Robert Ariail by Robert Ariail

Robert Ariail

Comments (10) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, about 1 year ago

    1) With a brief interruption in ‘53, the Shah ruled Iran from the ’40s until 1979. A good friend of the west, a moderate, he let the price of oil rise from less than $1 a barrel to more than $3, and Kissinger said he knew of an ascetic cleric in Paris who didn’t care about oil, and who would let the US have all the Iranian oil for much less than $1 a barrel, so the US stopped supporting the Shah when Nixon was president, and the Shah was finally toppled by that cleric in ‘79, which has resulted in Americans paying less than 19¢ a gallon for oil, and also Peace and Prosperity for the entire world.


    2) After the US set off the bomb in ’45, the US knew no other nation had the technological skills to duplicate this, and the US would dominate the world in perpetuity, using the threat of nuclear annihilation to end all wars and force the savages (meaning everyone outside the US, and this includes YOU Canada) to live in peace and harmony.


    3) No one else would be allowed a bomb, but anyone could buy a reactor. The cores would be ’denatured’, i.e., fixed so they would run the reactors where they were installed, but these cores could never be used to build a bomb, and the US sold some reactors to the Shah. Since ‘79, Iran has been trying to convert those denatured cores sold to the Shah into bombs, and has been less than ONE YEAR from completing the bomb every single year since ’79. And Iran is STILL less than one year from having a working nuclear weapon.


    So in conclusion, Mr Ariail is completely correct in pointing out that it is horribly wrong for Obama to talk to the new ’president’ of Iran, a president with all the power and authority of a school president elected by the students (the Superintendent of this particular school district being the Ayatollah).

  2. wmconelly

    wmconelly said, about 1 year ago

    Come on, you sheep! Why talk when we can bomb!

  3. sw10mm

    sw10mm said, about 1 year ago

    The libs in the WH believe it, so it must be true, right?

  4. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, about 1 year ago

    @Michael wme

    I always enjoy reading you, MichaelW.
    Keep it up.
    Sincerely,
    C.

  5. Enoki

    Enoki said, about 1 year ago

    So, which one is Obama?

  6. ahab

    ahab GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @Michael wme

    Nice post, entertaining reading amongst the usual rabble’s droppings.

  7. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    NIce irony, Michael.


    “w” and Cheney et al gave us “either – or” diplomacy: “either you leave YOUR country, like yesterday, OR we won’t STOP bombing you!”


    Under the cover of diverting the moron brigade,Obama has used “If – then” diplomacy: “IF you stop using weapons we don’t approve of and let other nations, not just us, participate in controls, THEN we will NOT start bombing you.”


    Iran of course has been targeted by the U.S. and Israel for bombing since the day we took the Shah in. They have repeatedly stated they want nuclear energy to generate electricity so they can sell US their oil! IF they have a desire to have a nuclear deterrent, we and they know Israel, not just the U.S. has more than enough nukes to blow THEM off the map, is that any less logical than Israel and the U.S. insisting “Our side”, has to have them?


    WE have done a pretty good job of shooting the sheep in Iraq and Afghanistan, when the supposed “target” was initially only ONE wolf in Afghanistan (A SAUDI CITIZEN), and ONE wolf in IRAQ, who WE kept in power to “control” Iran!!


    “Either – OR”, has proven to be an ineffective, nay, absolutely STUPID and deadly policy. Maybe it’s time, after more than 60 years of nearly continuous wars, that the U.S. “nationalists” (and MIC) lost out, and common sense Americans recognized that negotiation, even WITH the PROMISE of force, but only if absolutely necessary, become our “if – then” policy for a change?


    Yes, I note that those who’ve never had friends killed, standing right next to them, or killed folks, up close and personal, as well as “at a distance”, are the ones calling everyone else “wolf in sheep’s clothing”, while they themselves are chickens dressed as “mock hawks”.


    Pincus just wrote of the FACT that the Obama administration began “talking” to the Russians about removing Assad’s chemical potential, in JUNE 2012! Yes, there was “if -then” philosophy at work, and sadly, it’s taken to long, but maybe there will be reason rather than “ricin”??

  8. Enoki

    Enoki said, about 1 year ago

    @coraryan

    You could be right. And to be totally politically incorrect I’ll add that there are no black sheep present…

  9. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, about 1 year ago

    @swr

    SWR: Thank you. I find Michael’s droll posts witty, but they play fast and loose with facts.

  10. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @Michael wme

    Interesting, but the truth is Carter fully supported the Shah. After he abdicated, the US encouraged the military to stage a coup against the Ayatollahs. Khomeini made it very clear from the beginning that he was opposed to foreign exploitation of Iran’s oil.

    We sowed the seeds for the rule of the Ayatollahs. In 1953, MI6 & the CIA overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh, who tried to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. He wanted to use the oil money to build a secular, democratic nation. BP had secured a 60 year deal to fix the price of oil on extremely favourable terms. (Intentional Brit spelling.) They weren’t about to give that up without a fight. Thanks to the help from the CIA, American oil companies were given a piece of the action.

    I would approach Rouhani with extreme skepticism. He has little real authority, nor did Ahmadinejad. Maybe the replacement of the bellicose Ahmadinejad with the more temperate Rouhani signals a willingness to negotiate.

    The Ayatollahs aren’t crazy or stupid. They are under a great deal of internal & external pressure. They’re more interested in staying in power in Iran & retaining influence in Iraq, Syria & Lebanon than competing in a nuclear arms race with Israel.

  11. Refresh Comments.