A brief history of compromise

From here:

com·pro·mise ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmpr-mz)
n.

1. 1. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
   2. The result of such a settlement.
2. Something that combines qualities or elements of different things: The incongruous design is a compromise between high tech and early American.
3. A concession to something detrimental or pejorative: a compromise of morality.

It would appear that the fine folks at the IAEA would compromise our very safety, suggesting that the West may have no alternative than to let Iran go nuclear

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei will make no recommendations in a broad report on three years of probes in Iran he is to give to board members on February 27, a week before they convene to weigh whether to urge a course of action by the Security Council.

But he has already suggested in diplomatic circles that a compromise may lie in accepting small-scale enrichment in Iran in exchange for guarantees of no full nuclear fuel production that could enable diversions into bomb-making, diplomats say.

...hmm... Seems like I've heard that somewhere before

1994:

North Korea and the United States sign an agreement where Pyongyang pledges to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for international aid to build two power-producing nuclear reactors.

The art of compromise necessarily involves the give and take between two opposing sides, resulting in mutual benefit. The art of compromise also presupposes that both sides doing the dealing are actually worthy of trust.. Bill Clinton's nuclear mistake (brokered by none other than that mental giantgnat, Jimmy Carter) was to pre-suppose that North Korea's leadership would actually keep its part of the bargain (and we all know how well that worked).

So, now ElBaradei, in his omniscience, appears all too willing to repeat history by proclaiming that we may just have to live with a "limited" nuclear Iran, a nation whose leadership has already more than proven themselves as of late to be much less than trustworthy; much akin to Neville Chamberlain's call that we just may have to live with Hitler's incursion into Czechoslovakia:

"We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.

Thank God we have a leader who is not given to similar "compromise" in the face of evil. It's all too apparent that the bozos at the U.N. are more than willing to repeat history.


(Filed under world affairs)