Lindaland
  Global Unity
  IF WE COULD TALK TO THE ANIMALS

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   IF WE COULD TALK TO THE ANIMALS
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 22, 2008 09:48 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
IF WE COULD TALK TO THE ANIMALS
May 21, 2008

You always know you've struck gold when liberals react with hysteria and rage to something you've said. So I knew President Bush's speech at the Knesset last week was a barn burner before even I read it. Liberals haven't been this worked up since Rev. Jerry Falwell criticized a cartoon sponge.

Calling the fight against terrorism "the defining challenge of our time" -- which already confused liberals who think the defining struggle of our time is against Wal-Mart -- Bush said:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

The way liberals squealed, you'd think someone had mentioned Obama's ears. Summoning all their womanly anger, today's Neville Chamberlains denounced Bush, saying this was an unjustified attack on Obambi and, furthermore, that it's absurd to compare B. Hussein Obama's willingness to "talk" to Ahmadinejad to Neville Chamberlain's capitulation to Hitler.

Unlike liberals, I will honestly report their point before I attack it.

The New York Times editorialized: "Sen. Obama has called for talking with Iran and Syria," but has not "suggested surrendering to these countries' demands, which is, after all, what appeasement is."

"Hardball's" Chris Matthews gloated all week about nailing a conservative talk radio host with this brilliant riposte: "You don't understand there's a difference between talking to the enemy and appeasing. What Neville Chamberlain did wrong ... is not talking to Hitler, but giving him half of Czechoslovakia."

Liberals think all real tyrants ended with Hitler and act as if they would have known all along not to appease him. Next time is always different for people who refuse to learn from history. As Air America's Mark Green said: "Look, Hitler was Hitler." (Which, I admit, threw me for a loop: I thought Air America's position is that Bush is Hitler.)

This is nonsense. Ahmadinejad looks a lot like Hitler did when Chamberlain agreed to meet with him at Munich, except that Hitler didn't buy his suits from ratty thrift shops. Much of England reacted just as today's Democrats would because, like today's Democrats, they feared nothing more than another war. (Lloyd George lied, kids died!)

Lots of Britons cheered when Chamberlain returned from Munich and announced "peace in our time." Without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, what on earth makes Chris Matthews think he would not be among them?

As Bush said at the Knesset, "There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words." That was Chamberlain. And that is today's Democratic Party.

What Matthews and the Times are saying is this: We can have a Munich, but we promise to be tougher than Chamberlain was. Therein lies the flaw in their logic. Yes, in the abstract, it is technically possible to "talk" without giving up Czechoslovakia (or in today's case, Iraq or Israel).

But in reality, when talking to a lunatic without having first bombed him into submission, the only possible result is appeasement. Any talk with Hitler, or a McHitler like Ahmadinejad, that does not include handing over Czechoslovakia or Israel, like a game show parting gift, is going to be a relatively brief chat.

Churchill knew that before Chamberlain went to Munich. But a lot of Britons then, like a lot of Americans today, refused to see that blindingly obvious point.

Liberals think the way to deal with dangerous tyrants is to send in a sensitive president who will make Ahmadinejad fall in love with him. They imagine Obama becoming Ahmadinejad's psychotherapist, like Barbra Streisand in "The Prince of Tides."

President Bush described such people perfectly with his reference to Sen. William Edgar Borah, the one who said World War II could have been avoided if only he could have talked to Hitler.

Liberals refuse to learn from history because they put their hands over their ears and tell themselves over and over again: "Hitler was different."
http://www.anncoulter.com/

IP: Logged

wheelsofcheese
Newflake

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted May 22, 2008 10:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for wheelsofcheese     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Aww Jwhop, she sounds like you love, wittering on about Britain and the second world war.

Birds of a feather....

Tweet tweet J! (this is Wheels, talking to the animals)


IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 22, 2008 11:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Ah wheels, I sympathize with those who can't refute what's being said

Short of being rewritten by revisionists, history stands as an indictment of appeasement policies...and appeasers who adopted those policies.

America has it's own crop of appeasers. Of course, they don't call themselves appeasers. They call themselves democrats.

IP: Logged

TINK
unregistered
posted May 22, 2008 11:34 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"womanly anger"?

IP: Logged

BlueRoamer
Knowflake

Posts: 95
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 22, 2008 01:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for BlueRoamer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If we could talk to animals they'd say....."hey how did that one get to be president, the rest of us are stuck in cages?"

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 22, 2008 02:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
So...I take it that Jwhop never ever speaks with people when he has a problem with them. "It would send the wrong message," to engage in conversation with the enemy (How ironic that he would choose to post here, right? ).

How exactly was the North Korean nuclear crisis averted? How are all manner of hostile negotiations regularly resolved?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 22, 2008 03:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes TINK..."womanly anger".

"Summoning all their womanly anger, today's Neville Chamberlains denounced Bush"

As in "girlie men"...as in "testosterone free zones".

OK acoustic, your big chance. Show me where and when Bush talked to Kim Jong Il. I'll show you where Bush insisted on 6 party talks with North Korea. O'Bomber committed himself to sit down with the lunatic leaders of Iran, Syria and North Korea...and talk..without any preconditions.

As usual acoustic, you have misanalysed the situation. You wonder why I post here.

"But in reality, when talking to a lunatic without having first "bombed him into submission"...."

You misunderstand acoustic. This is the bombing phase. Later, when leftists have surrendered unconditionally, when their little bubble fantasy world has been punched so full of holes it's no longer habitable and when they are firmly back on earth...then, perhaps we can talk.

Until then, bombs away.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 22, 2008 04:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
I'll show you where Bush insisted on 6 party talks with North Korea.

Talks are talks. Was the United States NOT part of the six party talks? If talking is appeasement (which IS your premise) then why would the U.S. be a participant?

Want to tell me how the Cuban Missile Crisis was averted?

quote:
O'Bomber committed himself to sit down with the lunatic leaders of Iran, Syria and North Korea...and talk..without any preconditions.

So what? Are you now going to contradict your own stated nature, and say that the refusal to talk (the acceptance of pussy-footing around, being passive-aggressive) is superior to confronting the situation directly?

This whole idea is SO far from your nature I can't conceive of how you've made peace with it.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 22, 2008 04:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Bush never ever talked to the crazy murderous little communist dictator Kim Jong Il and never intended to do so.

Again acoustic, you show your inability to connect the dots.

O'Bomber proposed he personally would sit down and talk to the insane leaders of Iran, Syria and North Korea....oh and also the communist leader of Cuba.

What's to talk about with Islamic terrorists and Islamic terrorist nations like Iran and Syria whose starting point is that they have the right to kill you...because you won't accept Allah as your god.

O'Bomber lacks the testosterone levels necessary to confront anyone over anything at all. It's a hormonal problem all leftists share. That's why leftists are waving and have been waving the white flag of surrender to terrorists in Iraq.

Now, O'Bomber is lying through his teeth about what he said.

The Cuban missile crisis was averted when Kennedy sent naval war ships to turn Soviet Union freighters around on the high seas and Nikita Kruschev got the right message...that Kennedy meant it.

You don't know and haven't learned a thing about my "nature".

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 22, 2008 04:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sure I do. You've stated a preference MANY times for dealing with things directly, which is in direct opposition to your new preference for silence when meeting with difficult situations.

Obama would keep his enemies closer
By Robert Farley
Published on Wednesday, May 21st, 2008 at 08:44 p.m.

SUMMARY: In what looks to be the new political wedge of this campaign, John McCain and Barack Obama exchange fire on the issue of presidential-level diplomacy.

If the flurry of back-and-forth comments between Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama is any indication, the issue of whether to meet with the leaders of rogue governments may shape up to be one of the defining issues of the presidential campaign in the coming months.

It all started with a question during a CNN/YouTube debate on July 24, 2007.

“Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?”

“I would,” Obama said. “And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.”

In recent weeks, McCain has seized on that position to attack Obama as naive and reckless.

We examined McCain’s characterization that “Senator Obama has declared, and repeatedly reaffirmed his intention to meet the president of Iran without any preconditions.”

Obama's response to that has essentially amounted to, Yeah, I said I’d meet with enemy leaders and I’ll say it again.

But McCain’s comments specifically single out the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is well known for his anti-America, anti-Israel rhetoric. McCain’s campaign claims Obama’s folks have recently tried to backpedal a bit on Obama’s stated position.

When asked in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer how Obama could defend meeting without preconditions with Ahmadinejad, Obama’s senior foreign policy adviser, Susan Rice, said Obama had only promised he’d meet with the appropriate Iranian leadership, “not necessarily Ahmadinejad.”

We found that in the context of several interviews, Obama clearly counts Ahmadinejad among those with whom he would meet. We ruled McCain’s statement to be True.

We also checked a statement in which McCain chastised Obama for minimizing the threat from Iran.

“Sen. Obama claimed that the threat Iran poses to our security is ‘tiny’ compared to the threat once posed by the former Soviet Union,” McCain said before the National Restaurant Association in Chicago on May 19, 2008. “Obviously, Iran isn’t a superpower and doesn’t possess the military power the Soviet Union had. But that does not mean that the threat posed by Iran is insignificant.

“On the contrary, right now Iran provides some of the deadliest explosive devices used in Iraq to kill our soldiers. They are the chief sponsor of Shia extremists in Iraq, and terrorist organizations in the Middle East. ... Should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, that danger would become very dire, indeed. They might not be a superpower, but the threat the government of Iran poses is anything but ‘tiny.’ ”

While McCain started off accurately quoting Obama, he then took liberties when he dropped the comparison to the Soviet Union and claimed Obama characterized Iran as a “tiny” or “insignificant” threat. What Obama said was this: “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we’re going to wipe you off the planet.”

Obama only characterized Iran as tiny compared to the threat faced by the Soviet Union, which he noted had a significant nuclear arsenal. He has consistently called Iran a “grave” threat, as he did again after McCain made his comments. We ruled this McCain statement to be False.

Even President Bush may have taken a shot at Obama in remarks made to members of the Knesset in Israel on May 15, 2008:

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Bush said.

Bush later claimed the comment was not directed at Obama. But Obama certainly took it that way.

Obama called it a “false political attack.”

“Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power – including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy — to pressure countries like Iran and Syria,” Obama said. “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”

In a speech in Billings, Mont., on May 19, 2008, Obama hit again on the fear theme.

“So, you know, for all their tough talk, one of the things you have to ask yourself is: What are George Bush and John McCain afraid of? Demanding that a country meets all your conditions before you meet with them, that’s not a strategy; it’s just naive, wishful thinking. I’m not afraid that we’ll lose some propaganda fight with a dictator.”

McCain predictably shot back a fiery response in Arlington, Va., two days later.

“He now claims that some ‘fear’ to ‘negotiate’ with the likes of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who has called Israel a ‘stinking corpse’ or Ayatollah Khamenei, who called Israel a ‘cancerous tumor.’ I have news for Sen. Obama: I have met some very bad people before in my life. It is not fear that drives my opposition to unconditional meetings with Ahmadinejad, Khamenei, Kim Jong Il, and Raul Castro; rather it is my clear understanding that such a course will fail to eliminate the threat posed by these rogue regimes. I don’t fear to negotiate. Instead I have the knowledge and experience to understand the dangerous consequences of a naive approach to presidential summits based entirely on emotion.” ( He's as unemotional as Jwhop. )

What we have is a legitimate and important wedge issue on foreign relations, and two candidates convinced their opposing arguments will resonate with the American public. So expect a lot more discussion of nuances of preconditions vs. preparation. It looks like the debate on this issue is just getting started.

Article

quote:
O'Bomber lacks the testosterone levels necessary to confront anyone over anything at all.

Is that a Leo thing?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 22, 2008 05:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Lack of testosterone is a leftist thing having nothing to do with sun signs.

My Mars is in Aries.

This is an argument and point O'Bomber is going to lose. If O'Bomber is the demoscat nominee, McCain is going to eat him for lunch. Not just on this point but on a whole broad front and range of issues.

McCain is right. A nuclear weapon makes a small..tiny nation much more dangerous. Especially when that nuclear weapon is in the hands of a madman who believes the return of the Mahdi depends on him starting a world war which will usher in the return of the Mahdi to lead the world to an Islamic theocracy.

The leaders of the Soviet Union were at least rational and understood the concept of MAD...Mutual Assured Destruction.

I know the leftist press is in the tank for O'Bomber but almost no one is listening to the leftist press any more. Just you acoustic and other leftists.

IP: Logged

Mannu
Knowflake

Posts: 45
From: always here and no where
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 22, 2008 05:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mannu     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
>>>IF WE COULD TALK TO THE ANIMALS

Hahaha.....We could always talk but the animals won't listen and comprehend us.


Anyhow , great article Ann Coulter

Time for appeasement should come when the dictator is ready to enter his grave. I say this because the appeaser is no Buddha and the appeased ain't no Angulimala.


[appeaser/appeased - Are those right english words ? If they are not, then to my own version of webster I will add them ]

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 22, 2008 05:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
More gobbledygook from O'Bomber. Anytime O'Bomber opens his mouth, out rolls the gobbledygook. It's as though his mouth isn't connected to anything.

May 22, 2008
Yet more Obama positions on Iran
Ed Lasky

Barack Obama has a growing number of positions on how to deal with Iran. Yesterday, James Taranto in his Best of the Web column noted that blogger Lance Adams reported on Barack Obama expressing a different perspective toward Iran in a 2004 Chicago Tribune interview than he has expressed on the campaign trail.

Here was Obama in 2004:

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran.... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point." [....]

Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.

"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations.... "

Last week Obama said this:

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela-these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet."

In fact, Barack Obama has been backtracking from that 2004 Tribune interview for quite some time. In an interview with Obama supporter and New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof from early last year he was already disavowing his previous somewhat relaistic views towards Iran. . A matter of fact, he went into reverse.

Even when at one poin he seemed to indicate an openness to looking at military options to deal with Iran's nuclear program, he quickly eviscerated that option by stating that it did not even exist. He unilaterally has taken off the table an important bargaining chip. What a negotiator! He is quoted,

"And I think the exact quote at the time was, you know, If there was a way of disabling a nuclear facility without any collateral damage, then that would certainly be an option we'd want to take into account. You know, I don't think that's a particularly controversial statement. But the - but those options don't exist."

Now you see it now you don't. The endless shell game that is Barack Obama. Excerpt from Kristof's Q and A:

Q. Tell me about Iran. I saw some sort of hawkish quotes that you gave, I think in 2004, to The Chicago Tribune. [He was quoted then as saying, "My instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran."]

A. Yeah. You know, they - I have to say they got painted as much more hawkish than they were intended. I mean essentially what is said, which I think would be incontrovertible, is that, you know, Iran's a developing country. A nuclear weapon is a problem for the future. And that we should preserve our military options. And I think the exact quote at the time was, you know, If there was a way of disabling a nuclear facility without any collateral damage, then that would certainly be an option we'd want to take into account. You know, I don't think that's a particularly controversial statement. But the - but those options don't exist. And I said in the very same article that every assessment that I've seen suggests that even if you are predisposed to military action, those options are extraordinarily dangerous..... More to the point, in light of what's happening in Iraq, I would hope that the administration has learned its lesson. I certainly hope Congress has learned its lesson - that being trigger happy or having a quick trigger finger when it comes to military actions without having exhausted our diplomatic options, and without, you know, I think, having a very clear sense of what outcomes we're looking for is a recipe for disaster. So I've been consistent throughout this process in saying we should talk to Iran. I think we should talk to Iran without conditions....

Q. I think it was the same article - maybe a different one - where you also sounded a little hawkish on Pakistan....[The Tribune paraphrased him on Sept. 25, 2004: "Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses."]

A. It's a situation where I was simply saying things that I think, in Washingtonspeak, you use code for....What I said with respect to Pakistan was that, given that they've got a proven nuclear arsenal and that there's been a history of their military not being as cautious as we would like them to be with respect to nuclear proliferation issues, and given the history of A.Q. Khan and what's happened there, that you know if you had a coup in which Islamic extremists took over the Pakistani government, that would be a significant threat to U.S. security and we would want, again, to keep all our military options open. Now my hope is that we prevent that from happening or that we do everything we can to strengthen the forces of democracy and maintain good relations with Pakistan. Now, it's a difficult thing because we have a genuine ally in Musharraf. It's an imperfect partner. And. . . there are aspects of the Pakistani government and its relationship to its own people as well as its approach to dealing with al Qaeda and the Taliban that are real problems. And you know I guess I would probably like to see the administration send clearer signals to Pakistan that we want to work with them, we want to cooperate with them, we want to help them build their economy. We're willing to put resources into Pakistan to improve the daily life of Pakistanis, which I think will in the long term strengthen Musharraf's power. But in exchange, we have to be attentive to human rights, women's rights. And we have to ask them to take issues like terrorism, nuclear proliferation, more seriously than they....
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/yet_more_obama_positions_on_ir.html

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 22, 2008 05:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
May 20, 2008
The Obama-Ahmedinejad Summit
By Ed Lasky
"Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct, presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."
- Barackobama. com

Barack Obama has enshrined the principle of unconditional summitry with Iran as one of the central foreign policy planks of his campaign for President. This despite recent efforts by Obama surrogates to confuse the electorate.

The statement above is found on the campaign website of Senator Obama and reflects his view -- repeated a number of times by himself in debates and question and answer sessions -- that the thrust of his foreign policy will be personal Presidential engagement with tyrannical regimes across the globe, including Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran. But the focus clearly will be on Iran as the campaign moves along. Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror and is developing the means to construct nuclear weapons.

What would be the consequences of such a Presidential meeting between President Obama and President Ahmadinejad?

Michael Gerson has written eloquently about the moral stain that will color the mere act of meeting with a Holocaust denier who boasts of his yearning to repeat the effort to exterminate the Jews. Obama, a man who on the campaign trail has declared that "nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of anti-Semitism than I have," will be extending the honor of a Presidential meeting to the most dangerous anti-Semite of all.

For what benefit? As Gerson wrote,

"having made Iranian talks without precondition: his major foreign policy goal, Obama is left with little leverage to extract concessions, and little choice to move forward"

There will inevitably be pressure to offer concessions to Ahmadinejad to help ensure a successful summit. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, who will bear the burden? Who will pay the price?

Ahmadinejad has been crystal clear about his goals. He is fanatic towards Jews and toward Israel -- a type of obsession the world has witnessed before. Israel will certainly be on the agenda of any presidential meeting.* Obama would meet and perhaps even shake hands with a man who has repeatedly condemned Israel, has called it "filthy bacteria" and will hear the ritual denunciations of Israel. Perhaps, he has become inured to such bombast. He has heard it all before.

When a summit meeting occurs, there is considerable pressure to "accomplish" something, to come to an agreement. What exactly would a President Obama be willing to give to Iran in order to get back something that could be touted as an achievement of his summitry?

The boost a summit (even one that led to no agreements) would give to the image of Ahmadinejad would embolden him within Iran (he faces internal pressures that directly blame him for Iran's diplomatic problems) and without. Furthermore, reformers throughout the region will be demoralized and our relations with Sunni nations,including Saudi Arabia, will be damaged as these Sunni regimes also seek to accommodate Iran.

More significant will be the impact on the one group in the region that has warm feelings toward America: the Iranian people themselves. There is a huge Baby Boom generation that is restive and angry towards the regime. As a consequence of pro-natalist policies formulated in the wake of the Iran-Iraq War, there was a surge in births in Iran. Two-thirds of Iranians are now estimated to be under the age of 30; and, significantly, only 40 percent of them are ethnically Persian. They resent the regime.

Iranians are also heirs to a culture that was historically very cosmopolitan and proud of its sophistication and openness to the outside world. Already many Iranians complain of Ahmadinejad's policies that have led to global isolation In a poll taken by the regime itself, one half (and this is probably understated because the regime was running the poll) affirmed that Washington's attitude towards Iran are "to some extent" correct. As much as they abhor the regime, they also have the most positive feelings towards America of any population in the region.

There is an old Middle Eastern aphorism: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If Obama meets with Ahmadinejad, it will be a sign to Iranians that the world is willing to accept and to respect their regime. The reservoir of goodwill -- the hope for the future as this bulge of youth moves forward -- will be drained. They will feel the sting of defeat -- a betrayal they can lay at the feet of President Obama and America.

But what will be the reaction of the rest of the world? The consequences have already been presaged by the world's reaction to the release of the deeply flawed National Intelligence Estimate late last year. When the NIE was released, it infamously stated, "in the fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program". The report was immediately criticized across the political spectrum in America and by foreign leaders among our allies in Europe. Notably, Barack Obama endorsed the conclusions of the NIE and has continued to do so despite its revision a few months later. Paul Mirengoff of Powerline noted the irony of his accepting the validity of the earlier intelligence findings because they conform to his political plans and rejecting later revisions because they would challenge his views and plans. .

Nevertheless, the mere release of the report, with its imprimatur of government approval, had a disastrous effect on efforts to restrain Iran.

Over the last few years America, working with our allies and with the United Nations, assiduously (if all too slowly) has worked to impose a sanctions regime against Iran. While the breadth and strength of the sanctions have not been what many would have wanted -- and their enforcement has been spotty -- the release of the NIE all but squashed any efforts to move forward with a tougher set of sanctions. Nations rushed with an unseemly alacrity to reach deals with Iran. Russia resumed nuclear cooperation on the Busher nuclear reactor in Iran. China stepped up its opposition to further sanctions. And European nations slid back toward apathy to Iran's threat. The sanctions regime had lost its rationale and has all but collapsed.

The conclusions of the report have been all but repudiated and certainly have been superseded by Iran's success in enriching uranium and developing ballistic missiles. Yet all forward momentum toward further sanctions against Iran has halted. The NIE gave all parties who opposed the sanctions -- business interests, Russian oligarchs in charge of their nuclear export program, Chinese leaders eager to extend their influence -- a reason to oppose further efforts to halt Iran's nuclear program.

But the world's powers until now have diplomatically isolated the regime. Other world leaders have refrained from meeting with a leader who has continually issued a string of odious statements such as "Israel will be wiped off the map" and "Israel is a stinking corpse" and who denies the Holocaust.

A meeting between President Obama and President Ahmadinejad would trigger a parade of other foreign leaders to Tehran. They are merely waiting for a pretext, an excuse, that would absolve them from the shame of meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Our strongest allies in Europe, Angela Merkel in Germany, Nicolas Sarkozy in France, Gordon Brown in England, face internal pressures to engage in Iran from commercial interests and political and diplomatic figures within their nations. Until now they have courageously resisted this pressure. No leader wants to bear the burden, the odium, the shame, of being the first Western leader to grant respectability to Ahmadinejad. Diplomatic pressure from America has provided them with another reason to deny such a bestowal of prestige upon Ahmadinejad. President Obama would radically change these policies.

When other high profile political leaders will come a calling, they may not bear the bowler of Neville Chamberlain, but they will bring hats in hand, newly ready and able to strengthen diplomatic (and hence all) ties to the mullahcracy. Under the cover of diplomatic outreach, sanction-busting deals will naturally follow. European nations are eager for energy deals that will provide the wherewithal for Iran to step up its nuclear weapons program.

Indeed, just this past week, OMV, an Austrian energy company with a multibillion dollar deal with the tyrants of Tehran, gave us a glimpse into the future. The chief executive officer of the company has openly declared that a political change in America -- one that he apparently believes in and hopes for -- will make it far easier to transact deals with Iran. Most assuredly he is not referring to John McCain.

If President Obama believes in the value of such meetings, perhaps he will be bold enough to meet with Iranian dissidents and reformers, to use the prestige of his office and that of America (remember Iranians admire America) to help them and not their oppressors. President Reagan -- whom Barack Obama professes to admire -- offered such support to Soviet dissidents.

So far, Barack Obama has not shown any signs that he is willing to do so.

* This meeting will be good preparation for the Muslim nations summit that Barack Obama has called for convening when he becomes President so he can hear their "grievances". Israel will be on that menu, too.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/the_obamaahmedinejad_summit.html

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 22, 2008 05:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Obama's First 100 Days
By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, March 5, 2008


In the seesaw Democratic primary race, Republicans generally are rooting for confusion, which means rooting for Hillary Clinton -- who now has some political momentum after last night's victories in Ohio and Texas but little realistic chance of taking a lead in delegates.

It is the Republican dream: a tenacious, buoyant, well-funded challenger to Barack Obama who is also politically doomed -- and incapable of admitting she is doomed.

So now Clinton herself is the most effective agent of the vast right-wing conspiracy -- proving just how devious and subtle that conspiracy really is.

And this is not Agent Clinton's only contribution. By raising questions about Obama's foreign policy judgment, she has identified a potent issue -- an issue she cannot fully exploit because of the liberalism of her own party.

But John McCain could. As a thought experiment, consider the foreign policy achievements of Obama's first 100 days in office.

Redeeming his inaugural pledge to "pay any price, bear any burden, fly any distance to meet with our enemies," Obama's first major international meeting is with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. National security adviser Samantha Power does her best to talk tough on human rights in preparation for the meeting. But, as Henry Kissinger once said, "When talks become their own objective, they are at the mercy of the party most prepared to break them off." Having made Iranian talks "without precondition" his major foreign policy goal, Obama is left with little leverage to extract concessions, and little choice but to move forward.

The New York Post runs a front-page picture of the Obama-Ahmadinejad handshake under the headline "Surrender Summit!" The story notes another of Obama's historic firsts: the first American president to meet with a Holocaust denier. The Israeli prime minister publicly asks, "Why is the American president meeting with a leader who calls us 'filthy bacteria' and threatens to wipe us 'off the map?'" Tens of thousands protest in Tel Aviv, carrying signs reading "Chamberlain Lives!"

America's moderate Arab allies in the region also feel betrayed, assuming that America is cutting a bilateral deal with Iran that accepts its nuclear ambitions, while leaving the Sunni powers out in the cold. The Egyptian press notes that President Obama's motorcade in Tehran passed near a street named in honor of Khaled al-Islambouli, the assassin of President Anwar Sadat.

Shell-shocked by the criticism, the Obama administration moves its forthcoming summit with Raul Castro to Turks and Caicos, in a vain attempt to limit media scrutiny. The four-minute, Friday evening meeting -- photographers are forbidden -- still results in hundreds of thousands of Cubans protesting in Miami. Spouses of the imprisoned and tortured carry pictures of their loved ones. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez praises Obama's visit as a "public apology for generations of American imperialism and militarism."

At the same time, the Obama administration is arm-twisting Mexico and Canada into a renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The Mexican president wonders aloud to the press: "Why is the new president courting his enemies in the hemisphere while insulting his closest friends?"

Obama's Oval Office speech to the nation on Iraq is initially more successful. As promised, he orders a phased, unconditional withdrawal of combat forces, beginning "not in six months or one year -- now." American troops will no longer be embedded in Iraqi combat units or used to combat Iranian influence (all pledges made during his campaign).

Many Americans cheer. But the next day, The Post reports stunned disbelief among the troops. A high-ranking officer observes, "The surest way to break the morale of the military is to undo its achievements and humiliate it on the verge of success." Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni allies react with panic at another sign of American unsteadiness and retreat from the region. Armed groups of Sunnis and Shiites within Iraq begin preparing for a resumption of sectarian conflict. An intercepted al-Qaeda communication talks of "so much defeat, exhaustion and death -- and then, praise be, this unexpected victory!"

Obama's 100-day agenda would be designed, in part, to improve America's global image. But there is something worse than being unpopular in the world -- and that is being a pleading, panting joke. By simultaneously embracing appeasement, protectionism and retreat, President Obama would manage to make Jimmy Carter look like Teddy Roosevelt.

Which is why President Obama would probably not take these actions -- at least in the form he has pledged. Sitting behind the Resolute desk is a sobering experience that makes foolish campaign promises seem suddenly less binding.

But it is a bad sign for a candidate when the best we can hope is for him to violate his commitments. And that's a good sign for John McCain.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/04/AR2008030402331.html

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a