Obama 2015 & Hitler 1938 - Both Big Deal Failures

Obama's big nuke deal is "turn the other cheek" on steroids. Iran has been at war against us since 1979, when Obama was just a dope smoking child. And Iran has sponsored more terrorism and murdered more Americans than any other country since…Without Iran there would be no Syrian al-Assad, no Palestinian Hamas, no Islamic I.S.I.S. and no Lebanese Hezbollah!

So how does America respond to Iran? ... 

• By giving Iran hundreds of billions of dollars in frozen assets.

The Iran deal will provide a $150 billion cash windfall as sanctions are eased with an additional $20 billion per year in oil revenues, making the deal worth $420 billion over 15 years. If so, the Iran deal would give more cash to Iran than the $124.3 billion U.S. has given in total aid to Israel since 1948.

• By allowing Iran self-inspections of nuclear sites for rules infractions. 
• By promising Iran protection of nuclear plants by the U.S. if attacked.  

That's how Obama's America responds to the murder of Americans; by making it easier for Iran to murder more Americans without fear. And knowing there are no real consequences, who wonders why Putin has publicly shown such contempt for America with impunity?

This Iranian deal is a thousand times more reprehensible than that piece of worthless paper Neville Chamberlain brought back from his 1938 meeting with Adolph Hitler: 

In 1919, at the end of the First World War in The Treaty of Versailles the map of Europe was re-drawn where several new countries were formed which was intended to make a lasting peace. Hitler, however, coveted and wanted the return of annexed German land. Many people felt that the Treaty had caused terrible resentment in Germany on which Hitler had been able to play in order to achieve power. Some governments believed that Hitler and Germany had genuine grievances, but that if these could be met (‘appeased’) Hitler would be satisfied and become less demanding.

As a result of The Treaty of Versailles, three million Germans found themselves living in a part of Czechoslovakia called the Sudetenland and when Adolf Hitler came to power, he wanted to unite all Germans into one nation. Hitler orchestrated and fomented civil unrest with protests to bolster his argument for German unification.

During this situation, the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, flew toBritish Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, right, speaks to Adolf Hitler's interpreter Paul Schmidt during their meeting at the Hotel Dreesen at Godesberg, Germany, in September 1938 only three days before signing Treaty. meet Hitler at Berchtesgaden, his German Bavarian Alps private mountain retreat in an attempt to resolve the crisis. Hitler was capable of being charming, of lying and of bullying; all personal attributes that truly enhanced his negotiation powers while on his rise.

On September 29, 1938 at Munich, Germany British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain got an international agreement that Hitler should have the Sudetenland in exchange for Germany making no further demands for land in Europe. Chamberlain really believed that Hitler was a man of his word.

Chamberlain said it was ‘Peace for our time’. Hitler said he had ‘NoEger, Czech Republic 1938 - Greet German Troops Soldiers or more territorial demands to make in Europe.’ In the Munich Agreement, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s peace appeasement policy only made war more likely because Hitler thought he could get away with anything.

On October 1, 1938, only two days later, German troops occupied the Sudetenland: Hitler had got what he wanted without firing a shot.

On September 3, 1939, Prime Minister Chamberlain went to the airwaves to announce a state of war with Germany. It was in response to Hitler's invasion of Poland, Britain and France, World War II had begun.

And now because past history has disproved Neville Chamberlain's assumptions, we know better ...or do we? Some apologists erroneously restated later that Chamberlain’s appeasement policy bought a valuable year for Britain to get ready for the war which was bound to come--say what? ...and that was in Chamberlain's plans during those annexation talks?--I don't think so! ...But are we doing that today in Obama's Iranian agreement?

Obama - Rubik's Sub-Par "Rube" Cube

Barack Obama - The "Child-in-Chief" of World Politics

Rubiks Cube - sub-cube piecesThe historical U.S. political and military foreign policies enacted in the Near, Middle and Far east fit together like sub-cubes in a mystical ‘Rubik’s Cube’ that are puzzled over by many history scholars, generals, and armchair strategists as a subject of contentious analysis, opinion and debate. They have searched these U.S. policies for answers about how United States diplomacy and actions have influenced these areas since early as President Woodrow Wilson after WW1, 1919. One has to ask, "What does all this mean to the U.S. policies going forward in the 21st Century? - We don't need another 'Rube", a country bumpkin green amateur, we have to get an EXPERIENCED Leader!

Vietnam Background History. ["As World War One came to a close in 1919, a young Vietnamese patriot named Nguyen That Thanh arrived in 1920 during the Paris Peace Conference to speak with the powerful men negotiating the terms for peace. On behalf of his people living within the French empire in Indochina, Thanh sought to lobby the Western leaders for greater rights. He hoped to take American President Woodrow Wilson up on his promise of "self-determination," the principle of national sovereignty, and free Vietnam from colonial rule. But Thanh, like many other advocates of colonial independence who descended upon the Paris peace talks, discovered that the pledge was too good to be true. The British and the French refused to enforce self-rule for their colonies, and despite Thanh's direct appeal to President Wilson, the three powers ultimately ignored the young Vietnamese nationalist.

"In the following years, Thanh, disillusioned by the Western democratic process, pursued new and more radical solutions to imperial rule in his country. He had been deeply impressed by the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, and by the ability of the Bolsheviks to rally support among the Soviet masses. So in the 1920s, while still in France, he joined the Communist Party. With the adopted name 'Ho Chi Minh,' meaning 'enlightened one,' he planned to take his teachings home to Vietnam to awaken his own people, to unite and train them, and to lead them in their own revolution."]

First elected as U.S. President in 1913, this former President of Princeton University was seen as a boorish, intellectual snob who highly regarded his own opinions as to know best for all. He vainly coveted a 'pince-nez' or 'pinched nose' eye glasses that literally pinch the bridge of the nose with no hinged arms which emphasized his erudition, a 'learned, scholarly professorial' image.  (See our Wilson's Legacy to Obama Presidency to read about a very terminally egocentric man.)

A liberal Progressive Democrat Politician, President Woodrow Wilson used the slogan “He kept U.S. out of war” effectively in his 1916 reelection bid to win in March, 1917. However, politically realizing the treasures in spoils and booty to divide up from World War One, a mere one month later in April, 1917, just after he won an election on “He kept U.S. out of war” slogan, Wilson hastily jumped into war during the remaining year or so, with only nineteen months left, before the Germans signing the Armistice of  Compiègne in France in November, 1918.

Woodrow Wilson since 1914 had deliberately kept the American army near its paltry peacetime size as a roundabout way to maintain his slogan, "He kept U.S. out of war", to defeat the interventionists; after all, with a standing army of just over 120,000 soldiers, about one-twentieth the size of any of the major European powers, what could the U.S. possibly contribute to the war effort? Most estimates were that it would be up to a year before an American army, now slated to grow to well over one million, might contribute to the European battlefield in any significant way.

In Woodrow Wilson's rush to join the war effort he also foolishly misjudged the time to enlist civilians and supply arms while tragically miscalculating the unintended loss of lives. Our young, inexperienced civilian military rookies were trained in hastily drawn combat exercises and so before they even entered the war front it cost the U.S. many lives needlessly before soldiers were actually lost in real combat in the trenches. Boy, that intellectual Princeton President sure knew how to lecture about sociology and political science theories, just not much in the actual practicalities and applications, just ask those dead young soldiers.

In January, 1919 the Paris Peace Conference convened with the "Big Four." They were the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, where prior to Wilson's arrival in Europe, no American president had ever visited Europe while in office; the Prime Minister of Great Britain, David Lloyd George; the Prime Minister of France, Georges Clemenceau; and the Prime Minister of Italy, Vittorio Orlando. They met together informally 145 times and made all the major decisions, which in turn were ratified by the others.

Woodrow Wilson's narcissist goal was his presidential legacy for the 'League of Nations' for global control of the actions of countries and people. He had support by another 'liberal thinker", David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Britain (1916-22), who was a key figure in Parliament for passing the modern 'British welfare state' reforms. Consequently, the welfare program's costly aftermath split up his coalition of more Conservatives than his own Liberals, a key factor in the decline of the Liberal Party as a serious political force thereafter. After 1922 he was a marginalized and widely mistrusted figure in Britain.

By November, 1919 in the U.S., the League of Nations proved too controversial with its treaties and activities and so the Senate voted to never join or sign any treaties, but instead made separate treaties.

1920 League of Nations inaugural General AssemblyThe Paris Peace Conference came to an end in January, 1920 with the inaugural General Assembly of the League of Nations to vote on five major peace treaties prepared at the Paris Peace Conference, including the most contentious one with results of the 'Treaty of Versailles,' which weakened Germany's military, and required her to pay reparations. Bingo! ...Big pay-off to the allies! It was a natural set-up later for German animosities towards the reparations and humilities suffered leading to the rise of Hitler's Third Reich in 1932.

Some later blame that Wilson had his first stroke in 1920 during tours after tirelessly speaking about the League of Nations. He had two more strokes during his last term in office, 1921. President Wilson died dejected in 1924. The League of Nations lasted only from 1920 to 1935, really an ineffectual body since there was no U.S. participation.

The 1931 League of Nations Meeting - Iranian Delegation.

From left: 1- Abolhassan Hakimi  2- Abdol Hossein Sardari my maternal uncle who was a member of the League of Nations Secretariat  3- My father Anoshiravan Khan Sepahbodi, Iran's Head of Mission at the League of Nations and also Minister of Iran to Bern , Switzerland  4- Abdollah Entezam 6- Iran's Prime Minister Mohammad-Ali Foroughi "Zoka-al-Molk"  7- Mrs. Hakimi wife of Abolhassan Hakimi  8- Movassagh-al-Dowleh Khajeh Nouri. In the middle with overcoat and hat in hand between H.E. Foroughi and my father is H.E. Mr. Abbasgohli Khan Gharib, "Motarjomalmalek".

The century from 1912 to 2011 has demonstrated for anybody whose eyes are open the complete and absolute failure of "progressivism" and its cousins socialism and communism. Unfortunately, Progressives have continued to push their ideas and agendas, despite the fact that things never happen the way progressives claim that they will. In fact, Barack Obama is the epitome of the failed progressive movement.

So history repeats itself as Obama attempts to convene what amounts to a publicity-held tribunal resurrecting his own legacy to alter its fate in his final term of office as a U.S. foreign policy maker in the Iranian Nuclear talks, Obama still remains a dismal loser. I guess the Iranians will get into another picture, except at the United Nations this time, in 2013 or 82 years later--Some things never change except nuclear bombs.

Obama now needs his 'big score' internationally working through the 'United Nations'. The Middle east tensions, especially between Israel and Iran, are almost Biblical if not epochal in their historical importance to maintaining peace in this diversely populated region. And apparently no one is buying any of the manure that Obama is spreading in the negotiations because he has no conceptions or clues on who and what the dynamics are that exist. Alas, Obama needs those original ghost writers who exhumed his past from his birth through early adulthood to reconstruct and build their story in a book like 'Dreams from my Father.'

In writing Presidential histories, which include legacies, historians have to be careful about their facts. Gordon Goldstein's book, 'Lessons in Disaster', which is a favorite Vietnam book for the Obama White House. It recycles past caricatures of South Vietnam President Ngo Dinh Diem as a corrupt and ineffective autocrat and ignores the difficulties within an authoritarian society at war. This blindsided political biased portrayal clouds anyone from arriving at a balanced judgement of the real history--it simply ain't so, unless such rendering leads the reader to assume that the Vietnam War was unwinnable as liberals, like Obama, who cling to this historical rewrite scenario to defend their aversion to military intervention at all costs.

Americans were puzzled by their defeat in Vietnam. How could the most powerful nation on earth have been defeated by a rag-tag bunch of peasant guerrillas? However, as post-war results came out, a major contributor to the collapse of the South-Vietnamese war effort between 1963 and 1965 was the difficulty for Diem seeing that the majority of Americans believed that part of the answer to South Vietnam’s problems was to make it like the United States. However, American political cure-alls did not suit the Vietnamese cultural landscape and Diem’s very resistance to reform proved that he was not a puppet of the United States as many history books contended. This is where the travesty lies in rewriting history politically instead of factually. I lived during those war years and came to realize the same conclusion early in those many years ago as it finally ended in 1975. The American people's thinking of establishing any U.S. style democracy relied upon their pure folly underlying cultural ignorance of other societies. 

The TroglodytesToday, although our country has achieved more than any others through our Constitutional rule of laws protecting personal and property rights, we must be mindful to respect other countries' sovereignty ...But, as they should respect ours too!--specifically not terrorism or Islamist Jihadism directed towards the U.S. One fact is undeniable after U.S. intervention in Vietnam, Laos, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Syria. How many countries are not suited for a democracy? Most, and that's not good, because all their indigenous people will remain little educated, poorly fed, meagerly clothed, barely housed, mostly unemployed and deep-rooted in superstitions--truly 'troglodytes.'

So how do freedom seeking people change their societies?

There are no set rules.

"In many Middle Eastern countries, poverty is deep and it is spreading, women lack rights and are denied schooling. Whole societies remain stagnant while the world moves ahead. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export," - President George W. Bush.

Dr. Gerard Pince founded in 2001 the World Freedom Academy. He has lived, worked and traveled extensively throughout the Middle East and Africa for over forty years. His authoritative views were focused through the prism in the world of economics, finance and banking; so no doubt, he became keenly aware of how Islamation was surreptitiously spreading its repercussions throughout the economies of those societies. I have offered Dr. Pince's quite blunt, disturbing observations and conclusions that follow--the truth really smarts!

"Terrorism, fanaticism, Grand corruption, dictatorships, Illegal immigration, proliferation and constant threat for the civilized world--In such a context, it is fruitless to make recommendations. The road to democracy should imply a complete reeducation ( And notably a reform of Islam) similar to the denazification process which was implemented in Germany by the end of World War 2. Such a process had a meaning in Germany because this country was a great civilization. On the contrary, we do not think that the Middle East and North Africa merit endless wars and the losses of brave soldiers."

"Since September 11, 2001, the Free world is at war. The enemy is not only terrorism. Islamism is the enemy. It is new fascist ideology based on hate for freedom and sponsored by the Arab dictatorships.

"Indeed, Islamism is not only seeking to influence one religion or control one region: Islamism is waging war against all the civilizations and not only against the “Jews and Crusaders.”

"According to this core analysis:

• Firstly, we have to neutralize the terrorist network implemented in the democracies, and to overthrow the dictatorships which are the sponsors of this plague.

• Secondly, we must underline that the ultimate solution to Islamism relies on the extent of democracy into the Arab world.

• Thirdly, we need a moral and psychological rearmament in order to fight the flow of disinformation. We have to promote education in order to eradicate obscurantism [preventing enlightenment to facts, being vague] and negative beliefs.

"Clearly, it is sure that we shall win the war on terrorism. It is not sure that we shall succeed in implementing 'Democracy.'--In this case, a containment policy should be appropriate."

 Will Barack Hussein Obama fight Islamism, Moderate or Radical Muslims?

The Obama Faulty FDR Foreign Foreplay Failures

Yalta, Ukraine - Feb. 4, 1945 - Churchill. FDR. Stalin (L-R)A summit meeting was held at the Livadia Palace in Yalta, where Joseph Stalin hosted Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in February 1945 to negotiate the political map of postwar Europe. It was time to divide up the war spoils of Germany.

"In our hearts we really believed a new day had dawned," Harry Hopkins, FDR's closest aide, recalled about Yalta. "We were all convinced we had won the first great victory for peace. . . . The Russians had proved they could be reasonable and farsighted and neither the president nor any of us had the slightest doubt that we could live with them and get on peaceably with them far into the future."

It was certainly true of FDR. The man who got what he wanted from the American public like no other president could be forgiven for thinking of himself as someone who understood people and their motivations - Does it sound like another President we all know now?

Returning from his first meeting with Stalin in Tehran in 1943, Roosevelt told reporters: "I got along fine with Marshal Stalin. He is a man who combines a tremendous determination with a stalwart good humor. I believe he is truly representative of the heart and soul of Russia; and I believe we are going to get along very well with him."

FDR didn't end up feeling positive like in Tehran after the Yalta meeting. Contrary to popular feelings that Yalta was an example of deliberate American cynicism or cowardice...

It typified a style of American diplomacy that combined boundless idealism with fatal naiveté, an exaggerated confidence in the power of persuasion to bridge differences—and a fatal indifference to the importance of ideology in creating them - Sounds like an American president you now know?

Historians of the Yalta conference have often noted that the Russians had every room in the palace bugged, and that Stalin was provided every morning with transcripts of Roosevelt's and Churchill's private discussions with their staffs. But Stalin's advantage at Yalta wasn't that he was better briefed. It was that he was a better psychologist. He knew how to turn Roosevelt's illusions to his own purposes.

Above all, FDR cherished the illusion that, through universal participation in the U.N., World War II could be what the first one had not: the war to end all wars. Stalin was more than willing to nurture FDR's idealism—provided FDR returned the favor by granting Stalin the run of his ambitions.

So it is with so many negotiations between Democrats and Tyrants: When there is a deal, it usually winds up being a trade between:

the theoretical and the tangible

the immediate concession and the long-term promise

the paper agreement and the territorial prize

President Obama is incapable of resisting "the deal" with Iranian President Hasan Rouhani. So, Obama has instructed Secretary of State, John Kerry to engage with Iran in talks to discuss a nuclear weapons deal. Obama, like FDR, envisions he will be hailed as a master diplomat and a triumphant peacemaker working within the constraints of the United Nations organization. As with Yalta, it won't take long to learn who is betrayed, and what is lost, in the service of an illusion to stop Iran from nuclear proliferation and fostering global terrorism. 

It's been said, "Fools rush in where Wise men fear to tread" which seem to be an apropos description of our inexperienced President and his advisors not having any cultural-ethnic understanding in negotiating with those Russians, Iranians, Syrians, Libyans, Afghanis, Iraqis and other militant, terrorist groups which have all proven to be utter diplomatic failures.  

NEWS FLASH FOR OBAMA:  As for Islamic followers, the Muslims around the world believe in the total submission of non-believers, the infidels converting and living under Sharia Laws--there is no compromise, it is to the scripture in the Quran.  They do not negotiate their faith, beliefs or practices.  So gays, lesbians, cross-genders, Jews, Christians, women as chattel do not have any rights under Sharia Law, can either suffer under Dhimmitude or if doing anti-Islamic sexual practices be stoned to death. HELLO, they run a Theocracy, not a Democracy, get it?