Charles Krauthammer: Iran deal amounts to worst in U.S. diplomatic history

So for the "alleged" taking of money by their former ruler the Iranian religious crazies thought it was OK to invade sovereign US soil which is what our embassy was and take our American citizens hostage for 444 days? Who the hell do they think they are? I wish Reagan had bombed the whole damn place flat! If they don't agree to nuclear inspection that is exactly what we should do right now!

 

My people are anyone who believes in liberty and human rights, which necessarily excludes the US government.

How many times must I say that US and Israeli intelligence say there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons?

More importantly, why is it okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons (which they try to keep secret from the world, rejecting calls for any semblance of international oversight) but not Iran?

1953 Iranian coup d'état

And, yet, who has Iran invaded? I can't think of a single country. Whereas the US has invaded country after country, resulting in the deaths of millions of civilians.

 

Ever heard of SAVAK? The U.S. trained Iranian goons who used to torture and murder people for wanting free elections in Iran?

As for not wanting Iran to have nukes, do you have any proof they would ever use them? Iran has no history of ever using weapons of mass destruction. They didn't even use them in retaliation when Iraq used them against them first.

 

You are saying the US government should bomb Iran and kill millions of its people in the process, yet we're supposed to believe Iran is a threat to America, and not the other way around?

 

Ask any of our military forces who served in Iraq and they will tell you that the Iranian military had operatives all over the Shiite portions of Iraq and they planted IEDs and engaged in other operations to kill Americans. Next where is your proof that Israel has nuclear weapons? You are long on opinions and kind of short on facts.

 

Well it would have to be a totally different mind set since Iran does not posses American military supremacy.

Antagonizing a hyper power is not intelligent, we have the power so we have more leeway with our statements.



What "risk" is there of them actually making that decision, though?



Leaked cables show Netanyahu’s Iran bomb

Embassies are protected, no matter who comes to power attacking an Embassy is an act of war.

Again this is not action against Russia or China were mass mobilization would be required.

 

The USA invaded Iran by deposing the legally elected leader and by imposing the fascist shah.

 

If China invaded Mexico, do you think our special forces would simply sit by and do nothing?

 

I don't need to ask them because I was there.

The US was the aggressor. They invaded and occupied a country thousands of miles away from them that posed absolutely no threat to their homeland. Iran was merely acting in self-defense.

Right next to your proof that Iran has them.

Oh, the irony!

It’s Official: The Pentagon Finally Admitted That Israel Has Nuclear Weapons, Too

 

How about I name when Krauthammer has been wrong about Iran and nuclear weapons....


“Our objective is to stop the enrichment. Unless it stops, they’re [Iran] going to have a bomb and they’re going to have it soon…”---Charles Krauthammer

October 2009

Two months later, he warned: “2010 will be the year of Iran. Only three outcomes are possible. A: there’s going to be an Israeli strike; B: there’s going to be a revolution; or C: the Iranian regime will either acquire or come up to the threshold of becoming a nuclear power.”

In May of 2010 he lamented “the total collapse of our nuclear policy with Iran.”

In February of 2012, Bret Bair asked: “Will Israel strike Iran before the [2012 Presidential] election?” To which Krauthammer replied: “I think Israel will strike, because it cannot live under the threat of annihilation from Iran.”

www.dailykos.com

 

You have to expand on your analogy in order for it to apply to this situation.

China would have had to overthrow Eisenhower, replace him with a Chinese autocrat who oppressed Americans for decades, imposed ruinous sanctions on the American economy, instigated an invasion of America by Mexico that caused the deaths of millions of Americans, and THEN invaded Mexico.

 

No really I dont. No nation with aspirations beyond the limits of their own borders is going to let a force from outside its region invade their neighbor without providing them assistance.

 

Krauthhammer was one of the biggest supporters of the neocon Bush administration's half-assed, botched bungling Iraq war, the worst foreign policy blunder in history.

'Nuff said.

 

I guess my point went right over your head.

 

All it took was Googling "Charles Krauthammer predictions"....and I turned up Dr. Strangelove predicting in 2009 that Iran would get a nuke "soon".

The guy's a joke. Only Fox News or Neo-cons who masturbate to the idea of Iranian body counts take him seriously.

 

1) Being a psychiatrist does not make one an expert on geopolitics. It does not even make one an expert on a persons state of mind as you suggest.

A psychiatrist is not required to take one psychology class. They are glorified drug pushers.

That he writes something akin to gossip column that was picked up by a bunch of newspapers does not make him credible.

How about we drop the fallacious appeals and look at what the man says and see if it makes any sense .

When I read his article I do not see him giving support for his claims nor showing knowledge of the geopolitical factors involved.

What is absurd is not realizing that the US is a huge State sponsor of Terrorism (likely number 1) by any reasonable standard. What is absurd is the inherent claim that the US is on some moral high ground.

That aside. The use of such platitude and jingoism as if this constitutes support for his claim does nothing but damage his credibility as knowledgeable, informed and objective.

As is the case with other completely disingenuous commentators, this guy completely avoids discussing certain inconvenient truths that are well known, but regularly avoided by pundits (both left and right) commenting on the issue.

Sanctions: We can not maintain sanctions if countries like Russia and China do not agree. The reason we went to the table is because some of the other countries required to maintain sanctions were wanting these negotiations.

Cabbage Crusher (Krauthammer) seems oblivious to this fact.

The fact of the matter is that many of these other countries no longer buy into the Israeli demonization propaganda (right, wrong, or otherwise). While there are groups within Iran (often humanitarian aid groups) who provide assistance to those living in the apartheid state Israel is partly responsible for creating, direct involvement of the Iranian Government has either stopped or been considerably reduced.

This not to say that assistance from these groups does not make it into the hands of Hamas and Hezbollah, but state involvement has been considerably diminished to the point where these other countries no longer consider Iran the boogieman it was before... right, wrong, or otherwise.

The second big elephant in the room is the fact that "We need permission from Russia in order to attack Iran". This is an inconvenient truth you will not hear spoken of in the mass media because it would destroy part of the necessary illusion needed to maintain the defense oligopoly.

Knowing that this could not be spoken aloud is what allowed Bibi and the Republican Congress to make so much political hay out of this issue as they knew the Obama administration could not fight back by destroying one of these necessary illusions.

The idea that these are strictly "Obama's" pathetic mishandled negotiations is a farce. Obama was just one leader sitting at a table of many.

What was pathetically mishandled of late was

1) Funding Al Qaeda and Al Nusra rebels in Syria and the fact that funding any kind of insurrection covertly is illegal under international law.

Opps ... who is the state sponsor of terrorism now ? This action led to the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet so far this decade.

2) Poking the Bear one too many times. Since after WWII and particularly after the break-up of the Soviet Union, NATO has been increasing its influence and strategic advantage over Russia. As Russia was dismantling their military in eastern Europe NATO was building bases.

In 2002 Bush unilaterally pulled out of the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty. For those that wonder, the point of this treaty is so that some buckaroo does not get the hair brained idea that a nuclear war is winnable thinking "We can shoot our missiles and when they retaliate we will just shoot them down".

Putin response " This is a mistake".

Then in 2007 Bush starts putting ABM's on Russia's borders in Poland and Czechoslovakia. This destabilized nuclear détente and forced Russia to take counter measures to re-establish the balance of power.

Ukraine was the straw that broke the camels back. NATO knew that Ukraine was a red line in the sand but they crossed it anyway. Crimea has been a strategic interest of Russia for centuries and there was no way they were going to back down and anyone who knew anything about the geopolitics knew it.

Nato/US should have kept their noses out of Ukraine and not accepted their bid to join NATO. The country was an unstable mess to begin with, some of which was caused by US support of a Neo Nazi Regime.

Regardless, right wrong or otherwise, at the end of the day, in relation both these actions but primarily Ukraine, all we did was turn Russia into an adversary in relation to Iran. In addition we benefited China as they sit on the sidelines and play both sides of the fence.

How does sanctioning Russia not drive Russia closer to Iran ? Worried about nukes ? The Russians can just give Iran nukes if they wanted to.

Fortunately the Russians are far more level headed it seems. Russia hates Islamic extremism and is not afraid to say so. It has huge problems with these extremists.

Was it Russia who was funding Al Qaeda and Al Nusra ?
Was it Russia that was supporting Saddam when he was using chemical weapons against Iran and the people of Iraq ?

Was it Russia who used chemical weapons in Fallujah?

http://americanfreepress.net/?p=13599


Was it Russia who supported Israel's use of chemical weapons against civilian populations in Gaza ?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/25/israel-white-phosphorus-gaza

Charles Krauthead is a puppet clown who's commentary on the Iran negotiations is a farce.

 

Well, I really triggered a firestorm! Good! Lots of opinions, and lots of accusations, mostly without a whiff of proof.

Nevertheless, I'm STILL waiting for anybody who thinks that these current negotiations with Iran over nuclear-site inspections are anything but a disgusting farce to tell me exactly what Krauthammer said in THIS editorial that was WRONG: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...rst-agreement-us-diplomatic-history/29750333/

BTW, Obama/Kerry fans -- you want to know the latest? You know how the big, hooptie nuclear talks have been blown off REPEATEDLY for over a year now? Well, they've just been blown off -- AGAIN! Here are your skilful, shrewd, hard-bargaining, negotiations "Paladins" toiling away -- and making complete fools out of themselves! https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...e6fed0-249a-11e5-aae2-6c4f59b050aa_story.html .

Do you think the significance of this is lost on Russia and China? Do you imagine that this goes unnoticed by Israel and Saudi Arabia? But, meanwhile, those thousands and thousands of nuclear centrifuges deep underground in the Iranian R&D facilities go right on spinning and spinning and spinning. I sincerely hope that every one of you Obama-lovers lives to see the result that all this zealous, Islamo-Nazi industry bears....

 

Don't you wish you had a dollar for every time you've seen me write the phrase, "Idiot Bush" in posts in this forum...? But, Idiot Bush is NOT at center-stage right now, Iriemon. We're dealing with a government made up of dangerously unbalanced religious zealots who think that their variety of "god" is pleased by all this murdering, raping, and killing of "infidels". Honestly, I would have thought that you, of all people I encounter in this forum, would be able to see that. They won't be satisfied until they have all of us, liberals and conservatives alike, on our knees, ready to have our heads cut off!

I KNOW that Idiot Bush was fooled into believing all the preposterous exaggerations about Saddam Hussein, along with a LOT of members of Congress (including the "Madame Defarge" of the Democrat Party, Hillary Clinton!). But that has absolutely nothing to do with this crackpot bunch of crazy bastards in Tehran frantically trying to get their hands on nuclear power so that they can pursue their "god's" will. And what are we doing to prevent this? Please, re-read Krauthammer's editorial carefully. You won't find a word that is incorrect.... I have a lot of respect for your opinions, Iriemon, even though I don't always agree with you philosophically. I'd be very interested to know what a person of your intellect and perspicacity thinks of this dreadful, tragic mess that we've allowed to come over these negotiations, which may be the most important in the history of the world since the end of World War II.

 

I didn't vote in 2008 so you can't accuse me of supporting him. And not many Christians fly plains into towers.

 

Actually, the requirements for one to become a psychiatrist are far more numerous and demanding than those required for becoming a psychologist. Do a little research before you so cavalierly disparage people for whom becoming full-fledged physicians is only the beginning....

And you know that the United States is a "huge State sponsor of Terrorism" HOW? Do you use a Ouija board, or do these revelations just come to you spontaneously...?

Ah, when I was in college, we were warned, again and again, in numerous courses, to be very suspicious of anyone who tells us that we should accept any premise merely because it is supposedly "well known". Once again, please tell us how you know all these things?

We can maintain sanctions if we want to, with, or without Russia and China. The power and influence of the United States in the world of economics is immense and both could have been continued to be used against Iran... until Obama unilaterally just pissed all of them away.

Ah, once again you've gone "psychic" on us with things you just somehow know (?). Please tell you what this "demonization" propaganda consists of. Please point out the parts that are not based in fact.

If we bombed Tehran flat as a board tomorrow morning, what would Russia do about it? Well...? I'll tell you what it would do... absolutely nothing! And part of why they wouldn't do anything is because you are partly right (I'll get to that later), and, because Putin is a very intelligent man who knows how to cut his losses. But, he's also intelligent enough to know that the Obama/Kerry "dynamic duo" will not do a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing thing -- will not lift a FINGER to harm the Islamo-Nazis in Iran... and, they know it, too!

You're RIGHT... mostly! Tah-dah! Actually, the Obama regime was only a handpuppet for the real culprit in this mess, the international oligopoly of central-banks! Surprised to hear me say that? This whole stinking scheme for the bankers to take over the economies of Eastern Europe lies primarily with the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, and, their "instrument", the IMF.

Right again! The banksters used the IMF to overthrow the legitimate government of Ukraine, and they installed their own puppet junta in its place. They tried to throw the Russians out of their naval Black Fleet headquarters in Crimea, and Putin struck back. Long story short, the Kiev junta has lost the Ukraine civil war, and they'll be lucky now to keep the portion of the country that is west of the Dnieper River. I mentioned earlier that Russia would do nothing if we bombed Tehran as flat as a board -- BUT, if we ever back the banksters in pulling any more crap in Ukraine, the Russians will fight us like mad dogs! We'd better be more intelligent about picking our quarrels!

And to you, I'll present the same challenge... exactly WHAT in Krauthammer's column did he get WRONG? I'll give you the link again so you can go tear it to pieces.... Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...0e8cf2-20e8-11e5-aeb9-a411a84c9d55_story.html BTW, did you mean "whose"... not "who's"...? We're all college grads here... right?

 

No, but they did drop over 7 million tons of explosives on 'Nam, and McCain wants to drop more on Iran. "Bomb, bomb, Iran."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombs_in_the_Vietnam_War

 

I provided ample proof for every single one of my claims.

 

That sound suspiciously like Iran's problem.

 

You said that you had provided ample proof for your posts earlier and throughout the thread. I went back and looked at them, including some of those not written in reply to me, specifically. A sampling:

Ethereal, please... what has that post got to do with failed, botched nuclear negotiations with the Islamo-Nazi religious regime ruling Iran today?

Confession: yes, I would rather kill millions of them them than to blithely ignore the potent threat of a nuclear Iran and let them kill millions of us!

They aren't just frantically conducting nuclear research -- they've been actively engaged with the North Koreans on procurement of ballistic missile technologies for a long time. Bomb + ICBM = very real potential threat to every person on Earth, including us, who the Iranians make no secret of wanting to kill!

In the turbulence that followed WWII, a lot of things were changing and mistakes were made by everyone, including the U. S. But for more than a hundred years, like every other major nation, we've propped-up and defended "client governments". When we supported the Shah, it was entirely with the idea of keeping the Soviet Union out of the Middle East as much as possible. Was it right? No, but, seen through a purely pragmatic lens, it did minimize Soviet influence. Should the religious zealots have invaded our American embassy and taken our people hostage for 444 days? No. But, that, too, is the PAST, and has no connection to the failure of nuclear inspection agreements in 2015.

I addressed this in my replies above. Look -- even if little pissant countries like Togo or Bangladesh were moving to get nuclear weapons, ICBM missiles, and were frothing at the mouth about undying hatred for America and "death to infidels", I would take exactly the same position on them, too! A threat is a threat is a threat!

What gives any country the right to exist? Go all the way back through history for your answer, and what do you see? There's the fluffy, idealistic, poetic view of it, and then there's the nuts-and-bolts reality of it. A powerful, capable military force that can secure its nation's civic, economic, logistical, and vital lines of supplies is what guarantees a nation's survival, and its prosperity. Any nation that doesn't "wallow" in this commitment to itself is already in the process of committing suicide through neglect, absent-mindedness, or misguided stupidity.

Now, I invite you to come down from your ivory tower and see the world as it really is. All countries crap on all other countries. Hell, just this past week it came out that the U. S. had spied on three French presidents in a row! http://www.bbc.com/news/33248484 . And, of course, it was already an embarrassment that we had been spying on German Chancellor Merkel.... As a nation we must defend ourselves from any and all threats, even potential ones that may arise from our allies! And that only makes this disgusting, nauseating series of stumbling, bumbling, failed "negotiations" with a crazy pack of religious zealots in Iran all the more galling....

 

Krauthammer predicted in 2009 that Iran would get a nuke "soon"....

did he mean "soon soon"....or 6-7 years later "soon"?