled with the sound of his own voice and incapable of coming to grips with the consequences of his actions. He is surrounded by sycophants, second-rate intellectuals and a media that remains compliant and uncritical.”

    Mr. Obama’s legacy may be a radioactive world, but there would be no one left to appreciate it.


    1. Absolutely powerful thesis development and defense, Rodger!
      Frighteningly true and staggeringly implicative! Well done sir!

      Surprising that it took a separate question(s) to prompt your powerhouse rhetorical stand. Far more interesting than the article’s original premise!


  6. Iran is going to build nuclear weapons and the rest of the mid-east to follow is just as wildly fantastical a belief as thinking that democracy in Iraq would lead to democracy throughout the Mideast or that if the communists take over South Vietnam, then the entire SE asian area will become communist like dominoes. LOL


  7. Excerpts from an excellent article about “the deal.”

    Why Is Obama’s Stance on Israel Questioned by So Many?
    Jonathan S. Tobin

    Yesterday in an interview with the New York Times Thomas Friedman, President Obama purported to be aggrieved that anyone would question his support for Israel or his respect for concerns about its security.

    Obama dismissed the suggestion that Iran be asked to recognize Israel as part of the nuclear deal he is promoting. His reason: doing so would mean asking Iran to change the nature of its regime.

    To which critics must respond that this is exactly why it can’t be trusted with a nuclear infrastructure.

    Obama has made an endless string of concessions that have allowed Iran to keep its nuclear infrastructure, included its fortified bunker at Fordow, not forced it to export its stockpile of nuclear fuel, reveal the extent of its nuclear research, and (he) put an expiration date on the restrictions on its program.

    All this means that Iran can, if it is patient, build up its nuclear capabilities and then have a bomb in short order at the end of the agreement.

    Or, if it is not that patient, it can easily cheat its way to a weapon due to the weakness of the deal and the lack of a truly strict inspections regime or the ability of the West to quickly reimpose sanctions.

    Having empowered Iran at a time when its quest for regional hegemony via actions in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and now Gaza are scaring Israelis as well as moderate Arabs, it is fair to ask why the deal ignored Tehran’s support for terrorism and its frequent threats to obliterate Israel.

    Had he not spent most of his presidency sniping at Netanyahu, tilting the diplomatic playing field in the direction of the Palestinians and ignoring the latter’s consistent rejection of peace, there would be no justifications for questioning his bona fides as a friend of Israel.

    When he treats the vile threats against Israel as an insignificant detail about his prized negotiating partner, he betrays his own mindset that sees the Jewish state’s existential worries as a tiresome drag on his diplomatic ambitions.

    By agreeing to a deal that makes Iran a threshold nuclear power without insisting on it dropping its ideology of hate, the president has answered questions about his negative attitude toward Israel by confirming the worst fears of his critics.

    These are excerpts. You should read the entire article.


    1. Jonathan Tobin, and Thomas Friedman offer nothing new other than their editorializing and rhetoric.

      Max Fisher at Vox, who actually interviews a Middle East and nuclear proliferation expert, “This is an astonishingly good Iran deal” adds some science into the fray.

      One can draw their own conclusion after reading both articles, but far from an understanding of nuclear physics, diplomacy, and international monitoring.

      To this I defer to the knowledge and experience of the P5+1, which comprise countries (United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China) that actually have developed nuclear weapons for the last fifty years.

      I trust that the consensus in this matter from the other players in the P5 does not allow Iran to do all the things talking heads accuse Obama of doing.


  8. Vincent, the bottom line is that Iran should be willing to give up all development of nuclear weapons.

    An “astonishingly good deal” is not a cat and mouse game of sneak a bit, hide a bit. It’s not almost and partly. It’s NO NUKES. Period.

    Do you believe Iran really is agreeing to that? Or in a couple of years, will the world learn that Iran has built another underground facility the inspectors never knew about?

    My question: Why are they allowed to keep any facilities, if they honestly have no plans for nuclear weapons?

    If they want nuclear electrical generation, just build them a plant. Not difficult. But what is the purpose of their keeping the facilities they have, if they don’t plan to create weapons?

    You don’t let a criminal keep a gun, and just take away the bullets. If he keeps the gun, he’ll find the bullets. Why would he need the gun if he doesn’t plan to shoot someone?


    1. I do not know the answer to your question. I believe the countries of the P5+1 are well aware of cheating and subterfuge. I am not smart enough to know if the terms of this agreement will prevent it, but the International Atomic Energy Commission, along with US intelligence, and if I recall correctly, even Israel’s Mossad have concluded Iran has given up its weapons program years ago.

      Voluntarily giving up their nuclear facilities is a decision that has been made by Iran’s leadership and internal politics. They will not, and I can only speculate to why. Is Iran, as signatories of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, violating any international laws, by not doing so?

      Either of your suggestions to blockade, and bomb selected facilities, is an act of war violating all international norms, conventions, and treaties, in which case we become the international outlaw. Do we really need another war of choice in the Middle East? Look how well that turned out the last time a President took preemptive action looking for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Lesson not learned?

      Even increased economic pressure could be inferred as an act of war. And if the mullahs are as crazy as you portend them to be, who knows? Possibly they would react by choking off energy supply routes by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, crashing the world’s economy.

      But Iran will not be the cake-walk (not) that Iraq was. Their terrain is different, and they have not been reduced by years of crippling sanctions, no fly zones, and a previously fought war, as Iraq was. I would fully expect them to retaliate in some form or manner. Have you really thought through the ramifications?

      If you wish you may characterize me as naive. But I believe this deal is better than no deal. At least there will some form of inspection and monitoring. What we have now is nothing, and continuing the status quo guarantees we continue to have nothing, and that should really worry you.


  9. Vincent says, ” If I recall correctly, even Israel’s Mossad have concluded Iran has given up its weapons program years ago.”

    You’re kidding, right? It that why Netanyahu gave his speech to Congress? Because he thought Iran had no weapons program?

    And no, a bad deal is not better than no deal. It’s exactly what Chamberlain thought.

    If Iran could have “retaliated” as you said, they would have done so by now.


  10. Read this article, and a few choice excerpts> Then comment about how close we are to a good deal with Iran:

    Iran’s Khamenei demands all sanctions end when nuclear deal signed

    Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Thursday demanded that all sanctions on Iran be lifted at the same time as any final agreement.

    Iran would only sign a final nuclear accord if all measures imposed over its disputed atomic work are lifted on the same day.

    These include nuclear-related United Nations resolutions as well as U.S. and EU nuclear-related economic sanctions.

    One problem is that Iran and the world powers may have different interpretations on what was agreed in the framework accord – a point Khamenei made evident.

    “Americans put out a statement just a few hours after our negotiators finished their talks … this statement, which they called a ‘fact sheet’, was wrong on most of the issues.” Khamenei said.

    Iran for its part has said that “possible military dimensions” (PMD) are an issue it will not budge on.

    “PMD is out of the question. It cannot be discussed,” an Iranian official said. This issue has not been resolved.

    Khamenei ruled out any “extraordinary supervision measures” over Iran’s nuclear activities.

    “Iran’s military sites cannot be inspected under the excuse of nuclear supervision,” he said.

    A senior Israeli defense official repeated Israel’s fears that Iran could still obtain a nuclear weapon if sanctions were lifted immediately and would have more money to spend on arming regional proxies.

    Yep, it sure sounds like Iran is ready to give up on building nukes.


  11. Roger,

    I believe the Guardian to be a credible source; the same institution whose newspaper published material it received from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, although these leaked documents did not receive the same attention.

    Leaked Cables Show Netanyahu’s Iran bomb Claim Contradicted by Mossad

    I do not wish to speculate to why the Prime Minister spoke as he did in the light of this information. However, IMO, Mr. Netanyahu’s repeated pronouncements as to the timing to when Iran will develop the bomb leave him with zero credibility. So is the ilk of politicians.

    I spent last year touring Europe by visiting 10 countries. 2014 is the 100 year anniversary of the start of WWI. I learned a lot about “The Great War” (as it is still referred to, there) which I was not taught in my history classes in the US. All the major museums had exhibitions.

    It was an absolutely brutal war with untold casualties, both civilian and military.

    When Chamberlain signed the Munich accord in 1938, it was only 20 short years from the end of the war (1928). The horrors of that war were still fresh in European minds (Think Vietnam syndrome). What was his other option? How was he to stop German aggression? Declare war when not prepared to fight?

    It is only in hindsight that Chamberlain receives such derogatory characterization (appeasement), and it’s primarily quoted here in the US. I find it a specious, phony argument. And, used only to bring in bogus comparisons to Adolf Hitler for rhetorical affect. When Great Britain did declare war on Germany it nearly lost a whole army in the first few weeks, unprepared, caught on the Continent.

    Maybe, things are not always what they appear to be. Perhaps, there is something to this framework of a deal. I don’t know, I’m not an expert, and can only rely on what I read, and see on TV. But all I find is hot rhetoric, inflammatory accusations, editorializing, plus a ton of self-serving BS.


  12. Vincent you are right on several counts:

    Hindsight is always 20/20, and prior to WWII most people agreed with Chamberlain about “Peace in our time,” partly because he said it and partly because of wishful thinking.

    You seem to be saying that though he did not achieve the “Peace in our time” he declared, his declaration hurt no one and may even have been beneficial.

    It may have been, as the Obama administration soon will declare, “The best deal we could get.”

    I do not know whether the leaked cables from 2012 accurately describe Israel’s belief about Iran’s progress or intent at the time. I do not know whether that cable reflected just one spy’s opinion vs. other opinions, especially since agency reports seldom are delivered by cable (They are handed.)

    Interestingly, the IR40 mentioned in point 7 had some people worried.

    I would feel more comfortable about your confidence in Iran if they were not so resistant to ending hostilities, rather than funding truly evil groups like IS, and if they stepped back a bit from their vow to wipe Israel off the map.

    I would feel more comfortable if Khamenei had not said, ” . this statement, which they called a ‘fact sheet’, was wrong on most of the issues.”

    I would feel more comfortable if an Iranian official had not said, “possible military dimensions” (PMD) are an issue it will not budge on. PMD is out of the question. It cannot be discussed.”

    That said, this may all be a combination of political bluster to save Iranian face, together with a negotiating tactic.

    But if Iran had vowed to kill you, your wife, your children and all your other loved ones, would you still put everyone’s life on the line by trusting Iran?

    Are you that certain?

    If not, remember, that is what you’re asking Israel to do.


    1. No doubt, Roger, Israel and every Israeli have legitimate security concerns, wishing to live in peace and without fear. Maybe it should have been the P5+2, with Israel having a seat at the table.

      On the other hand, the Israelis are not the only ones who live in fear. So do Iranians.

      In 1953, through its foreign intelligence service, the CIA aids the overthrow of your democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, while the US supports the replacement regime of the tyrant, Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Shortly after his overthrow, the US supports Saddam Hussein’s aggressive war against Iran selling weapons and materials to develop chemical weapons. We all remember the photo of former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, shaking Saddam’s hand. Iraq uses poison gas against Iran, including civilian targets.

      Years later, the President of the United States, the most powerful nation in the world states at its highest official function that your country is part of an “Axis of Evil”. The United States launches two aggressive wars of choice on neighboring countries and stations troops on your eastern and western borders. In short, you are surrounded by the biggest, baddest military the world has ever seen; while the neocon, foreign policy advisers to the President are chanting, “Real men go to Tehran”, implying Iran will be invaded next. The possible successor to the current President sings, “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.”

      Despite all this, or because of it, Iran did reach out to, “full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel, and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.”

      In 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran’s Offer of Dialogue

      No wonder no one trusts each other!


  13. Vincent, as a humorous aside, the very end of the article you referenced, contained these lines:

    then US defence secretary, Leon Panetta, accused the Israeli prime minister of trying to force the US into a corner. “The fact is … presidents of the United States, prime ministers of Israel or any other country … don’t have, you know, a bunch of little red lines that determine their decisions,” he said.

    “What they have are facts that are presented to them about what a country is up to, and then they weigh what kind of action is needed in order to deal with that situation. I mean, that’s the real world. Red lines are kind of political arguments that are used to try to put people in a corner.”

    This is what Obama had said about Syria:

    “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”

    As you so cogently said, “So is the ilk of politicians.”

    Arguing about what governments say is like arguing about the bible. Everyone has different “facts.”


    1. So true, Roger. Should have written, “Such is the ilk of politicians.” But no matter, I’m still looking for those goal posts that keep moving. It’s enough to make your head explode.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s