Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dealing with the U.S. Devil - Surrender, capitulate, then we'll talk

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 06:58 AM
Original message
Dealing with the U.S. Devil - Surrender, capitulate, then we'll talk
Edited on Thu Jun-01-06 07:42 AM by bigtree
The Bush regime's latest ploy in their campaign to overthrow and destabilize the Iranian government involves a 'deal' that would require Iran to unilaterally halt its production of uranium in exchange for an opportunity to talk face to face with their U.S. accusers. Condi Rice and Bush want to put Iran on the defensive by demanding concessions from Iran as a counter to the sovereign nation's request to speak to their principle accusers face to face.

Included in the deal is a chance for Iran to prove the U.S. accusations false, a preposterous notion of justice which amounts to nothing less than extortion. Lincoln once remarked, "A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear and cries, 'Stand and deliver, or I will be forced to kill you and you will be a murderer."

If the White House had any evidence at all to back up their rabble-rousing about their claim that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons, their demands would make sense. But, Iran has neither the capacity nor the nuclear material to make weapons, even if they wanted to (they insist they don't).

Yet, the U.N. leadership is allowing the U.S. to lead them around by the nose, again, on a false hunt for WMDs in another sovereign nation, the accusations conjured up in the State Dept. offices of self-described 'democracy czar', Elizabeth Cheney. It's almost as if, in all of the bending over to accept and sanction the invasion of Iraq which the U.N. president Annan initially declared 'illegal', they have developed an amnesia, or perhaps, a psychosis that is causing them to forget being so utterly decieved and betrayed by the Bush regime's misrepresentations and outright lies.

There they go again, the administration regulars, wielding the institutions of our government against Iran's democracy under the guise of liberty and reform. Regime change has become official U.S. military policy with opening of the new Pentagon Office of Iranian Affairs.

The man who partnered with Douglas Feith in the inventive 'Office of Special Plans', Abram Shulsky, is slated to head this new office of impending war. Shulsky is expected to play it as straight as Bush's 'signing statements' that he developed for the evasive republican regime.

There they are again, the international regulars, lined up on the side of predacious prevaricators who ape concern for principles of liberty, freedom, and democracy, using the destructive force of our nation's military as their calling-card as they impose themselves wherever they please.

The U.S. carping about Iran has the U.N. scrambling to stave off the threat of the Bush regime's threatened and demonstrated militarism with offers and concessions. They seem to have awakened right before the U.S. takes its first shot in Iran's direction with the realization they were being drawn into yet another manufactured war, this time with deep economic consequences for many members, in addition to the prospect of a region on fire, inflamed with violent reprisals against the Americans' heavy-hand.

Where is the defense of Iran's right to engage in lawful activities and pursuits without threats of violence or repression? Where is the defense in the U.N. of Iran's sovereignty? They haven't relinquished that right just because the U.S. has unanswered questions. That's the standard which brought them the Iraq invasion and occupation.

Questions asked by the U.S. about WMD's in Iraq are still 'unanswered'. Despite the fear the Bush regime spread about the danger posed by the weapons they conjured in Iraq, they quickly made clear that the weapon's lie was a means to overthrow Saddam's reign.

"It's very simple. Saddam Hussein is no longer in power," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told NBC. "Saddam Hussein was the problem with weapons of mass destruction," Rice said when asked why Bush was seemingly unconcerned about the inability to locate his main justification for the war.

Ahmed Chalabi, the main source of White House information for the WMD claims, was also satisfied that his lies achieved the overthrow that put him (temporarily) in power. Here's what Chalabi had to say in 2003 about his lies that led to thousands of our soldiers killed and maimed in the manufactured Iraq war:

Questioner: Well, I mean, the-- you know, half the people now feel that the war wasn't justified on the grounds that it was argued for.

Chalabi: OK.

Questioner: Do you feel any discomfort with that?

Chalabi: No. We are in Baghdad now.

That's their ploy. Wild accusations. Demands for questions answered. Demands for unilateral surrender before judgement. If that's now the function of the U.N. - a U.S. orchestra of aggression against their contrived adversaries - then the time has come for countries to reassess those alliances which tolerate and elevate these campaigns of American dominance and repression.

There are some opportunities coming up for Iran to gain partnerships outside of the U.N., like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is meeting June 15th. Alliances like these could underscore the needs and concerns of those in the region whose priorities are more than likely to be far out of line with the Bush regime's violent, arbitrary imperialism.

There is also, still, an opportunity for the participating members of the U.N. to assert their independence from the self-serving campaigns of intimidation and threats. There's still a chance for them to assert themselves as adults, immune to the fibs and demands of spoiled, destructive children.

There's still a chance for the members of United Nations to hold the U.S. to account for their bloody threats of militarism. Refuse to enact or impose any trumped-up resolution on Iran. Put the U.S. warmongers on the defensive. Stand up for those principles of liberty and freedom that the Bush regime disregards as obstacles to their consolidation of power. Give meaning to the principles of due process and burden of proof by forcing the U.S. to produce evidence of Iran's intentions they say threaten us.

Don't allow yourselves to be led around by the pack of U.S. liars. You're an international force. Lead like your lives depend on it. They do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. final and link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LunaC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
2. It's propaganda, pure and simple
“U.S. prepared to talk with Iran” is supposed to make the harried and halfway-paying-attention public think that everybody is going to get together, talk things over and work out a deal conducive to all parties. Sounds “diplomatic” and reasonable. But that’s not what’s happening.

(T)he United States…is holding direct talks with Iran…if Iran …first agrees…” That’s not a prelude to diplomatic talks but an unreasonable demand. Imagine one executive saying to another “I want to buy your company. Sign it over to me and then we’ll talk price.” That’s the type of deal * is offering, guaranteed to bring a “Fuck you!” response.

This is a carefully orchestrated maneuver intended to prime an unsuspecting public for an Iran attack. When the “diplomacy” fails as we all know it will, * can say “Well, we tried but Iran is being disagreeable and we have no choice but to respond militarily.” And the public will shuffle along, muttering to themselves “Yeah, we tried, right?” and go about their business while * drives us straight into the brick wall of an epic world crisis.

============
originally posted here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1321450
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. you're absolutely right LunaC
the Bush regime is posturing to make their views on Iran's uranium enrichment a legitimate starting point in the debate despite the lack of proof to support their contention Iran wants a bomb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LunaC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. BUT....
this time around, people are on to their game...

Surprisingly, yesterday Tweety said (paraphrased) "That doesn't sound like diplomacy but an ultimatum"

And the folks calling in to Washington Journal this a.m. see it for what it is, too.

Perhaps this time around there will be more public dissent before we go dropping bombs.

Not that it'll do any good...the PNAC has their agenda and they'll stick to it, no matter what. I don't mean to be defeatist but there's nothing we can do to stop it. All we can do is figure out how we'll survive the next several years. It's gonna' be bad.....REAL bad!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
4. More hot air over Iran
Asia Times
Jun 2, 2006
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HF02Ak03.html

{snips}

Wednesday's offer to Iran by the United States that Washington is willing to join ongoing talks between the EU-3 and Tehran, provided that the Islamic Republic first "verifiably" freeze its uranium-enrichment efforts, smacks of brinkmanship.

This is the status quo; all that the US offer does is muddy the waters, perhaps with the aim of appearing to be more receptive to talking to the mullahs, this under some pressure from the EU-3.

Yet the US "offer" to talk now is couched in bellicose and threatening language, and not too subtly injects clearly unproven accusations that Iran is pursuing a nuclear-weapons program.

Said Rice, "The negative choice is for the regime to maintain its current course, pursuing nuclear weapons in defiance of the international community and its international obligations. If the regime does so, it will incur only great cost. We and our European partners agree that that path will lead to international isolation, and progressively stronger political and economic sanctions."

more: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HF02Ak03.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
5. US is playing with matches in our backyard
Edited on Thu Jun-01-06 10:44 AM by bigtree
“Today the situation in the region is extremely complicated and explosive. Under such conditions, it would be a good idea for Russia to make a pause to gain room for maneuver, to avoid dictating its help but rather wait she is asked for help. Russia should avoid burdening itself with obligations – it’s a patient player that may get all the stakes,” the director of the Center for Caucasian Studies at the Moscow State University of International Relations, Professor Vladimir Degoyev said in an interview to REGNUM.

Commenting on the developments around Iran, Degoyev said that in this regard, he is concerned with the situation in the South Caucasus. “Speculations are made that the US has managed to create some kind of infrastructure in Azerbaijan and Georgia – something that will help it to carry out ‘surgical strikes’ on Iran. If the Americans actually do this, i.e. if they use the South Caucasus in their military campaign against Iran, Russia will have to react in some way. The situation is like somebody is playing with brushwood and matches in our backyard. I am sure that Iran’s response will be tough and adequate, and probably even asymmetrical,” said Degoyev.

He also said that by increasing their pressure on Iran, including by means of internal factors, and by simultaneously whipping up tension on Russia’s southern border, the Americans are giving Putin some kind of a signal before the G8 Summit in St. Petersburg. It is no secret that in St. Petersburg Russia is going to make a statement about its dominant role in the global energy security system. “Such maneuvers before our fence ahead the St. Petersburg summit may well be specially meant to wreck it or just to accompany it to thereby present Russia as a bad player who puts a good face on things.”

ful report: http://www.regnum.ru/english/649382.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
6. Offers and Ultimatums
Endgaming Iran

By MIKE WHITNEY
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney06012006.html

"The US is updating contingency plans for a strike to cripple Iran's atomic weapon program if international diplomacy fails.The plan calls for a rolling, five-day bombing campaign against 400 key targets, including 24 nuclear-related sites, 14 military airfields and radar installations, and Revolutionary Guard headquarters." Ian Bruce, "US spells out plan to bomb Iran", The UK Herald

The Bush administration has no intention of peacefully resolving the nuclear dispute with Iran. They have consistently blocked all attempts by Iran to negotiate in good faith or to establish diplomatic channels for discussion. The current offer by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to talk directly with Iran is less a departure from the normal US' belligerence than it is a means of enlisting support from Russia and China for future punitive action. In one particularly ominous comment, Rice said that the negotiations would give Iran "one last excuse" to resist American demands. This tells us that US diplomacy is a just a smokescreen for eventual hostilities.

It took the United States months of behind the scenes wrangling to persuade the UN Security Council to even consider Iran's "alleged" nuclear weapons programs. Iran tried to prevent this by offering to allow surprise inspections on any facility suspected of covert nuclear activity. Iran is not required to do this under the terms of the NPT, but volunteered as a way of building confidence among the member states. The Bush administration, which made this a vital part of earlier demands, rejected the offer outright saying that Iran's concession would not be enough to end the standoff.

Again, the Bush administration rejected this "good will" gesture as insufficient, while Condi Rice scoffed at the idea as a trick. These are just latest examples of Iran's efforts to find a peaceful way to placate Washington. The administration is not interested in concessions or settlements. It is simply building the case for punitive action or war.

full article: http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney06012006.html


my 2 cents -- Dealing with the U.S. Devil (6-01-2006)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
8. okay
Edited on Thu Jun-01-06 04:21 PM by bigtree
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 16th 2024, 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC