Monday, March 23, 2015

Trick or Treaty

obama, obama jokes, political, humor, cartoon, conservative, hope n' change, hope and change, stilton jarlsberg, iran, israel, kerry, treaty, nukes

There are only a few days left in the nuclear negotiations between Barack Hussein Obama and Iran, but Secretary of State and gangly professional shuttlecock John Kerry is hinting that an agreement is now within reach as the parties warm to each other.

For instance, as a show of good faith, the United States has already stopped pretending to be Israel's ally - and in return, Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei is calling for "Death to America"...but doing so with a new, pixyish twinkle in his eye.

Kerry believes that, as part of a comprehensive bargain, he can convince Khamenei to only call for America to have a wracking, bloody cough and painful hemorrhoids in the future.

Granted, to get a concession of that magnitude the U.S. has to give up some things. Like, oh, preventing Iran from developing nukes or keeping them from wiping Israel off the map. But as Kerry points out, "what's the big deal? A map is just a piece of paper!"

As will be doubly true of any agreement made with the murderous lunatics running Iran.

obama, obama jokes, political, humor, cartoon, conservative, hope n' change, hope and change, stilton jarlsberg, iran, israel, treaty, nukes, netanyahu, fortune teller
We didn't come up with this joke, but it was way too good not to share.


Anonymous said...

A general non-Muslim-part-of-the-world holiday.

Geoff King said...

Let me see if I have this right. Iran, who has not attacked anyone in over 200 years cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons because Israel says so. That would be the same Israel who, along with the US, supplied arms to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.
Meanwhile North Korea, who has attacked others several times in recent history, is allowed to operate a robust uranium enrichment program which likely has produced several nukes by now.
Pakistan, which has about the highest anti-American sentiment on the planet, is never the less allowed to be a nuclear power.
Communist China, that bastion of human rights, is not only allowed one of the largest nuclear arsenals on the planet, but has recently been saber rattling against the US to the point of threatening to invade several Pacific Islands and even possibly attempting to take Hawaii away from us:
Yet the Chinese are granted Favored Nation Trading Status by the US government.
Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in all this? Also, is it not a bit unreasonable that the only country to ever use nuclear weapons against anyone -resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of mainly innocent civilians - should be able to demand that someone else cannot possess the same technology?

Ogrrre said...

There will be quite a celebration amongst a lot of Americans, too!

Mindless Blather said...

It'll most certainly be an American holiday as well.

Anonymous said...

Give ayatollah a$$holeah atom bombs. Delivered by air.

TrickyRicky said...

Wow, it must be great to play poker with these mental midgets. Of course they pay off THEIR gambling debts with YOUR money. Sheesh.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Anonymous- Of course, it's very important to point out (for the benefit of the Secret Service, among others) that a joke is a joke and this cartoon in no way suggests that I'd like to see Barry expire of anything other than natural causes.

Then again, it would also be natural to drop in your tracks after getting beaned in the noggin by an errant golf ball. They say you never hear the one that has your name on it.

@Geoff King- The U.S. isn't "letting" Pakistan, North Korea, and China have nukes - they've already got them and, once that's the case, there's not really a good way to take them away. Because, uh, they've got freaking nukes.

But there is a window to keep a rogue player from getting nukes in the first place - and that window is rapidly closing in the case of Iran.

We don't need to take Israel's word that Iran is a danger - we can see it in their active export of weapons and military force throughout the Middle East, and their state support of terror.

Granted, both the U.S. and Israel have had odd alliances in the past which haven't turned out great in the ever-shifting politics of the Middle East. But we need to deal with the world as it is today.

Regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I take no pleasure in the number or type of casualties - but our use of atomic weapons ended the war.

@Ogrrre- And by "celebration" I'm sure you mean a somber commemoration which may involve the use of champagne to help dull our feelings of sadness and loss.

@Unknown- We'll still get mail that day, though, right?

@Anonymous- It is better to give than receive.

@TrickyRicky- I think Kerry is inspired by the story of Jack and the Beanstalk. Sure, it looks like America is trading the cow for a handful of beans...but what if they're magic beans?!

Judi King said...

Great cartoons today. And your answer to Geoff is right on. The Mid East has never been stable and probably never will. The US should either eliminate the whole region or stay out of their age old power plays. Which ever group comes out ahead in the current situation, it will be muslim! That is our real enemy and one we should start fighting in our own country.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Judi King- Unfortunately, "Eliminating the whole region" actually does sound like kind of a Great Satan move. Especially considering that many of the Iranian people aren't crazy about their oppressive leaders.

As recently as 2009, the streets of Tehran were filled with protestors demanding freedom - and B. Hussein didn't even offer them encouragement, let alone military aid. And so a significant opportunity for change was lost.

On the other hand, staying out of the region entirely isn't currently an option because of our reliance on oil from the Middle East.

As far as "fighting" Islam in our own country, we run into a Constitutional Catch-22. Like it or not, Islam deserves the same protection as other faiths in our country - but terrorism, Shariah, and other violations of human rights and laws do need to be fought tooth and nail - right here, right now.

bocopro said...

Throughout my 75 years I've heard people refer to jokes, opinions, one-liners, analyses, and other remarks which didn't exactly ring the bell as "Well, they can't ALL be winners."

But considering the quality, accuracy, and subject-matter mastery of your offerings, all those people were obviously wrong.

Consistently great stuff, mon frere. BZ!!!

Geoff King said...

@ Stilton - As you stated, Pakistan, North Korea, and China already have nukes. Despite heavy sanctions, especially against North Korea, they have developed the technology anyway and their hatred of the US has grown along with the sanctions. Why should we assume that treating Iran similarily will have any other result?
Also, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have indeed shortened the war, but only by a couple of months at most. Japan was already defeated and willing to surrender with the only stipulation being that their Emperor be allowed to remain in power. After we nuked them and they surrendered, we allowed them to keep their Emperor anyway. I believe, as others do, that the bombs were dropped not to end the war with Japan, but to be a show of force to stop Russia's advance into Asia. The nukes may have ended WWII, but they also started the Cold War:

Anonymous said...

While millions of US citizens are screaming, "Don't let these morons get a bomb," and "We need to stand with Israel," our Imam Barry has his hand to his ear as he moves forward with his personal policy, "Deaf to America."
BTW, letting the crack-addict, gang member next door have a gun because I have one is not a great argument for my personal safety.

American Cowboy said...

. . ."what's the big deal? A map is just a piece of paper!"

As is the Constitution of the United States of America.

And while Iran wipes their ass with one, I wouldn't doubt the current "leaders" in D.C. wipe their asses with the other.

John the Econ said...

The first cartoon reminds me of the deal the Clinton Administration made with North Korea 20 years ago, where we literally did give them nuclear technology so that wouldn't build a bomb. As everyone who wasn't under the Clinton spell predicted, we got rolled.

This is all part of the Progressives "21st Century Thinking" dementia, that honestly believes that the only reason there is evil in the world is because we aren't being generous enough with everyone else, and that a world without the US would somehow be a happier, more harmonious place.

Personally, I think "peace treaties" are a complete waste of time and money. In the entire history of mankind, can anyone cite an example of where a belligerent nation abided by one?

At best, they are a mechanism to buy time before the inevitable. For example, the Molotov–Ribbentrop "non-aggression" Pact between Russia and Nazi Germany in 1939 was transparently a gambit to buy time for both countries to prepare for the obvious and inevitable invasion of Russia by Germany.

Unfortunately, 19th-century action will kick 21st-century thinking's ass every single time, as Britain painfully found out the hard way.

So are we doing a deal with the mullahs to buy time to prepare for an even bigger conflict in the Middle East? Nah. We're reducing our military to pre-World War II levels and cutting loose our main ideological ally in the region, Israel.

So what is Obama and Kerry buying time for? The best I can figure, it's for the same reason Bill Clinton turned down Osama Bin Laden. Taking decisive action is always controversial, and takes balls. Alternatively, kicking the can down the road for the next administration to deal with is always cheap and easy. (They've been doing with the debt for generations) Obama is happy to let Hillary or the next Republican squishy deal with the consequences.

Why do liberals always do this? Because they like being popular. Being an "adult" is rarely popular. Liberalism has always been the easy and childish ideology.

Meanwhile, it looks like we can add Yemen to the list of Obama-Clinton non-success stories. (A mere 6-months ago, Obama was proclaiming Yemen as the shining jewel of his new world order) The Obama Administration has pulled what remained of the US military out of there, leaving about a half-billion dollars of weaponry behind to fuel the now inevitable civil war in Yemen, and some of which will eventually get used against us on some battlefield in the near future. Way to go, guys!

This, btw, is the "international reset" your hopey-changy folks voted for in '08. Enjoy.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@bocopro- Thanks for the kind words! Even I don't think all my cartoons are winners. That being said, I'd never post one that I actually thought would stink the joint up...and I only have a so-so record of predicting beforehand which cartoons people will really enjoy. Sometimes I'm lukewarm on one that turns out to be really popular.

@Geoff King- As John the Econ points out, Bill Clinton seemingly accepted (or perhaps originated?) Obama's premise that "any deal is better than no deal" when he gave North Korea nuke technology in return for their promise not to get into mischief. Yeah, that worked out great.

There's no guarantee that real sanctions and actions will work better with Iran - but we can't just sit back and watch them get nuclear weapons because they're not a traditional adversary: they'd like to destroy the United States (perhaps with a nuke-generated EMP attack, per their recently revealed military playbook) just for the religious joy of it. And even if they get nuked in return (it's easier to find your eternal virgins in the dark if you're glowing with radioactivity).

Regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I know there are multiple opinions about the strategy and efficacy of the bombings. Whatever the "truth," I don't think it should prevent us from recognizing the fact that a nuclear-armed Iran is a really bad idea.

@Japheaux- Especially if that crack addict has already threatened to kill your friend if he does get a weapon.

@American Cowboy- I wish you were wrong, but you're not.

@John the Econ- Excellent comments. I think the "kick the can" strategy is the most benevolent interpretation of the Obama/Kerry strategy. I've also heard it suggested that maybe the point of striking any deal, no matter how bad, is to land Kerry a Nobel Peace Prize to make him a viable replacement for Hillary as a presidential candidate. This is especially plausible if you believe that the Obamas and Clintons despise each other.

Judi King said...

You can't negotiate or make deals with people with a medieval, barbaric mind set. These people don't think the same way we do and are sworn to annihilate ALL infidels. They can't be trusted to honor any deal. The current administration is living in some kind of fairy tale world. Whichever sect of islam gains control of the Mid East, N.Africa, Turkey, etc. the area will be muslim. That is the real threat we are faced with but are not facing. Yes, our magnificent constitution guarantees muslims religion freedom, in this country, but we also have laws that protect everyone that don't include anything resembling sharia law.

Anonymous said...

My comment about the world-wide celebration was carefully parsed - don't want the attention of the brown shirts.
Geoff King; your desires and passion seems to be based on noble intentions. The best part is that can be channeled to complete the information you have started to accumulate. There is a lot of room to flesh out the remaining missing data you are presenting. There is a great depth of middle east history which hasn't been commonly reported, and is only available at your own volition. Go for it - fill in your blanks.

John the Econ said...

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, having had to clean keyboard and screen after this one: "...maybe the point of striking any deal, no matter how bad, is to land Kerry a Nobel Peace Prize to make him a viable replacement for Hillary as a presidential candidate."


And maybe the GOP can run McCain again too.

A) Is there anyone left who takes the Nobel Peace Prize seriously anymore? I mean, after doling them out to terrorists and corrupt political hacks of the likes of Arafat, Gore, and finally Obama, (for merely existing at that point) instead of real people of sacrifice, courage and character, it's really become a kind of booby prize documenting the gross failures of naive Progressive wishmaking. I'd rather win the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes than the Nobel (wishful thinking) Peace Prize.

B) As crippled as Hillary may seem at the moment, are there really serious Democrats who really think that the guy who lost to Bush could actually win anything beyond dog catcher? They'll get behind Liz Warren before they back Kerry again.

Thanks for two great laughs today!

John the Econ said...

@Judi King: "and are sworn to annihilate ALL infidels."

And that includes other Muslims.

If the multiculturalists have any single problem, it's dealing with reality. These people are not just at war with Jews. They aren't just at war with Christians. Or just with women, homosexuals, or the otherwise uncovered. They are at war with everybody. And that includes liberals, Hollywood, Washington, the politically correct and even what they consider apostate Muslims.

I guess we'll have to wait until they get to killing some A or B level celebrities before the Progressive elite are forced to accept this. But as long as the elite class keeps providing political cover, why would the ever do that, at least until the very end?

JustaJeepGuy said...

Something to think about re: Japan and Hiroshima/Nagasaki

You'll note that the military powers in Japan didn't immediately surrender, even after the second bomb was dropped. They felt that they had not been defeated, so they shouldn't surrender. No matter that they were going to take all their citizens to the grave with them, they did NOT want to surrender. Much like ISIS will do if they can.

Graylady said...

Casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan were over one million American soldiers. Truman made the right decision for the US. It was WAR, remember?

John the Econ said...

...and millions more of Japanese civilians. It could be argued that the nuclear bomb literally saved more Japanese than Americans.

I've long argued that the "should we have nuked Japan" moral argument is phony anyway. In the days preceding the bomb at Hiroshima, we were killing literally hundreds-of-thousands of civilians a night at Tokyo and other cities with incendiary bombs. In the final calculus, the only difference between those raids and the 50,000 (or however many were actually killed) was that it only took 1 airplane to do the job than the hundreds used previously. It was only a difference in efficiency.

Sarah Rolph said...

Geoff King, you are badly misinformed if you believe Iran hasn't attacked anyone in 200 years.

Warfare has changed a lot over the past few decades, and that must be taken into account.

Iran's strategy is to use military proxies. They created Hezbollah and Hamas, two terrorist groups that have killed many innocent people and are holding many more hostage. Iran also has deadly clients like Assad, who has been their puppet for years. Iran's Shiite militias, now finally in the news, have been killing our soldiers in Iraq for years.

Iran is a major sponsor of global terrorism and that must be recognized when discussing foreign affairs.

Angela said...

Spot on, Sir!!
My only discrepancy is that Obama did not lock out Congress. They have the power to override, defund, stop his anarchy, and they haven't done it. The child that continues to commit misdeeds without consequence - continues to commit them.
Thank you...