Elaine Meinel Supkis
Barely pausing from being bashed in the face over the North Korean standoff, Bush rushes back to the barricades to attack Iran yet again, setting ridiculous deadlines that mean nothing since both Russia and China will block any moves we make against the Persian kitty cat. Elmer Fudd diplomacy fails again.
By Mark John Mon Jul 10, 6:44 PM ET
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union will push Iran on Tuesday to respond to an offer of incentives to halt uranium enrichment in a new encounter just days before a key G8 deadline, but Tehran insists it wants more time.The West has urged Iran to accept a package of technology, economic and political sweeteners by Saturday's meeting of Group of Eight major power nations in St Petersburg in Russia, or face possible U.N. Security Council action.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in Washington it was time Iran gave an "authoritative answer" to the package, aimed at curbing an Iranian nuclear program which the United States suspects is aimed at acquiring the atom bomb.
But diplomats say Russia and China, both veto-holders in the Security Council, are wary about imposing sanctions on Tehran and so acknowledge there is little pressure on Iran to give an early reply.
The Anglo/American empire which has lusted after Persian wealth for hundreds of years still lusts for it even today. Our desire to keep Persia vulnerable to imperial attacks is vital. This stupid insistence on ruling Persia instead of simply doing business with the people there is quite ancient. Rome, for example, fought endless battles trying to take Persia. The Mongols had much better luck. But even they didn't meddle with internal Persian affairs which is why the Shi'ites there continued their battles with the Sunnis before, during and after Mongol's rule.
We are now in the middle of such a battle which is happening not only in Iraq but in other, more 'Sunni' style states like Saudi Arabia. Our fears that the Shi'ites will end up running the Middle East is quite strange considering that we took out the only leader there capable of keeping the Shi'ites penned in: Saddam Hussein, a man whose trial for war crimes has been suspended yet again, this week.
By Daniel Schorr
WASHINGTON – The headline in the Washington Post reads, "Why Did Bush Blink On Iran? Ask Condi."
In the Monitor
Tuesday, 07/11/06
Richard Perle has been there before - the neoconservative working from the inside to stiffen the spine of the president."Twenty years ago," Mr. Perle writes, "I watched US diplomats conspire with their diffident European counterparts to discourage President Reagan from a political, economic, and moral assault on the Soviet Union."
Back then, Perle was assistant secretary of Defense under Caspar Weinberger. The long-suffering secretary of State was George Schultz. Today, it is Condoleezza Rice.
I remember when Reagan 'joked' about nuking Russia while on international TV. I was in NYC and you can bet, this scared the daylights out of us all. Of course, Americans were foolishly and happily proud that Reagan was talking 'tough' and making us safe by trying to intimidate everyone and anyone especially nuns in Central America. A childish level of brutality seems to be what passes for diplomacy in the public mind.
Of course, the media enables this attitude problem.
Excerpts of Gorbachev-Reagan Reykjavik Talks11 October 1986 - Afternoon
President Reagan: The apprehensions you voice fall into two categories.First, you are concerned that defense could be used for offense. I can assure you that this is not the purpose of SDI. Yes, the concern was voiced that space-based weapons could be used to destroy targets on the ground. But there are no weapons that are more reliable, more effective and faster than ballistic missiles. We already have an agreement prohibiting deployment of mass destruction weapons in space. And if you have additional concerns in this connection, we can work together to ease them.
Second, you voiced the concern that the United States might obtain a possibility for carrying out a first strike, and then avoid retaliation owing to defense. I can say that we do not have the capability for carrying out a first strike, and that this is not our goal.
The concern you voiced encouraged me to suggest drawing up a treaty eliminating all offensive ballistic missiles.
*snip*
Secretary General Gorbachev: Much has already been said about these options, and you know that the matter reached a dead end. Our diplomats in Geneva can go on discussing all of these figures, levels, sublevels, and son on forever. I have data here on American and Soviet strategic arms. I can give this table to you. And what I propose is this: Inasmuch as we agree that strategic missiles should be reduced by 50 percent, let's reduce all forms of armaments in our strategic arsenals by half -- ground-launched missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and missiles carried by strategic bombers. Thus the strategic arsenals would be reduced by 50 percent across the entire spectrum. The structure of our strategic arms evolved historically, you see, and with such a reduction, not one form of armament would be wronged, and the level of strategic confrontation would be reduced by 50 percent. This is a simple, proportionate solution, one which everyone will understand.
The Russians were appropriate in demanding no arms in space. An arms race in space would literally explode in our collective faces. Recognizing this, Reagan backed down, massively. The cost of the war in Afghanistan and the restiveness of the subject populations behind the Iron Curtain were hurting Russia very badly. The Chinese, at this time, were rapidly infiltrating America and adopting many American policies and we thought we had them in the bag and they would cleave to our empire which was the Chinese plan, too, for that matter. China was very concerned about Russian missiles on their own frontiers and they had more than one border dispute to work out with the Russians and they felt the Americans were a great bargaining chip.
Russia was outflanked and basically disarmed which is why, when they collapsed, it was fairly quietly. Like our coming economic implosion, it wiped out the military's ability to regenerate itself and Stalinism quietly folded its bloody tent and left the world stage. But the collapse of empires is usually very bloody. Germany foolishly gives Austria carte blanche to do whatever they wanted in the Balkans even if Russia protested and brought in troops.
(3) The Austrian ambassador summarised the the thoughts of Kaiser Wilhelm II after a meeting with him on 5th July 1914.First His Majesty assured me that he had expected severe measures on our part in regard to Serbia, but he must confess that as a result of the analysis given by our august Sovereign he must not lose sight of possible serious European complications.
When I laid great emphasis on the seriousness of the situation, His Majesty authorized me to convey to our august Sovereign that even in that case we may reckon on full support from Germany. He did not in the least doubt that Herr von
Bethmann Hollweg would entirely agree with his own view. This was especially true in respect of any measure we might take against Serbia. In His Majesty's view there should be no delay in undertaking these measures. Russia's bearing would in any case be hostile, but for this he had been prepared for years. And even if matters went to the length of war between Austria-Hungary and Russia, we could remain assured that Germany in her customary loyalty as an ally would stand at our side. Russia, by the way, was, as things stand today, not at all ready for war and would certainly think twice before resorting to arms. But she would certainly incite the other powers of the Triple Entente against us and fan the flames in the Balkans.
Even as the Kaiser could plainly see the alliance arrayed against Germany, he still went ahead and decided to sabre rattle some more. Underestimating the gravity of the gesture, he allowed diplomacy to fail thinking that ultimatums and bluster would do the trick. Do note that the careless speech of the Kaiser came just one month and one week before all of Europe exploded into open warfare that engulfed millions in an orgy of bloodletting.
So it is today. The American alliance isn't strong at all. Europe desires no wars with Russia. Nor Iran, for that matter. England wants war only because they are paying pennies on the pound for these imperial carousels. Ditto the Japanese. Riding on our hobby horse, they can wave little tin swords and bark orders and pin medals upon their chests but the beast doing the killing is nearly all American and the money spent is literally all American. Via IOUs to Japan. And China.
And this is the really bad part of this farce: we can't afford it at all. And one of the principal parties we are trying to jerk around is one of our biggest creditors: China! China holds all the cards in this game of naked poker and they aren't letting us know what is at stake even as we strip ourselves of everything we own and place it on the table. It is such a temptation for these patient players! As it is, Iran is probably the boldest gambler here: unlike North Korea, they have something we desperately want and they know we are willing to murder millions for it.
But the Persian cat laughs openly at us and continues to play its cards. And it is winning this game. Unless we pull a Wilhelm II on them. Then, nothing will matter since the world will be in flames.
Culture of Life News Main Page
In relation to the Soviet empire's demise, I came across some new insights in a book called _Investment Biker_ by Jim Rogers who is an investment banker and was, in this book at least, a fairly devout Republican.
As he rode his motorcycle through the waning pieces of the Soviet empire in the early 90s before the coup, he frequently noted that much of the Soviets' demise was due to falling commodity prices of the late 80s. While many Americans like to think Reagan's tough talk let the Soviets back down, the USSR's relative lack of funds due to low oil prices had a crushing effect on their economy--kind of like the Texas economy of the late 80s. Their crutch had been kicked out beneath them
Now the ex-KGB chief Putin has begun to flex Russia's muscles once again as oil and commodity prices rise.
Posted by: DSwint | July 11, 2006 at 06:05 PM
Absolutely correct. All commodity prices fell due to CHINA joining the world's economies.
Posted by: Elaine Meinel Supkis | July 11, 2006 at 06:59 PM