It is unbelievable to think that riffraffs as tenuous as
these are in charge of the Wall Street Journal, a publication that used to
command the respect of the most eminent elites anywhere in the World. Look at
them now as they struggle with simple ideas, and do no better than seem to
wallow in a pool of Jewish dump.
Their latest installment comes under the title: “Obama's
False Iran Choice” and the subtitle: “There was a better alternative to his
deal. He never pursued it.” This is the lead editorial in the Journal's edition
of July 16, 2015. According to the editors, it is to rebut President Obama's
assertion that “none” of his critics “have presented [to him] or the American
people a better alternative.”
They explain that Mr. Obama's argument rests on the false
political choice of letting Iran
develop the bomb or launching a war against that country. This is the assertion
they rebut with the following counterpoint: “Mr. Obama knows there has always
been an alternative because many critics have suggested it. It's called
coercive diplomacy...” But because Mr. Obama asked for a 'better' alternative
not just any alternative, the onus was on the editors to show how much better
that alternative was. Well then, are you ready to hear what they say in this
regard? Here it is: “...and it might have worked to get a better deal if Mr.
Obama had tried.”
Did you get that, my friend? They are little farts trying to
escape Netanyahu's underpants, blurting editorials that would not scare a
cockroach, whereas he is commander in chief of a military that can blow up the
planet several times over, and they want you to believe that their “might have”
is more valid than his assertion. They expand on that thought by defining coercive
diplomacy as ratcheting up the sanctions, something “Mr. Obama resisted [when]
he gave waivers to countries like Japan
[and being] reluctant to impose sanctions on global financial institutions
[such as] the Chinese banks that offered Tehran
access to foreign currency.”
What is not going through the skull of these creatures is
that you can freeze someone's ability to do business, or you can hold back what
belongs to someone for only a short period of time. After that, 'coercive
diplomacy' starts to look like you're demanding ransom for having kidnapped
someone's child, or having stolen someone's property carrying a high
sentimental value to its owner.
For that reason, and for the fact that Japan could not live without Iran 's oil, the Japanese started doing business
with Iran
despite the American imposed sanctions. It is also why the Chinese – who had it
up to here participating in the useless Jewish games that America never stops
playing – started to put down the foundation for a Chinese led bank that will
ultimately supplant the American domination of the world banking system as well
as fill the roles now filled by the IMF and the World Bank.
Kept frozen inside their audio-visual cocoons, the editors
of the Journal's American edition did not understand Obama when he said “that
the sanctions could not have been maintained.” On the contrary, they thought
then as they do now that “there was no sign sanctions were collapsing.” That's
because these people are of the generation that grew up on the big screen movies,
and the TV episodes where the world problems begin, unfold and end in one or
two hours. They could not sense that what the Japanese and the Chinese did,
were symptoms of the collapsing regime of sanctions; one that unfolds in years
and decades, not in minutes.
All they could do is hear the echo of pundits that mutilated
the history of Ronald Reagan's diplomacy to make it sound like his “refusing to
budge,” forced the Soviet Union to raise the
white flag of surrender. They also mention that Reagan armed the enemies of the
Soviets' proxies; something that Obama could have done with the enemies of Iran , they say.
Perhaps they are suggesting that the Iran-Contra affair can be re-enacted in
reverse. These people should be writing scripts for Hollywood .
Only now – toward the end of the editorial – do they reveal
what it is that made them the intellectual freaks they seem to be. Here it is:
“the truth is that war becomes less likely when diplomacy is accompanied by the
credible threat of war.” Having set out to rebut Obama's argument that the
alternatives were to let Iran
develop the bomb or risk war, they now say that to forcefully threaten war on Iran
would have secured the peace more than was accomplished by the diplomacy of the
Obama-Kerry team. That's freakish alright.