Page 6
June 10, 2015
New Prices
Effective
May 1, 2014
Martin
Cleaning
Service
O pinion
Carpet & Upholstery
Cleaning
Residential &
Commercial Services
Minimum Service CHG.
$45.00
A small distance/travel
charge may be applied
CARPET CLEANING
2 Cleaning Areas or
more $30.00 Each Area
Pre-Spray Traffic Areas
(Includes: 1 small Hallway)
1 Cleaning Area (only)
$40.00
Includes Pre-Spray Traffic Area
(Hallway Extra)
Stairs (12-16 stairs - With
Other Services) : $25.00
Area/Oriental Rugs:
$25.00 Minimum
Area/Oriental Rugs (Wool) :
$40.00 Minimum
Heavily Soiled Area:
Additional $10.00 each area
(Requiring Extensive Pre-Spraying)
UPHOLSTERY
CLEANING
Sofa: $69.00
Loveseat: $49.00
Sectional: $109 - $139
Chair or Recliner:
$25 - $49
Throw Pillows (With
Other Services) : $5.00
ADDITIONAL
SERVICES
• Area & Oriental Rug
Cleaning
• Auto/Boat/RV Cleaning
• Deodorizing & Pet
Odor Treatment
• Spot & Stain
Removal Service
• Scotchguard Protection
• Minor Water Damage
Services
SEE CURRENT FLYER
FOR ADDITIONAL
PRICES & SERVICES
Call for Appointment
(503) 281-3949
Fresh Tone in Washington with Breath of Oregon
A hearing for
diplomacy
versus war
P atrick T. H iller
It is easy to be a cynic listening
to some of the more nonsensical
chatter coming out of Congress.
Despite the most comprehensive
international agreement between
the United States and its P5+1
partners (the members of the UN
Security Council and Germany)
with Iran on its nuclear program,
the calls to bomb Iran are still too
loud for them to be dismissed.
In a less publicized speech last
month, informed leadership by
Oregon’s Sen. Jeff Merkley points
to a simple yet powerful truth: di-
plomacy works. Merkley argued,
without dismissing the absolute
need to prevent an Iranian nuclear
weapons program, that the most
effective strategy to achieve this
outcome is a verifiable, negotiated
process.
Almost simultaneously, 150
House Democrats wrote a letter
supporting the administration’s
negotiations over Iran’s nuclear
program, urging the exhaustion of
every avenue toward a verifiable,
enforceable diplomatic solution in
order to prevent a nuclear-armed
Iran.
This is more than just Congres-
sional politics and debate. We are
experiencing a shift in the larg-
er debate about the effectiveness
by
of diplomacy versus war. We are
more secure through diplomacy
and negotiated agreements, be-
cause they are superior to military
intervention and war. Therefore it
is crucial that diplomatic efforts
continue and that we disregard mil-
itary options which are guaranteed
failures in the short and long-term.
There is a poor track-record of
military intervention to achieve the
stated outcomes. Or to put it dif-
ferently – wars don’t work. This is
especially true for the more recent
wars and military interventions in
the Middle East.
The voices still claiming success
in the two major US-led Middle
East wars are increasingly shrink-
ing. The war in Afghanistan was an
ill-conceived response to the crim-
inal attack of Sept. 11, 2001. The
2003 invasion of Iraq turned into
the Iraq War. Astronomical costs, a
violent insurgency, the rise of the
self-proclaimed Islamic State, and
immense casualties and suffering
of civilians sum up the current sit-
uation.
Diplomats and negotiators are
not acting in uncharted landscapes.
There is a body of knowledge on
why negotiation and other conflict
resolution approaches are superior
to military options. Negotiation is
not a zero-sum game where one
party wins at the expense of the
other parties. The possible and
expected outcomes are mutually
acceptable agreements. In multilat-
eral negotiations – in this case the
P5 + 1 framework – the potential
for more lasting agreements grows
substantially, as more groups and
interests are interdependent and
have to be reconciled. Negotiation
is a critical tool to restore and re-
pair broken relationships as well
as creating space for agreements
in other areas. Whether we like it
or not, Iran is a major player in the
Middle East and beyond. Foreign
policy issues around Syria, Iraq,
Yemen, oil, or the Israeli-Palestin-
ian conflict can only be addressed
constructively when Iran is an in-
volved participant in creating a
path forward.
In a time where people and gov-
ernments worldwide are calling
for nuclear disarmament, there is
an understandable fear of a nucle-
ar-armed Iran. Some might argue
that swift military air bombard-
ment against Iran is the best option
to achieve this goal. This is a pure-
ly political statement and out-of-
touch with history and expertise of
military leaders.
Adm. Mike Mullen (Ret.), for-
mer Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, wrote, “As of today, there
is no more credible path of reduc-
ing the likelihood of Iran obtaining
a nuclear weapon than this poten-
tial deal. Those who say the risks
are too high with the current deal
offer no constructive path forward
save the high potential for war.”
Due to absolute superiority of U.S.
conventional military force, even
the threat of military intervention
would be an incentive for Iran to
actually acquire nuclear weapons
and create as much secrecy as pos-
sible around those efforts.
The tone in Washington’s for-
eign policy and intelligence com-
munity has changed. Having per-
sonally sat through briefings with
officials from the State Depart-
ment, the intelligence community
and other state agencies recently,
I can attest that there was a strong
consensus that any application of
hard military power leads to uncer-
tain and uncontrollable outcomes
and that diplomacy and coopera-
tion with partners was the preferred
course of action.
The stakes in P5+1 and Iran
nuclear negotiations are high. The
only path forward is to seek nego-
tiated agreements based on over-
sight and control. In doing so, we
can prevent war and the inevitable
human, social, economic and envi-
ronmental costs. We can avoid put-
ting American men and women in
harm’s way, who then would cause
harm to Iranian men, women and
children – that’s the nature of war.
The way we understand and
constructively address global con-
flict and war now has changed.
Senator Merkley has shown that
he recognizes that negotiation and
understanding its environment is
the new realpolitik which makes
us more secure. The media and the
public have a responsibility to pro-
tect and emphasize such voices.
Patrick. T. Hiller, Ph.D., Hood
River, syndicated by PeaceVoice,
is a conflict transformation schol-
ar and professor.