In this mailing: - Chris Farrell: The Irony of American History and Russian Disinformation
- Peter Huessy: A New Nuclear Deal with Iran?
by Chris Farrell • October 29, 2020 at 5:00 am One must also consider the "arguments" about the "evidence" of Russian disinformation. First off, we have unending "investigations" by various bodies and persons who are not qualified to investigate a price check at Wal-Mart. Here, I speak of persons like Adam Schiff or the members and staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Second, we have the "tv experts." These folks are usually the former heads of the agencies and departments that are actually guilty of the subversion and sedition that got us to this point. Think of John Brennan giving his expert opinion on the innocence and honor of James Comey. When any of these characters (and paid CNN contributors) invokes Russian disinformation (usually quoting each other), you know they are lying. Period. Of course, anyone who asks questions about any of the logical disconnects and fallacies of any alleged Russian disinformation campaign must be on Putin's payroll. Ask a question? Sure "comrade," go ahead! It is terribly important to be reminded of all these things just a few days before the election. You should go to your polling place in-person and "vote angry." You've been lied to – savagely – for nearly four years. Go ahead and take your electoral revenge.
 (Image source: iStock) We have been subjected to four years of large parts of the US government shrieking about Russia and the threats posed by that country to the safety of our republic. How did so many miss their own serial treasons, in concert with the Soviet and Russian governments, dating back to 1917? Let us refresh our recollections of how so many Americans reframed history and disinformation. Some of the following may be "lost history" to you, but that is okay, because we definitely need some reminders before election day. FDR himself personally schmoozed Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs Maxim Litvinov in the White House and acknowledged the USSR diplomatically for no US advantage whatsoever in November of 1933. When Litvinov returned to his embassy from the White House, he openly mocked FDR's naïveté and gullibility to his staff. Continue Reading Article by Peter Huessy • October 29, 2020 at 4:00 am How then can the United States get around the Iranian regime's adamant opposition to any restrictions on its nuclear or missile ambitions and secure a sound nuclear deal? Even if the United States secured a new nuclear agreement with Iran, or resuscitated the old one, what makes anyone think that Iran would honor a deal any more than it honored the last ones? Given the seriousness of these issues and the lack of trust in the mullahs, all provisions must not have "sunset clauses" but be permanent. Even if these six factors may now make it possible to give "diplomacy a chance," it might be advisable only to try that route if it is reinforced with resolute military force. The JCPOA it is not only a fraud, it is camouflage for the appeasers of the world to pretend they are doing something about Iran's nuclear ambitions when in fact they are not doing anything but allowing Iran, after a short delay, to have nuclear weapons.... The mullahs will not change on their own. Diplomatic options are poor and unrealistic. The JCPOA deal not only fails to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them, it also hides Western inaction in confronting Iran's missiles, nuclear sites and terrorism.
 The defects of the current JCPOA deal are real. As Ambassador Eric Edelman and retired General Chuck Wald recently explained, Iran's search for a nuclear-capable missile was actually given an impetus by the current deal, including a provision ending the UN arms embargo against Iran. Pictured: Edelman testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee on November 27, 2018 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) Both US contenders of the presidency, the incumbent Donald J. Trump and the challenger, former Vice-President Joe Biden, have indicated that no matter what the election results are around November 3, they intend to negotiate with Iran. Even if the United States secured a new nuclear agreement with Iran, or resuscitated the old one, what makes anyone think that Iran would honor a deal any more than it honored the last ones? US choices seem to come down to : (1) keeping the current JCPOA, a seriously deficient semi-agreement that, contrary to what was promised by the Obama administration -- that it would prevent Iran from having a nuclear bomb, instead leads straight to Iran's having as many as it would like; or (2) pin US hopes on a wholesale campaign of diplomatic, political, and economic sanctions against Iran in the hope that Iran might secure an internally generated revolution and overthrow the mullah's regime. Continue Reading Article |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment