Killing your people? Madeline Albright shrugged at the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children on tv so don’t start that line of cow manure.
Bibi wants Iran gone, period. Everything else is noise. Project for a new “American” century in action. Americans with dual loyalties again ( Kagan & Kristol)
Wow, we lost 4500 American soldiers because of that asinine neocon propaganda! I get it that you are a Canadian and so you can virtue signal that you care more about Muslim women and children than young brave Americans….but zero American troops should be sacrificed to improve the lives of foreign women and children!! Americans enlist in the military to kill enemies overseas thus keeping our citizens safe in the homeland!! Saddam was an evil dictator and the sanctions and no-fly zone enforced by the American military rendered him impotent and it’s up to the Iraqi people to remove him and improve their country.
The Albright comment is straight out of Republican propaganda from the 1990s. Republicans literally argued that invading Iraq would result in fewer Iraqi deaths than the status quo…it was nutz but unfortunately worked on Republican voters. And your username shows you are gullible because the Trumpcine was very close to a miracle drug that was extremely safe and more than effective enough to mitigate severity.
'The Albright comment is straight out of Republican propaganda from the 1990s.'
No it's not.
CBS's Leslie Stahl asked Albright if the price of over half a million Iraqi children who died as a consequence of US-led sanctions was "worth it," Albright responded, "It's a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it's worth it."
No one knew at the moment that the death toll was lower, but that doesn't change much about Albright's statement. She later said she should have worded it differently. I'm sure she believed that.
But in general progressives are quite deadly. They're as fanatical as some reps for sure. Hillary Clinton and - again - Albrght revelled in Gadaffi's death
To hell with the consequences (civil war, slave markets etc).
Though when the administration perceives electoral risk (not another Somalia!) they can make massive turns and go right aganst previously stated humanitaran ambitions, When the Rwandan genocide was evolving Bill Clinton had Samantha Powers frantically massage the UN security councl to NOT offically declare that a genocide was going on.
Because that would have upped the pressure on Clinton to act. Further pressure would have come from Reagan signing in 88' the UNs Genocide Convention Implementation Act. While a year earl;ier the US Congress had accorded 'The Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988' whch was created after US ally Saddam began gassnf the Kurds.
It's remarkable how well intending ambitious progressive elitist ladies keep showing up when the blood starts flowing...
😢 boo hoo, 😝. Rubio is in charge now—in 2019 he threatened Maduro with a photo of Qaddafi bloodied and dead. I bet you were upset when Obama killed Osama Bin Laden because Bush failed to deliver justice for the 9/11 families? Qaddafi sponsored the Lockerbie Bomber…what happened to his country after we took him out isn’t our concern.
'what happened to his country after we took him out isn’t our concern.'
I know. You don't give a f***
Like Powell's former chief of staff said in Iraq, Destruction of a nation Part-3
‘We have a problem in America: we don’t think about the other side much. I’ve been to all 50 states the past ten years, I talked to audiences all across America and I can say categorically we do not think about the other side. There are exceptions but not many. “They died. They deserved to die”.
Perhaps Trump finally realized that the Iranian color revolution has failed, and that you shouldn't listen to intel from exiled people to learn what's going on in their former countries?
Their contacts "at home" are bound to share their opinions (read: wishful thinking) and they themselves are, of course, fanatic opponents of whatever regime they escaped from - be that Iran or Cuba.
Should the US start bombing, the Iranian people will "rally 'round the flag", and the campaign will most likely end in tears - if not in blood.
> Should the US start bombing, the Iranian people will "rally 'round the flag"
Funny that: Israel bombed for 12 days and within months millions of Iranians were on the street demonstrating against the Islamic Republic. Enough to make the Ayatollahs shut down the Internet for 3 weeks and counting.
Doesn't sound like much of a rally around the flag. More like a rally around the collapsing rial and the lack of water in Teheran.
<<<<<within months millions of Iranians were on the street demonstrating against the Islamic Republic.<<<<<
Not correct. Millions were on the street protesting the government's ability to manage the economy. They were not protesting against the *Islamic Republic*. When minority Sunni groups (Balochi and Kurds) showed up to violently protest the Shia Islamic Republic, those millions protesting the government left the streets immediately.
As long as you are incapable of seeing the difference the clergy of a theocratic state and popularly elected administrative governments, you will be unable to actually understand what is happening in those states.
Rest assured those Balochi and Kurds will never rally around the flag and will use every opportunity to exploit any perceived weakness in the host country just like they do in every other country that they reside in.
"Millions were on the street protesting the government's ability to manage the economy"
Got to love it when the other side is left clutching at straws:
managing the economy, preventing the currency from losing 99.8% of its value in 10 years, making sure water comes out of the faucets is the government.
The attacks on clerics and mosques, the true leadership of the Islamic Republic, show what the people aimed for.
Nobody is "popularly elected" when their candidacy first has to be approved by a committee of clerics, as happens in Iran. Why do you think Mohammed Khathami hasn't run again?
Kurds, Baluchis and Azeris are over 40% of Iran's population. They won't be excluded forever.
The problem with negotiations regarding Trump is that last June Trump was in negotiations with the Iranians when he let Israel attack - one of quite a few reasons why the Iranians were initially caught out. So no one but no one trusts Trump. Iran will continue to prepare for war while Trump tries to extract himself from the corner he willingly backed himself into. Trump is learning actions have consequences in International Relations - still having found no way out and needing to save face he may attack. His ego may demand no less, and there are enough idiots in Washington that will happily cheer him on until it all turns to custard.
Not mentioned in the article is that the Arab states (except Jordan) have backed away from Trump's folly and the Israelis are desperately signaling to the Iranians that they are not involved while trying to convince Trump not to attack. There is also no commitment from Europe to get involved. It looks as if there is an attack - the US will go it alone.
Trump's ego concerns me too. I'm hoping he won't try putting troops into Ukraine or try backing Russia into too tight a corner if they don't take a bad deal he puts forward.
I don't think Trump will put troops into Ukraine. His natural inclination seems to realize that supporting Kiev is a busted flush. In that case his best bet was to cut his losses and run at the start of his Presidency however, he seems to be under extortionary pressure from the Washington blob to stay in the game, hence his inconsistency on the issue. But anything is possible with Trump. The other reason he might go into Iran that I forgot to mention is that it also depends on what issue or scandal at home he might want to distract attention from.
My epistemology (how we see truth, reality and facts) is Realism and the school (how we interpret truth, reality and facts) I follow within Realism is Offensive Realism. Therefore, I do not trust or distrust leaders as they act within, broadly, the state's interests. There are no necessarily good or bad leaders (and here I am not talking about competence which is another matter) - just the interests of the state which leaders are bound to pursue, whether these interests are existential or not.
If leaders present a pattern then other leaders and states will anticipate the same actions anytime the pattern seems to present itself - even if the talks this time are genuine. Back in June last year Iran was engaged in talks with the US, assuming Trump was genuine, Iran expected no military action until such time as the talks could not reach conclusion. They had not concluded and the resumption of the talks was to occur on Monday 16th June. That is normal assumed diplomatic protocol. Trump knew about and allowed the Israeli attack to go ahead (14th June) even though he was still in direct talks. That is what I mean when I say that the Iranians will not trust Trump and any discussions he has with them while the Carrier Group is off the coast and with all the other US preparations for action. The Iranians will not want to get caught again so while they talk they will also be preparing for operations should the US attack.
I have known a few Iranians over the years, with widely varying political views, and not one of them regards Reza Pahlavi as anything but a joke. The reaction is about what you might get here if a foreigner asked if Charles III of England might be a viable candidate for new President if the current American regime fell. But, Reza Pahlavi is definitely popular with the Netanyahu government in Israel, which makes me assume that all of the noise we are hearing about him recently is bought and paid for, and the violent protests on his behalf are astroturf.
Trump and Rubio have telegraphed the perfect message to Iranian generals—you can keep your job in a regime change operation. So the Venezuela military is still intact and their job appears safe no matter what happens in Venezuela. So in Iraq we foolishly disbanded the Iraqi military even though at no point could Iraq ever not have a military with neighbors like Iran!?! Venezuela will be a proof of concept that a very limited military operation that limits upheaval can be effective at furthering American interests.
Sad always to see 'analysts' like this one who can only see things from a US perspective and an assumption that Israel and the US are somehow the 'good people' . No mention about the role of Mossad and CIA/MI6 in the brutal riots in Iran and the ridiculous 'useful idiot'' role of the Shah's son for Israel. Just a re-run of the Mossadegh overthrow of 1953- not very imaginative I would have thought! Perhaps also a mention that Iran has never launched a war in 150 years?? But no- Iran is obviously the evil one!
Oddly, the best approach to Iran is to stop listening to Israel and actually stop trying to undermine the regime. It was naturally liberalizing with time, which every regime does these days, and reducing our threats also reduces their extremism.
“The forces arrayed against Iran don’t actually care about the Iranian people. All they care about is taking out an independent state, stealing its oil and preventing it from supporting Palestine.”
No, just no. As an American citizen I don’t care what promises my president made to a terrorist—I will always vote for a president that will bring justice to Americans impacted by terrorism irrespective of promises made by a previous administration. Qaddafi sponsored terrorists which made him a terrorist and so any deals made with Qaddafi were short term strategic deals and could never absolve him of the Americans he killed on Pan Am 103. Qaddafi got what he deserved and all foreign leaders should know if they sponsor terrorists then they will eventually get what is due to them!
I will give Whitaker the benefit of the doubt that he is an ignoramus and doesn’t know about the Lockerbie Bombing because the notion any American should care about what happens to a country after justice is served is a disservice to the victims of terrorism. And Trump understands this because he wisely surrendered to the Taliban…and no family that lost loved ones on 9/11 should care about Afghans after Trump surrendered to the Taliban because our goal was to degrade Al Qaida and then exterminate AQ and deliver justice to the families and then make sure the Afghan government never provided safe haven to terrorists going forward.
As an American, I'm ashamed that Obama and Clinton were so despicable and malicious to kill a guy who had already been housebroken; giving us the current trainwreck. Same crowd gave us the trainwreck in Ukraine, and Syria. There will always be bad people and populations suffering under them. It stinks. Figure out what American interests and stick to that
So it is another of those "we will give up just as long as you let us drop a few bombs on you and say nothing when we tell voters we had you beat" deals.
This time it will be "we stopped you killing all those protesters that died in the crossfire between our hired thugs with guns who were shooting at Police and ambulance workers from above an from inside the crowds".
Of course, Iranians are entitled to more privileges and freedoms than those currently granted to them by religious authorities. However, if the government changes, neither the Americans nor anyone else will be able to guarantee them even this basic level, let alone "improve their standard of living and freedoms." In the worst case scenario for Iran, Trump and Bibi will try to raid Iran again.But this is also risky for the United States - at a minimum, the image of the "hegemon" will again be undermined by Iran's retaliatory actions, after which Trump will have to forget about this country until the end of his presidential term.
I had a chance to talk once to a (former) Iraqi officer after 2003. He told me that the officer class there was personally affronted by the way they were treated - they told their troops not to fight the Americans, and then they were fired and (since most were Baath party members) they couldn't be employed by the state at all in any capacity. He grew heated (in a very polite fashion) on the topic and blamed the Sunni insurgency directly on this decision. I am not going to comment on whether this feeling was appropriate (as I wouldn't know) but I got the strong feeling it was wide-spread.
I recognise that horrific corruption has always infected politics, but I'm genuinely confused about whether we should respect trump's 'honesty' in his PAYG presidency, or break at the depravity.
Thus it seems the Trump administration is walking back on attacking Iran and willing to work out a deal that won’t save the Iranian people, or for that matter crimp Iran’s regional ambitions, nor in the end will it stop Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons
Americans are not idiots, and Trump is really smart.
Attacking Iran is strategically stupid. Not a real possibility. Threat is a negotiating tactic, but it will lead nowhere as
unfortunately Americans are now incapable of making honest agreements, they are now so accustomed to cheating and lying, there is no chance of an agreement.
We are really living in strange times, most of the so called negotiations are Americans talking to themselves.
Killing your people? Madeline Albright shrugged at the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children on tv so don’t start that line of cow manure.
Bibi wants Iran gone, period. Everything else is noise. Project for a new “American” century in action. Americans with dual loyalties again ( Kagan & Kristol)
Wow, we lost 4500 American soldiers because of that asinine neocon propaganda! I get it that you are a Canadian and so you can virtue signal that you care more about Muslim women and children than young brave Americans….but zero American troops should be sacrificed to improve the lives of foreign women and children!! Americans enlist in the military to kill enemies overseas thus keeping our citizens safe in the homeland!! Saddam was an evil dictator and the sanctions and no-fly zone enforced by the American military rendered him impotent and it’s up to the Iraqi people to remove him and improve their country.
There are many other evil dictators but as long as they on the US side you won’t hear a peep from the men on TV
The Albright comment is straight out of Republican propaganda from the 1990s. Republicans literally argued that invading Iraq would result in fewer Iraqi deaths than the status quo…it was nutz but unfortunately worked on Republican voters. And your username shows you are gullible because the Trumpcine was very close to a miracle drug that was extremely safe and more than effective enough to mitigate severity.
'The Albright comment is straight out of Republican propaganda from the 1990s.'
No it's not.
CBS's Leslie Stahl asked Albright if the price of over half a million Iraqi children who died as a consequence of US-led sanctions was "worth it," Albright responded, "It's a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it's worth it."
No one knew at the moment that the death toll was lower, but that doesn't change much about Albright's statement. She later said she should have worded it differently. I'm sure she believed that.
But in general progressives are quite deadly. They're as fanatical as some reps for sure. Hillary Clinton and - again - Albrght revelled in Gadaffi's death
'Clinton on Qaddafi: We came, we saw, he died'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DXDU48RHLU
To hell with the consequences (civil war, slave markets etc).
Though when the administration perceives electoral risk (not another Somalia!) they can make massive turns and go right aganst previously stated humanitaran ambitions, When the Rwandan genocide was evolving Bill Clinton had Samantha Powers frantically massage the UN security councl to NOT offically declare that a genocide was going on.
Because that would have upped the pressure on Clinton to act. Further pressure would have come from Reagan signing in 88' the UNs Genocide Convention Implementation Act. While a year earl;ier the US Congress had accorded 'The Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988' whch was created after US ally Saddam began gassnf the Kurds.
It's remarkable how well intending ambitious progressive elitist ladies keep showing up when the blood starts flowing...
😢 boo hoo, 😝. Rubio is in charge now—in 2019 he threatened Maduro with a photo of Qaddafi bloodied and dead. I bet you were upset when Obama killed Osama Bin Laden because Bush failed to deliver justice for the 9/11 families? Qaddafi sponsored the Lockerbie Bomber…what happened to his country after we took him out isn’t our concern.
'what happened to his country after we took him out isn’t our concern.'
I know. You don't give a f***
Like Powell's former chief of staff said in Iraq, Destruction of a nation Part-3
‘We have a problem in America: we don’t think about the other side much. I’ve been to all 50 states the past ten years, I talked to audiences all across America and I can say categorically we do not think about the other side. There are exceptions but not many. “They died. They deserved to die”.
Perhaps Trump finally realized that the Iranian color revolution has failed, and that you shouldn't listen to intel from exiled people to learn what's going on in their former countries?
Their contacts "at home" are bound to share their opinions (read: wishful thinking) and they themselves are, of course, fanatic opponents of whatever regime they escaped from - be that Iran or Cuba.
Should the US start bombing, the Iranian people will "rally 'round the flag", and the campaign will most likely end in tears - if not in blood.
> Should the US start bombing, the Iranian people will "rally 'round the flag"
Funny that: Israel bombed for 12 days and within months millions of Iranians were on the street demonstrating against the Islamic Republic. Enough to make the Ayatollahs shut down the Internet for 3 weeks and counting.
Doesn't sound like much of a rally around the flag. More like a rally around the collapsing rial and the lack of water in Teheran.
<<<<<within months millions of Iranians were on the street demonstrating against the Islamic Republic.<<<<<
Not correct. Millions were on the street protesting the government's ability to manage the economy. They were not protesting against the *Islamic Republic*. When minority Sunni groups (Balochi and Kurds) showed up to violently protest the Shia Islamic Republic, those millions protesting the government left the streets immediately.
As long as you are incapable of seeing the difference the clergy of a theocratic state and popularly elected administrative governments, you will be unable to actually understand what is happening in those states.
Rest assured those Balochi and Kurds will never rally around the flag and will use every opportunity to exploit any perceived weakness in the host country just like they do in every other country that they reside in.
"Millions were on the street protesting the government's ability to manage the economy"
Got to love it when the other side is left clutching at straws:
managing the economy, preventing the currency from losing 99.8% of its value in 10 years, making sure water comes out of the faucets is the government.
The attacks on clerics and mosques, the true leadership of the Islamic Republic, show what the people aimed for.
Nobody is "popularly elected" when their candidacy first has to be approved by a committee of clerics, as happens in Iran. Why do you think Mohammed Khathami hasn't run again?
Kurds, Baluchis and Azeris are over 40% of Iran's population. They won't be excluded forever.
The problem with negotiations regarding Trump is that last June Trump was in negotiations with the Iranians when he let Israel attack - one of quite a few reasons why the Iranians were initially caught out. So no one but no one trusts Trump. Iran will continue to prepare for war while Trump tries to extract himself from the corner he willingly backed himself into. Trump is learning actions have consequences in International Relations - still having found no way out and needing to save face he may attack. His ego may demand no less, and there are enough idiots in Washington that will happily cheer him on until it all turns to custard.
Not mentioned in the article is that the Arab states (except Jordan) have backed away from Trump's folly and the Israelis are desperately signaling to the Iranians that they are not involved while trying to convince Trump not to attack. There is also no commitment from Europe to get involved. It looks as if there is an attack - the US will go it alone.
Trump's ego concerns me too. I'm hoping he won't try putting troops into Ukraine or try backing Russia into too tight a corner if they don't take a bad deal he puts forward.
I don't think Trump will put troops into Ukraine. His natural inclination seems to realize that supporting Kiev is a busted flush. In that case his best bet was to cut his losses and run at the start of his Presidency however, he seems to be under extortionary pressure from the Washington blob to stay in the game, hence his inconsistency on the issue. But anything is possible with Trump. The other reason he might go into Iran that I forgot to mention is that it also depends on what issue or scandal at home he might want to distract attention from.
What world leader do you trust?
My epistemology (how we see truth, reality and facts) is Realism and the school (how we interpret truth, reality and facts) I follow within Realism is Offensive Realism. Therefore, I do not trust or distrust leaders as they act within, broadly, the state's interests. There are no necessarily good or bad leaders (and here I am not talking about competence which is another matter) - just the interests of the state which leaders are bound to pursue, whether these interests are existential or not.
So why would you make a particular point of not trusting Trump?
If leaders present a pattern then other leaders and states will anticipate the same actions anytime the pattern seems to present itself - even if the talks this time are genuine. Back in June last year Iran was engaged in talks with the US, assuming Trump was genuine, Iran expected no military action until such time as the talks could not reach conclusion. They had not concluded and the resumption of the talks was to occur on Monday 16th June. That is normal assumed diplomatic protocol. Trump knew about and allowed the Israeli attack to go ahead (14th June) even though he was still in direct talks. That is what I mean when I say that the Iranians will not trust Trump and any discussions he has with them while the Carrier Group is off the coast and with all the other US preparations for action. The Iranians will not want to get caught again so while they talk they will also be preparing for operations should the US attack.
I have known a few Iranians over the years, with widely varying political views, and not one of them regards Reza Pahlavi as anything but a joke. The reaction is about what you might get here if a foreigner asked if Charles III of England might be a viable candidate for new President if the current American regime fell. But, Reza Pahlavi is definitely popular with the Netanyahu government in Israel, which makes me assume that all of the noise we are hearing about him recently is bought and paid for, and the violent protests on his behalf are astroturf.
Charles for US president - love it.
Trump and Rubio have telegraphed the perfect message to Iranian generals—you can keep your job in a regime change operation. So the Venezuela military is still intact and their job appears safe no matter what happens in Venezuela. So in Iraq we foolishly disbanded the Iraqi military even though at no point could Iraq ever not have a military with neighbors like Iran!?! Venezuela will be a proof of concept that a very limited military operation that limits upheaval can be effective at furthering American interests.
Sad always to see 'analysts' like this one who can only see things from a US perspective and an assumption that Israel and the US are somehow the 'good people' . No mention about the role of Mossad and CIA/MI6 in the brutal riots in Iran and the ridiculous 'useful idiot'' role of the Shah's son for Israel. Just a re-run of the Mossadegh overthrow of 1953- not very imaginative I would have thought! Perhaps also a mention that Iran has never launched a war in 150 years?? But no- Iran is obviously the evil one!
For some reason Stephen finds it hard to be totally objective about Iran :-)
Oddly, the best approach to Iran is to stop listening to Israel and actually stop trying to undermine the regime. It was naturally liberalizing with time, which every regime does these days, and reducing our threats also reduces their extremism.
FYI:
“The forces arrayed against Iran don’t actually care about the Iranian people. All they care about is taking out an independent state, stealing its oil and preventing it from supporting Palestine.”
After Gaddafi was killed like a dog in the streets of Lybia, everyone knew two things:
1. Promises given by the West are worth nothing, because Gaddafi got killed despite the fact he gave up his weapons of mass destruction.
2. the only thing that saves you is a nuclear bomb.
The North Koreans learned their lessons. The Iranians weren't nearly as smart enough.
No, just no. As an American citizen I don’t care what promises my president made to a terrorist—I will always vote for a president that will bring justice to Americans impacted by terrorism irrespective of promises made by a previous administration. Qaddafi sponsored terrorists which made him a terrorist and so any deals made with Qaddafi were short term strategic deals and could never absolve him of the Americans he killed on Pan Am 103. Qaddafi got what he deserved and all foreign leaders should know if they sponsor terrorists then they will eventually get what is due to them!
I will give Whitaker the benefit of the doubt that he is an ignoramus and doesn’t know about the Lockerbie Bombing because the notion any American should care about what happens to a country after justice is served is a disservice to the victims of terrorism. And Trump understands this because he wisely surrendered to the Taliban…and no family that lost loved ones on 9/11 should care about Afghans after Trump surrendered to the Taliban because our goal was to degrade Al Qaida and then exterminate AQ and deliver justice to the families and then make sure the Afghan government never provided safe haven to terrorists going forward.
As an American, I'm ashamed that Obama and Clinton were so despicable and malicious to kill a guy who had already been housebroken; giving us the current trainwreck. Same crowd gave us the trainwreck in Ukraine, and Syria. There will always be bad people and populations suffering under them. It stinks. Figure out what American interests and stick to that
You are a terrorist apologist…that’s a nice way of calling someone a pussy! 😉
Fascinating. and not in a good way.
So it is another of those "we will give up just as long as you let us drop a few bombs on you and say nothing when we tell voters we had you beat" deals.
This time it will be "we stopped you killing all those protesters that died in the crossfire between our hired thugs with guns who were shooting at Police and ambulance workers from above an from inside the crowds".
Well, this is depressing. Sadly it sounds true.
Of course, Iranians are entitled to more privileges and freedoms than those currently granted to them by religious authorities. However, if the government changes, neither the Americans nor anyone else will be able to guarantee them even this basic level, let alone "improve their standard of living and freedoms." In the worst case scenario for Iran, Trump and Bibi will try to raid Iran again.But this is also risky for the United States - at a minimum, the image of the "hegemon" will again be undermined by Iran's retaliatory actions, after which Trump will have to forget about this country until the end of his presidential term.
I had a chance to talk once to a (former) Iraqi officer after 2003. He told me that the officer class there was personally affronted by the way they were treated - they told their troops not to fight the Americans, and then they were fired and (since most were Baath party members) they couldn't be employed by the state at all in any capacity. He grew heated (in a very polite fashion) on the topic and blamed the Sunni insurgency directly on this decision. I am not going to comment on whether this feeling was appropriate (as I wouldn't know) but I got the strong feeling it was wide-spread.
It was
Who cares about your opinion? lol
If agreements don't matter than anyone can do anything they want. Just like the US does. It behaves like an axe inside a forrest, the Germans say.
I recognise that horrific corruption has always infected politics, but I'm genuinely confused about whether we should respect trump's 'honesty' in his PAYG presidency, or break at the depravity.
Stephen,
Thus it seems the Trump administration is walking back on attacking Iran and willing to work out a deal that won’t save the Iranian people, or for that matter crimp Iran’s regional ambitions, nor in the end will it stop Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons
Americans are not idiots, and Trump is really smart.
Attacking Iran is strategically stupid. Not a real possibility. Threat is a negotiating tactic, but it will lead nowhere as
unfortunately Americans are now incapable of making honest agreements, they are now so accustomed to cheating and lying, there is no chance of an agreement.
We are really living in strange times, most of the so called negotiations are Americans talking to themselves.