 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Medicine - Lyme Forum » Giraldi, Arab Nuclear Detente with Israel? Impossible... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Mort Zuckerman... |
 Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
To: Durland.fish at (no spam) yale.edu, Aag1 at (no spam) columbia.edu, gary_wormser at (no spam) nymc.edu,
scientificintegrity at (no spam) ostp.gov, pkrugman at (no spam) princeton.edu,
Stanley.fish at (no spam) fiu.edu, emcsweegan at (no spam) niaid.nih.gov, afauci at (no spam) niaid.nih.gov,
SpinLyme at (no spam) yahoogroups.com, kshepard at (no spam) calea.org, fitzmas at (no spam) gmail.com,
patrick.fitzgerald at (no spam) usdoj.gov, modelt1918 at (no spam) sbcglobal.net,
jdrazen at (no spam) nejm.org, letters at (no spam) courant.com, Jgerberding at (no spam) cdc.gov,
michael.cole at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, conndcj at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, executive-
editor at (no spam) nytimes.com, managing-editor at (no spam) nytimes.com, news-
tips at (no spam) nytimes.com, bizday at (no spam) nytimes.com, foreign at (no spam) nytimes.com,
national at (no spam) nytimes.com, dvbid at (no spam) cdc.gov, brigidcallahan at (no spam) optonline.net,
trvl at (no spam) hotmail.com, illinoislyme at (no spam) aol.com, jlender at (no spam) courant.com,
tinajgarcia at (no spam) yahoo.com, jhornberger at (no spam) fff.org, thomas.carson at (no spam) usdoj.gov,
thomas.ryan at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, kurtzh at (no spam) washpost.com,
georgewill at (no spam) washpost.com, pj at (no spam) allegorypress.com,
commissioner.dcf at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, bransfield at (no spam) comcast.net,
vtsherr at (no spam) comcast.net, oca at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, freethinker at (no spam) charter.net,
scott.murphy at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, governor.rell at (no spam) po.state.ct.us,
attorney.general at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, randall.samborn at (no spam) usdoj.gov,
Robert.shiller at (no spam) yale.edu, editor at (no spam) greenwich-post.com,
harold.koh at (no spam) yale.edu, sedmonds at (no spam) nswbc.org, rrmcgovern at (no spam) aol.com,
frich at (no spam) nytimes.com, dprice at (no spam) stmartin.edu
Cc: francam at (no spam) ucia.gov, dr-ahmadinejad at (no spam) president.ir,
eugenerobinson at (no spam) washpost.com, afauci at (no spam) niaid.nih.gov,
bmiller at (no spam) newstimes.com, trvl at (no spam) hotmail.com, rastro18 at (no spam) aol.com,
billcurryct at (no spam) gmail.com, amcguigan at (no spam) rms-law.com, rjmurzyn at (no spam) aol.com,
paulcraigroberts at (no spam) yahoo.com, sidney_blumenthal at (no spam) yahoo.com,
criminal.division at (no spam) usdoj.gov, karla.dobinski at (no spam) usdoj.gov,
christopher.christie at (no spam) usdoj.gov, richard.Levin at (no spam) yale.edu,
harold.koh at (no spam) yale.edu, james.phillips at (no spam) yale.edu, inquire at (no spam) aldf.com,
lyme at (no spam) idsociety.org, meganmcardle at (no spam) theatlantic.com,
bob.drogin at (no spam) latimes.com
Subject: Giraldi, Arab Nuclear Detente with Israel? Impossible
Date: Oct 15, 2009 6:57 AM
ARTICLE BELOW
========================
Now gimme tinks a minute or
two about the peace policies of
previous Nobel Peace Prize winners
like Henry Detente Kissinger...
Hmmm. Say Iran and other Arab nations
acquired nuclear weapons setting up the
same Mutually Assured Destruction the US
and Russia shared during the Cold War.
That was successful because... neither
USA or Russia was as crazy as Israel.
USA and Russia could be relied upon to
not perform the likes of provocations
of their MAD adversary.
Could Israelis similarly control
themselves as regards Palestinians?
No.
Now, as we all *know,* Oil and Israel
(Israel being originally about
establishing a foothold in OilArabia
by the Rothschilds), are the reasons
the United States is having its phony
Wars on Terror, despite the USA MSM.
We also know the GWOT is Game Over
and the United States is simply hanging
out there in the Middle East until
this country is completely depleted
and the dollar is revalued to its real
value, which I hear is 18 cents per
dollar.
What that means is that while gasoline
may be ~$2.60 today at the pumps, it
will soon be ~$16.00.
Obama *is* a finger in the dyke.
So, now what?
Which even one single person in
Punditland or the MSM or even the
Blogosphere is telling us what
$16.00 a gallon is going to look
like in America, much less how
we're going to manage feeding
people.
So, they gave Obama a Peace Prize.
Well, who are they to call anything
at this point?
They even give out prizes for
Economics, but nobody called this
outcome, except me, as far as I
know.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_thread/thread/6940a8d9e0024621/8591b95e0ece47f7?q=Bush%2FGore+ENERGY+&rnum=1#8591b95e0ece47f7
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_frm/thread/e4359868117b8d81/e066f6566802741e?q=lehrer+bush+gore+bombs+bursting+in+air&rnum=1#e066f6566802741e
Who cares, right?
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
===================================
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2009/10/14/obama-at-a-crossroads/
Obama at a Crossroads
by Philip Giraldi, October 15, 2009
Email This | Print This | Share This | Comment | Antiwar Forum
It has been fashionable to denounce the award of the Nobel Peace Prize
to American President Barack Obama as a travesty. On a certain level,
that judgment is undeniably correct as Obama has proven himself to be
a master of empty rhetoric coupled with only minimal substance in the
international arena. On Obama’s watch the United States has only
marginally reduced its presence in Iraq, has increased the number of
soldiers in Afghanistan, has stepped up drone attacks in Pakistan, and
has indicated its willingness to "go after terrorists" wherever they
are through commando-style attacks like the one carried out in Somalia
last month. This affirmation of the president’s hawkish inclinations
comes in spite of the fact that it can be reasonably argued that Obama
won the presidency in the first place due to the antiwar vote.
The Nobel committee indicated that the choice of Obama was due to his
having changed the tone of American interaction with the rest of the
world, a clear and well-deserved slap at George W. Bush and his
cronies. But it remains to be seen whether tone can be turned into
substance and the signs are not good. Last week, Obama was silent
when Israel’s Foreign Ministry announced that there can be no peace
agreement with the Palestinians in the foreseeable future. On Tuesday
reports that the increase in soldiers in Afghanistan has actually been
almost twice the numbers the White House approved early in the year
because large numbers of support troops have been included and not
counted. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, is reportedly
globetrotting building up support for harsh sanctions on Iran.
A second issue that apparently propelled Obama to the prize was his
effort to curb proliferation of nuclear weapons, an area in which
there has also been some sound and fury but little actual action. To
be sure, Obama has supported an international nuclear test ban treaty
which would include sanctions directed against those countries that
actually test nuclear weapons. The treaty would make it more difficult
to develop weapons that are actually usable, but the US Senate has yet
to approve the agreement and significant players like India, China,
and Pakistan appear reluctant to participate.
On the issue of proliferation the Nobel committee might also have
credited Obama’s apparent willingness to engage in negotiations
regarding a possible Iranian nuclear program and the weapons already
believed to be in the hands of North Korea. But they should also have
considered how he did grave damage to the Non-Proliferation regime
through his green light to across-the-board technology sharing with
the Indian nuclear program, which excludes regulation of New Delhi’s
military inventory. And there is also the troubling report of his
secret agreement with Israel that ignores the estimated 200 nuclear
warheads in the hands of Tel Aviv, allowing it to have a monopoly on
such weapons in the Middle East. Clearly we are seeing the typical
Washington double standard. Bad guys will not be allowed to have a
nuclear deterrent or even the right to enrich uranium while regimes
the White House regards favorably will be judged by a completely
different standard, undermining any suggestion that the Obama
Administration might be behaving altruistically. As the NPT regime
was originally established to create a non-political standard whereby
all nations would be able to have the right to develop nuclear energy
for peaceful purposes within a regulated framework, the Obama de facto
acceptance that all are not equally entitled threatens the overall
integrity of the system and will lead to more countries opting out to
protect their own parochial interests.
Some have suggested that the Nobel Peace Prize will serve as a
political anvil tied around Obama’s ankle domestically, where the
president is already being criticized by the right as an appeaser and
by the left as celebrity politician who is being rewarded
"prematurely" for all the wrong reasons. Others see the award as an
enabler, possibly permitting Obama to seize the high ground and carry
out policies that would otherwise be unimaginable. But the many
interpretations of what the prize might mean are little more than
speculation at this point. To those who see the possibility for
radical change it should be pointed out that all foreign policy is
really a reflection of domestic policy. Changing course in the Middle
East and Central Asia would require support from various domestic
constituencies, unlikely to be forthcoming.
But it might be possible to envision a positive outcome in terms of
what the award might do to the president’s own self regard. Obama
inherited the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The level of violence in
Iraq is increasing but, as US troops are now disengaged from the
cities, it does not normally involve Americans. An understanding has
been reached to have nearly all of the current 130,000 US troops leave
the country by 2011, though there is some wiggle room in the agreement
and it is possible that the deadline will not be met if violence and
instability continue to increase. Be that as it may, there is no road
back towards greater engagement in Iraq. There is no possibility,
politically speaking, that Obama will increase troop levels even if
the country implodes, so it is reasonable to assume that United States
forces will actually leave Iraq within the next two years, a timetable
that Obama cannot radically alter.
In Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan, Obama’s view of the conflict
is reported to be very much in play even though he has backed himself
into a corner rhetorically speaking by referring to the fighting as a
"war of necessity." As the president has already ruled out withdrawal
or a reduction in forces, the options he is looking at range from the
status quo to a huge increase of 60,000 soldiers, virtually doubling
the US commitment at a time when Washington’s European allies are
looking for a way out. What is particularly disturbing about Obama’s
deliberative process is that he does not consult with anyone who was
opposed to the Iraq and Afghan conflicts from the beginning, narrowing
his options to those advocated by the liberal interventionist and
nation building wing of his own party, a perspective that differs
little from that of the Republicans. Divergent views are unwelcome.
The Israeli lobby’s torpedoing of Charles Freeman as head of the
National Intelligence Council in February 2009 eliminated a possibly
independent voice over fear that he might chart a reality-based course
in the Middle East and elsewhere. As all the choices The White House
is likely to consider are bad, those of us in the antiwar community
should perhaps ponder whether the status quo is a better outcome than
a new surge, which would undoubtedly kill even more Americans,
Afghans, and Pakistanis. Will the Nobel Prize nudge Obama towards
deciding against more soldiers? If it influences his thinking in that
way it would be a positive step, even though it remains a bad option
that hardly puts an end to the imperial venture in central Asia.
By the same process, Peace Nobel Laureate Obama might likewise be less
inclined to pull the trigger on Iran and more willing to let
negotiations play out against the wishes of a bloodthirsty congress
and media, not to mention his own State Department. If the Nobel
Prize is even marginally instrumental in slowing the rush towards a
new war, it would have to be regarded in positive terms.
Finally, I would note the old "my enemy’s enemy" axiom. The familiar
voices from among the neocons and the Israeli lobby have been most
vocal in decrying Obama as an "appeaser" peacemaker, possibly because
they fear that the award might impel him to try that much harder to
bring the Israelis and Palestinians together. There is increasing
buzz in Washington about the viability of imposing a settlement on
Israel-Palestine which would create a Palestinian state and a security-
guaranteed Israel along the lines of the pre-1967 borders. Such a
solution, with compensation for the Palestinians who were dispossessed
rather than a right of return, would likely have the support of the
European Union, Russia, and leading Arab states. Israel has indicated
clearly that it would resist such an outcome because it would force it
to give up its settlements and provide Palestinian access to
Jerusalem, which makes the United States the key player as it is the
only government that can seriously pressure Tel Aviv. Is it a fantasy
to even consider such a solution given that Congress and the media
would be aligned against the president? Perhaps, but Nobel Laureate
Obama just might think it is worth one more try.
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:46 am
|
|