Archive for Republican Warmongers

Israel’s Leading News Paper Haaretz Said; “Iran Nuclear Framework Agreement: Not a bad deal!”

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 4, 2015 by sheriffali

Israel will have a hard time fighting this agreement, or portraying it as bad; if Iran upholds the terms, its nuclear threat will be severely mitigated.

 

Thursday night’s dramatic declaration of a framework nuclear agreement between Iran and the world powers surprised almost everyone outside of the locked negotiating rooms at the hotel in Lausanne, Switzerland, including the doubtful, cynical journalists waiting outside those rooms over the past eight days for the results. Also surprised, though they’ll never admit it, were many officials, including Israelis, who have vehemently attacked the emerging deal in recent months.

 

In contrast to the messages conveyed in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech at Congress, the Israeli government’s public position over the last two years and the Pavlovian response that came out of Jerusalem on Thursday night, the framework agreement is not a bad deal at all. In-depth examination of the details shows that the deal includes many positive aspects that preserve Israeli security interests and answer some of Jerusalem’s concerns.

Iran perhaps scored some victories in terms of the narrative. Its rights, as it sees them, were respected by the world powers, and Iran can declare that its nuclear facilities won’t be closed, that uranium enrichment will continue, and that the humiliating sanctions will be lifted. But the world powers made significant achievements of their own on the real practical issues.

The framework agreement levels many restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program for generations to come. The Israeli government’s claims that in a decade, Iran’s nuclear program will be normalized in the eyes of the world, and that the Islamic Republic could then do as it wishes, have turned out to be baseless.

 

Correct, the limitations on the number of centrifuges Iran will be allowed to operate will expire in 10 years’ time. It would have been preferable if that timeframe was longer. However, over the next 15 years, Iran won’t be able to enrich uranium past 3.5 percent, and at that level, it cannot be used for nuclear weapons. The most the Iranians could do with such uranium would be to use it for peaceful purposes, or leave it in storage, collecting dust.

 

Also, the tight, invasive oversight of Iran’s nuclear program as defined by the framework, which will certainly be fleshed out in the final agreement, includes allowing UN inspectors into every Iranian nuclear facility, as well as uranium mines and storage facilities for a period of between 20 and 25 years.

 

Twitter @sheriffali

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.650355

HAARETZ ISRAEL NEWS PAPER IRAN NOT A BAD DEAL

Obama Hits Back Against GOP Warmongers: No Amount of US Firepower Can Hold Iraq Together

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on June 23, 2014 by sheriffali

 On CNN’s New Day, President Obama made his strongest statement yet against Republicans who are calling for ground troops in Iraq. The president said, “There’s no amount of American firepower that’s going to be able to hold the country together.”

 

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We gave Iraq the chance to have an inclusive democracy, to work across sectarian lines, to provide a better future for their children. And, unfortunately, what we’ve seen is a breakdown of trust. There’s no doubt that there has been a suspicion for quite some time now among Sunnis that they have no access to using the political process to deal with their grievances.

 

So, part of the task now is to see whether Iraqi leaders are prepared to rise above sectarian motivations, to come together and compromise. If they can’t, there’s not going to be a military solution to this problem. You know, there’s no amount of American firepower that’s going to be able to hold the country together. I made that very clear to Mr. Maliki and all the other leadership inside of Iraq.

 

BOLDUAN: But by going into the country, to support this Iraqi government, to support Iraqi forces now, there’s a real risk that you will very likely be seen as supporting the Shiite side. Isn’t that inflaming the tension further and thus doing exactly what ISIS wants?

OBAMA: Yes, actually not, because the terms in which we’re willing to go in as advisers initially is to do an assessment of, do they still have a functioning chain of command, and is their military still capable? But what we’ve also said is that if we don’t see Sunni, Shiite and Kurd representation in the military command structure, if we don’t see Sunni, Shiite and Kurd political support for what we’re doing, then we won’t do it.

 

BOLDUAN: Finally, do you really believe in your gut that this change can happen, that they can unify in Iraq?

 

OBAMA: I think we’ll know from soon enough. They don’t have a lot of time. There’s a timetable that is in place under their constitution. The good news is that so far at least all the parties have said that we want to abide by the constitution.

 

So, they had the chance, but, you know, ultimately what I think the vast majority of Americans understand is that we can’t do it for them, and we certainly can’t redeploy tens of thousands of U.S. troops to try to keep a lid on a problem if the people themselves don’t want to solve it.

 

President Obama is correct. The United States gave Iraq more than a fair chance and literally trillions of dollars in support. The problem has always been twofold. The ability of the Iraqi government overcome sectarian differences and unify the country, and the willingness of the Iraqis themselves to fight for their government.

 

What Dick Cheney, John McCain, Marco Rubio and other Republicans are either openly advocating, or hinting at is a bigger US role in Iraq. Some Republicans are seeking to exploit the ISIS problem in Iraq, in the same way, that they used 9/11 as a reason for the initial invasion of Iraq. Counter terrorism can’t be used as an excuse for propping up the Iraqi government. The intentional confusion of the two goals is what got the United States into Iraq in the first place.

 

 

The US will do their part, but at some point the Iraqis must display a willingness to fight for their own government. If the Iraqi people aren’t willing to fight to keep their government, the United States can’t do it for them. For people like Dick Cheney, sending more combat troops to Iraq isn’t about helping the Iraqi people. Cheney is only concerned about protecting his legacy. If the Bush installed government falls in Iraq, it will be the final crushing blow to the Bush legacy of failure.

 

 

President Obama is making sure that this nation doesn’t again go down the path of failure blazed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 PRESIDENT OBAMA OCT 18 12

 

 

IRAQ 2003 – Bush And Cheney Broke It And Couldn’t Fix It And Obama Shouldn’t Risk American Lives Because We Can’t Fix It!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 13, 2014 by sheriffali

It is said that “ignorance is bliss,” but in America, to many, ignorance is blind, deaf and dumb. The War-Mongering Republicans find themselves on the Television criticizing President Obama for withdrawing all of the troops. Well, that is the agreement George W Bush signed when Bush and his Administration helped to install Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

 

President Obama and his Administration wanted to leave a residual force in Iraq; however, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not want to sign the “Status of Forces Agreement” that would have protected Americans from Iraqi Law. Al-Maliki has been and continues to be, Iraq’s problem. He and his cronies have bilked Iraq of America’s Tax Payers money for their own self gain. When someone doesn’t want you in their country you either remain as an Occupier or you leave. The American people wanted our Troops out of Iraq and we left. The slaughter that is presently ongoing in Iraq between Sunni and Shiites has been going on for thousands of years. The only thing that would be worse than Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq is to reinstall American Troops back into Iraq.

 

“Despite the Neocons War-Mongers in George W Bush Administration that seemed to only have concentrated in removing Saddam Hussein, they “BORKE IRAQ” and in the six years after breaking Iraq, they left office and left total chaos behind. Cheney made off with 39 Billion Dollars in Profits from his no-bid contracts to his Company  

 

Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government, led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, has done little to reconcile with other religious and ethnic groups in Iraq, notably Sunnis, who are a minority in Iraq. Sunni insurgents have fed on that Sunni fear and discontent to draw recruits and support its cause.

 

“Nouri al-Maliki established an authoritarian government and a very sectarian regime, and he’s lost the trust and confidence of the other groups that make up the Iraqi state,” said Peter Mansoor, a retired Army officer and author of Surge: My Journey with General David Petraeus and the Remaking of the Iraq War.

 

Iraq’s army, once a symbol of national power, is viewed by many in Iraq as just another militia designed to protect the regime – not the nation. Built with billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money, Iraq’s army collapsed in the face of the insurgent threat. Since the U.S. military left Iraq, al-Maliki has appointed cronies to leadership positions within the armed forces, undermining the professionalism of the military. “He replaced all the commanders with people beholden to him,” Mansoor said.

 

The army has done little effective training since American forces withdrew, and they no longer have the capability to conduct coordinated attacks using ground troops, artillery support and air power, said James Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq.” [USATODAY]

 

Twitter @sheriffali

BUSH AND CHENEY - IRAQ - 2