Obama Surrounds Foreign Policy
Posted May 19th, 2008 by Da King
Warning to liberals - I am going to talk about Barack Obama again, so please read carefully.
I extend this warning because, in the past, when I write something like "Obama's foreign policy regarding Iran doesn't make sense", liberals read it as "I'm a heartless racist Republican dittohead who hates black people and the poor". This time, I'd like to point out the difference between those things up front, to hopefully avoid any further misunderstanding.
If that is understood, then I can continue, by saying…
Obama's foreign policy regarding Iran doesn't make sense.
Two things stand clear about Barack Obama's presidential campaign. First, he's going to be critical of all things Bush, that's a given, and second, he is going to try to link Bush to John McCain at every turn. Obama and the Democrats in general are running against George W. Bush much more than they are running against John McCain, even though Bush isn't running. That's why Obama's foreign policy speech from last week didn't discuss just how Bush's policies were wrong, his speech discussed how the "Bush/McCain" policies were wrong. Obama said "Bush/McCain" so many times (at least 10) that I started thinking maybe those guys are really one person rather than two, or at least conjoined twins. The second that John McCain became the de facto Republican presidential nominee, he stopped being the Democrats favorite ethical stand-up bipartisan maverick Senator who bucked his own party in the name of truth, justice, and the american way, and he started being McCain the Bush clone, the Bush third termer. Funny how that works. The New York Times can't find anything nice to say about John McCain anymore. It's so sad when a love affair ends.
Here are some examples of Obama's 'Bush/McCain Are Conjoined Twins' strategy on Iran from that speech:
"George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for…[Their foreign policy] made Iran stronger. George Bush’s policies. They’re [Bush/McCain] going to have to explain why Hamas now controls Gaza, Hamas that was strengthened because the United States insisted that we should have democratic elections in the Palestinian authority. They’re going to have to explain why it is that Iran is able to fund Hezbollah and poses the greatest threat to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation. That’s the Bush-McCain record on protecting this country. Those are the failed policies that John McCain wants to double down on, because he still hasn’t spelled out one substantial way in which he’d be different from George Bush when it comes to foreign policy…Our Iran policy is a complete failure right now, and that is the policy that John McCain is running on right now. He has nothing to offer except the naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up its nuclear program and support for terrorism. I’m running for President to change course, not to continue George Bush’s course. I believe we need to use all elements of American power to pressure Iran, including tough, principled and direct diplomacy".
I think you all get the message here. Barack Obama is clearly against George John Bush McCain's Iranian policy. Clearly.
Now for the kicker, the mind-blowing mother of all hypocrisies. About 10 seconds later, in the exact same speech, after savaging Bush's Iranian foreign policy, Barack Obama said this:
"It’s time to present Iran with a clear choice. If it abandons its nuclear program, its support for terrorists and its threats to Israel, then it can rejoin the community of nations. If not, Iran will face deeper isolation and steeper sanctions. But in the Bush-McCain view, everybody who disagrees with their failed Iran policy is an “appeaser.”"
For those of you who don't recognize it, presenting Iran with a choice between it's nuclear program, it's support for terrorists, it's threats against Israel, and suffering sanctions and further isolation IS THE BUSH POLICY TOWARD IRAN !!!!! After trashing Bush's Iranian policy, Obama turns right around and adopts it as if it's his own !!! And then Obama pretends that Bush doesn't even hold his own policy !!! IS ANYBODY OUT THERE LISTENING TO THE WORDS COMING OUT OF BARACK OBAMA'S MOUTH ??? The media sure isn't, because none of them even appeared to notice. By the way, did any of you notice how Obama had pretty much the entire mainstream media at his beck and call last week ? He had about 30 minutes of free campaign commercials all over the news networks, on demand. In the interests of fairness, the media later gave John McCain-Bush III about 30 seconds too. It's only fair. The media also couldn't be bothered to point out that Obama's new position on Iran (the Bush position) is a complete about face from his previous stance of negotiating with Iran without preconditions (the position Hillary ridiculed in the Democratic debates). Obama has now completely surrounded Iranian foreign policy by taking both sides of the argument, as he attempts to do on so many issues. That is as hypocritical as can be ("nuanced" in New York TimesSpeak). My reaction to Obama's foreign policy drivel is the same reaction Lebron James has to that obnoxious chubby guy in the lawnmower commercial: "get that weak stuff outta here !"
I suggest Obama change his campaign theme from 'Change You Can Believe In' to 'Change That Isn't Change', or maybe he can use that old David Byrne/Talking Heads blurb from the 80's, 'Stop Making Sense', because when it comes to foreign policy, Obama stopped making sense a while ago. In sports terms, Obama might be the Rookie Of The Year, but he sure doesn't deserve the MVP.
I could write 10 posts about what was wrong with Obama's foreign policy speech last week, and perhaps I will. It was riddled with falsehoods, doubletalk, and distortions. I only pointed out some of the more egregious ones this time. See ya later.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:01 am
He talks in circles.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:49 am
That's what I like about you, larry. You can sum it up in so many fewer words than I can. You said it.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
King, there's actually a good reason no one seemed to notice that Obama's Iran policy is the same as Bush's: Obama's Iran policy is not the same as Bush's. Currently, we are exercising a policy of total non-engagement with Iran. We don't talk to them, apparently unless our wish list of cool things we'd like are magically granted. Obama-the-Nazi-appeaser-or-whatever, by contrast, says this in the link you provided:
"I believe we need to use all elements of American power to pressure Iran, including tough, principled and direct diplomacy."
Yes, he's looking for the same outcomes as Bush, but I think you've gotten confused by the 'then it can rejoin the community of nations' comment, which is not the same thing as dimplatic engagement in general.
I hope the next 10 posts are a little more accurate.
And BTW, it sure made sense to attack McCain and Bush at the same time since McCain was echoing Bush on the same morning as the 'Appeaser' speech.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
What is 'rejoining the community of nations'?
May 19th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
What Brent says.
And…
" First, he's going to be critical of all things Bush, that's a given, and second, he is going to try to link Bush to John McCain at every turn."
81% of Americans believe we're on the wrong track. Obama is critical of Bush because AMERICANS are critical of Bush….and by high numbers.
John McCain has linked himself to Bush. Obama really doesn't have to work hard on this issue…..McCain really doesn't disagree.
The largest error I see in your post is this….and it's a big one….
"It’s time to present Iran…."
That means direct talking with Iran…..which as you know, is antithetical to anything Bush/Cheney have wanted to do.
Direct talking with Iran's leaders "to present" them with a workable plan that makes demands and offers carrots.
And that, my good friend, kind of shatters your whole post.
Obama does not, in much of any way, agree with anything Bush has done in foreign policy related issues.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
" I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction "
Beware Obama Bin Liar !!!
http://www.dontvoteobama.net
Be Afraid !!!
Be VERY Afraid !!!
May 19th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
It would be a nice world if we could just talk to solve problems.
You could talk a child molester out of molesting saying things like, " Child molesting is bad. We don't do it—neither should you. We understand that you can't help yourself, because you have this insatiable predeliction for taking adavantage of innocent children sexually—it is what you like, even though it hurts the child—but we'll let you rejoin society and go about freely if you agree to just stop and realize that children should not be molested —in fact, we'll pay you to stop". Or we could talk to rapists, saying a similar diplomatic paragraph to them, and just expect them to understand their evil ways and the errors that we find abhorrent, and add in a few incentives such as free money or support and just because we are right and they are wrong, they would stop raping.
Or we could talk to Jew-haters, and try to make them understand that hatred is wrong, that Jews have a right to live in peace, too, and they'll just say, "ya—you're right, I'm wrong—I never thought of it that way—I'll change now because you have told me to."
Or we could have caught those suicide bombers who thought it okay to blow away innocent people to make a point about unfairness in the world and have talked them into thinking our way—that running planes into big buildings won't change a thing, except make us aware that you are willing to randomly kill innocent people to make your case.
Or perhaps we could talk to wild dogs or alligators and make them understand that killing innocent animals or people is wrong—that food is everwhere—you don't have to kill to eat.
We'll just have a big heart-to-heart with these killers of innocents—they should be able to understand that we think their ways are wrong and then everything will work out to our and their favor.
How wonderful to be so young and full of hope and belief in the sanity of just good words—as though each generation has not also been full of hope for change and the power or powerlessness of words—just words. Do they really think they are the first generation to try "hope" and "change" and direct diplomacy? Oh, yeah, but this time it will really work because they are so much better at it and this thing called life, than we were.
Too bad that is not the world we live in nor ever will live in.
Better to force the issue than to wait for a child molestor or rapist or person who uses terror to make their case or wild dogs or alligators to make their kill. "We'll just give them the benfit of the doubt (again!) and trust them to do right by us—that'll work." It is insane to even try to convince such as these that their ways are wrong—if only thinking could make it so—that is not the reality here, people—never has been, never will be—hoping that things will be different this time is futile, because humankind has not changed much at all from caveman days—not at all.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Elijah, that's pretty much the wrong way to look at it. Diplomacy isn't some magical replacement for military or economic coercion where you can defeat your enemy simply by talking. Sometimes it's possible to reconcile somewhat divergent interests through negotiating toward mutually beneficial, positive-sum outcomes. And sometimes negotiations don't work at all and other strategies may be necessary.
Of course diplomacy isn't always the answer. But if we stop looking at the world exclusively and abstractly in terms of nobility and idealism and get back to focusing on what's in America's best interests, we can better realize the value in meeting people halfway- instead of being caught up in this cartoonishly simple, black-and-white vision of the world where we can't talk to people because they're evil and that's all there is to it.
It's worth repeating that not only does Sec. of Defense Robert Gates share this appreciation for potential engagement with enemies, but it's also been a successfully deployed tool since WWII. Personally, I find the idea pretty ho-hum and unremarkable in that context.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Yes, Brent, perhaps we can allow Iran half a nuke instead of a whole—but then we have lots of whole nukes so that wouldn't be fair—so much for your false intelligence concerning "mutually beneficial, positive-sum outcomes"—sounds like some schmuck office talk to me—these people are not living in democratic countries where hopefully sane politicians are elected by the people—like here (but even we are losing that system second by second)—these leaders are despots who rule through their version of religion, where women are treated like beasts of burden or like personal whores to beat at will and cover up as though they do not really exist at all. Their version of reality is just as entrenched as ours. These are not people like us at all—although we are getting to be more like them in more ways than I care to enumerate here—especially when it comes to disrespect for the female human half—the culture the younger generations are fed and feeding themselves with is ugly—outright putrid in its supposed freeness, practically copulating on camera, not really respecting women at all, but using them up like whores to be had—ugly!
Brent—don't condescend to me and imply that I am simplistic in my analogies—I know what I am talking about—I, too, was once idealistic and believed that people were really all real good down deep inside and all it took was a good person to talk at them and bring them around—didn't work then, hasn't worked since, never has worked, never will as humans are not that evolved yet—we'll probably never evolve into that either, before we kill our planet off or each other or Mother Nature sees to getting rid of us all herself.
There is no talking an addict out of heroin, a rapist out of enjoying control over others more vulnerable, a molestor out of enjoying sex with a child instead of a consenting adult nor a madman leader into becoming sane and just—they are what they are and must be dealt with on our terms, meaning the more sane persons in the world have to do whatever it takes to keep them from their criminal behavior—it is a dog-eat-dog world whether you believe it or not.
This is one Democrat who is socially conservative now who at one time when I, too, was more naive, thought the burning power of just the hope within my heart would be enough to change the world in and of itself—then I got older and matured a bit and saw the truth—and frankly, I'd shoot the rapist or the child molester or the rabid ,wild dog or the madman with his finger on the nuclear button point blank without a second thought or bit of bleeding heart hesitation at this point in life—there is no negotiating with madmen or mad dogs–it is either us or them.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Brent,
You are saying that the Obama-Bush Iranian foreign policy objectives are the same (I agree, if Obama's latest rhetoric is accurate), but the difference is, Obama will negotiate with Iran and Bush won't. Is that fair ?
Okay. First, I have to point out that it's not strictly true that Bush hasn't negotiated with Iran. He has negotiated with them regarding Iraq, and plans to again. Bush will talk if there is something to talk about. However, because Iran is actually dedicated to defeating the USA in Iraq, those talks went nowhere, just like the European nuclear talks with Iran went nowhere.
The second thing is, our problems with Iran are not due to miscommunication. It's not like they don't know what we want and we don't know what they want. It's not like Obama can walk in and say "hey, take down your nuclear program, stop abetting the destruction of Israel, and then everything will be hunky dory", and then the Iranians will respond with "oh, is THAT all you wanted this whole time ? Why didn't you say so ? Done". That's not the problem, and that is not going to happen. The problem is, the USA and Iran understand each other very well, and we are ENEMIES with colliding objectives. It's the foreign policy OBJECTIVES that are the important things. Whether we have tea and crumpets with Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs is not even an actual issue. The issue is that Iran is a terrorist supporting state who is developing nuclear weapons, is advocating the destruction of Israel, and is arming the Iraqi insurgency (for starters). They aren't going to abandon that because Obama is a really nice, persuasive, and reasonable guy. Plus, now Obama has indicated he will implement the Bush policy objectives of isolation and sanctions toward Iran unless they agree to U.S. conditions. There is nothing different coming from Obama on Iran. It's just rhetoric. If you believe Obama's latest version of his Iran foreign policy (which contradicts his earlier Iran foreign policy), he plans to implement the Bush foreign policy regarding Iran. It's just that since he's running for president of the opposition party, Obama has to act like he's doing something new and different. It's just politics.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Elijah, I think the crux of your whole position is that people like the leadership of Iran are too evil to be rational and only want to murder and destroy everything- and exponentially more so, apparently, than all the bad guys we've dealt with in the past (Evil Empires, etc.). You're categorically ruling out ever talking with foreign leaders that you declare EVIL under any circumstance. Now besides the fact that I don't think any serious foreign policy analyst would agree with that insane position, I also just think you're really handcuffing our options here. Under that scenario, the only available methods to advance American interests are embargos (really working in Cuba) and blowing people up (American interests are just doing fantastic in Mesopatamia these days).
And by the way, I've yet to see empirical evidence of the inherent awfulness that results the second you sit in a room with a corrupt leader. Conversely, I fail to see how it's at all effective to pretend that this posturing and non-engagement somehow entices bad guys to do what we want- as if the awesomeness of just being able to meet with the US is enough incentive for Iran to get its act together.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:49 am
King, your first point pretty much sums up Bush's complete misunderstanding of what diplomacy is all about. He doesn't score points for demanding help for what he wants while refusing to budge one inch on anything that might benefit Iran in any way. Sure, you can argue Iran doesn't 'deserve' any help, but at the end of the day that position doesn't advance our interests. And that's certainly not how diplomacy works.
Furthermore, the crucial Iran issues–nuclear proliferation and terrorist sponsorship–have never been engaged by Bush. It's a shame Bush is letting his arrogance about Iraq plague yet another aspect of his foreign policy.
And while your second point could well be true–I will not state that diplomacy is some magic bullet that can exclusively cure every problem–you also, like Bush, are focusing solely on the stick and ignoring the carrot. Yes, our interests are not compatible if you put Iran in some weird vacuum where the only thing in the world that they could ever desire is our and Israel's destruction. But that's just not the case. It turns out that they aren't evil robots but instead human beings (albeit different than us in many ways) who like money and food and other things that the rest of us human beings also enjoy. So you can offer things like normalized relations and trade opportunities, etc. in exchange for nuclear disarmament (like North Korea). Now like I said, there's a nice chance none of that works at all, but it's also unclear how good outcomes for the US can be realized by foregoing the whole process outright.
The other thing I'll add is that it's pretty ridiculous to think that there is no value in physically sitting down with leaders when conducting diplomacy. I don't know what history book you read from, but there's a pretty nice collection of examples where that actually was the right thing to do… while posturing and relying on newspapers to get the point across has not been demonstrated to be quite as effective. You're also relying on Persian media to properly convery your message. Politicians of all people should understand why message control is somewhat important.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Brent has added a reasonable breath of fresh air to this discussion.
First…..Obama has suggested, in his capacity as the new leader of America, he would have direct talks with other leaders of other countries.
Not child rapists, who don't represent any countries.
Not heroin addicts who don't represent any countries.
Other countries leaders.
That's a big distinction.
The concepts set down by Elijah are ahistorical as well. American presidents from Kennedy to Reagan to W, himself, have negotiated with foreign leaders they deemed as potentially dangerous. That's what strength allows for.
This…
"The issue is that Iran is a terrorist supporting state who is developing nuclear weapons, is advocating the destruction of Israel, and is arming the Iraqi insurgency (for starters). "
…is simply not true. There is no proof, at all, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. The one point I can direct you too that settles this issue is this: If Iran was developing WMD of the nuclear kind, and Bush had evidence, any evidence….it would be sprawled all over every media "breaking news" for weeks. That's how you know that Iran doesn't have any.
Similarly, there hasn't been any evidence of Iran arming Iraqi insurgents either. Same observation. If Bush actually had evidence…..the media would never let a moment go by without reminding us.
Additionally, the statement by Ahmadinajab about Israel has been miscontrued. Not shocking really. Juan Cole, who is fluent in Arabic languages has definitively pointed this fact out.
Hamas and Hizbollah, who I admit, are problem children, still, only focus on the apartheid of Israel versus the Palestinians. When this longstanding apartheid is not addressed properly, radicals sprout up. I'm not justifying the violence, just as I don't justify Israel's violence against the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories or their unilateral attacks against Syria or Lebanon.
Lastly. Iran is, at best, a weak state. For Americans to be laser focused on fear of such a weak, virtually third world country, is below our American dignity. It's hysterical, in fact. And that's what Obama meant by the "politics of fear".
May 20th, 2008 at 11:03 am
"American presidents from Kennedy to Reagan to W, himself, have negotiated with foreign leaders they deemed as potentially dangerous."
Yes, I don't think this point can be overstated. We have dealt with people who represented what most of us thought to be existential threats to the United States and our way of life. Iran is hardly well-intentioned, but I also have a hard believing they are that much worse than the old Soviet Union… who we did talk with.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
The leader of Iran is not a rational person. We can understand that fact from his statements. Israel as a "rotting corpse", and "should be wiped off the face of the earth", and so on. I will tell you that there is no difference between him and the predelictions of a rapist or child molestor—he is not an elected leader, not a person to sit down with at a table and expect to have a reasonable argument or discussion with. Brent, I am not into the "evil" versus "good" crap either, just so you know—religion and the mythical battle between who is more godly is idiocy to me. Nor do I categorically in a simplistic black or white way say that we should never negotiate with countries who you are calling "evil"—I am not calling them evil—I am calling their presumed leader an idiot. I think America should be an adult and sit down with adult leaders who make adult-like rational decisions for their countries—such as respecting Israel as a remnant of people who have always retained a presence in their homeland of Israel, from time immemorial and who were nearly annihilated fifty years ago by another idiot who should not have been in a leadership position, either (like Ahmadenijad). But I do know that expecting to sit down with somebody like Ahmadenijad is a ridiculous proposition. What are we going to negotiate with someone like him? How many Israelis we'll allow him to annihilate? How many women we'll tolerate him denying human rights to? What groups we think will be alright for him to fund as terrorists? What is there to negotiate? And what would be of value to him that we could offer to him to make him tow the line and respect Israel and stop threatening her? What? Obama will end up threatening Iran just like Bush, just like Hillary—and then all you Obamites will find a way to justify that turn in posturing, too. He's yer guy, no matter what!
Adult-like discussions should be between adults. The idea that Obama stated, that to not have any pre-conditions to discussions with the likes of leaders like Ahmadenijad—that he would just go in and have talks without conditions with these leaders who are really just despots that aren't elected by their people—-what a stupid thing to say—how naive can he be? What other stupid thing will Obama say if he becomes president? Is Obama really that naive as to think that a world leader should announce his intentions to talk to all the idiots out there just because they are self-proclaimed leaders of their countries? That is outright stupid and vain, as well. It tells me that he is not ready to be a world leader. He has legitimized the unelected, despots all over the world by making such a pronouncement—that is completely irresponsible of him—very scary stuff.
You are not a breath of fresh air—you are naive, as well, and must not have suffered enough in life nor seen much suffering or understood it to take such a stupid position as to think we should meet with any Tom, Dick or Harry who anoints and calls himself a leader—as if a negotiation with such a clod is reliable or predictable or satient at all—might as well negotiate with a stick or a psychopath—it will only embolden him to become even more irrational—watch.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
The rather simple solution to that problem would be to sit down with the actual leader of Iran, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, since he's the guy who actually runs their foreign policy.
But speaking more generally, I think anyone who leads a country probably has to act in somewhat rational ways because it's very difficult to maintain power without being at least slightly sensitive to your countries' own, pragmatic interests. It's very easy to point to Hitler as the notable exception to this logic, but Hitler was indeed a very unique situation. Assuming every bad guy is just as irrational as Hitler kind of mitigates exactly how awful that guy really was.
And again, I'm curious why everyone seems to now look back on the Soviet Union without remembering how we perceived them to be as irrationally Hell-bent on our destruction as Elijah does Iran. What Obama is suggesting is not naive. It's simply a restatement of the old policy of the US before the neoconservative tough-guy approach became all the rage. And I suppose if you like where things like Iraq have gotten the United States, then I can see why Obama seems so crazy to you. But there are those of us who see how you can rationally deal with people like Kim Jong-il.
Now it would help if we weren't bankrupt of leverage. We can offer to lift trade sanctions on Iran and normalize relations, which might ultimately lead to a more prosperous Iran in the future. But it's a little more difficult when Iran is loaded with so much oil and we need them economically more than they need us. It's also difficult to implicitly threaten force when the bulk of our military is tied up in some other part of that region. So I'm obviously not convinced that we have this loaded arsenal of leverage that will fix everything, but I'm simply making the point that there are things we could do to make our leverage stronger and more effective- and therefore it's silly to categorically rule out these options.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I don't see Iran as irrationally "hell-bent" on our destruction—please do not put words into my mouth—my point is that it is not smart to negotiate or imply that you will negotiate with any person who claims they are a leader—especially saying that you will impose no pre-conditions on said diplomacy. As the potential leader of the United States, I think it is not prudent nor good judgement to lay your cards out on the table and say without hesitation that you will sit down with leaders of rogue nations and negotiate without pre-conditions—what a stupid thing to say! To write me off as "liking the way things are with Iran or Iraq"—that no wonder I think Obama is crazy—I don't think O is crazy, but I do think he is over-rated and will underperform in the White House. No, I don't like what state our world is in—but, I am a blue-dog Democrat, who likes the "mommy" party, not the "daddy" party and always have—it is just that this Mommy-type has come to the point in life that I understand that there are leaders in this world who should not be deemed or recognized as leaders, and we, as a rational nation should not negotiate with without certain parameters being met—or at all when the leader is an absolute idiot. Idiot leaders who are not fit to lead should not be invited to the table of humanity—but should be shown some tough mommy love by being excluded completely—or let it be clearly and concisely known that we indeed can and will obliterate them if they act in idiotic ways.
I would do it myself—just like I'd strangle a child molestor or rapist caught in the act–immediately and without hesitation. That is the truly sane approach–sane societies isolate criminals from the law-abiding—that is the humane thing to do.
May 20th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Actually, that wasn't your point. You went on and on about how irrational Iran is. Presumably, an irrational state probably isn't going to meet your preconditions because they're, uh, irrational, right? So what's the point in emphasizing that stipulation?
In the meantime, I don't personally see the harm in sitting down with Iran and having a dialogue about what could benefit both of us. The key here is that negotiation requires MUTUAL benefit. Us arrogant, narcissistic Americans probably think just getting to talk to us is the coolest thing since sliced bread, but I sort of doubt that Iran sees that as some awesome incentive in and of itself.
Alternatively, you could preemptively take down the Iranian government, like you would a child molestor. And that's fine, because invading and indefinitely occupying a Middle Eastern country has never had any problems whatsoever in the past.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:38 am
The Iranians have met with several European countries regarding their nuclear proliferation and nothing was accomplished. Iran is NOT going to give up their nuclear ambitions because Obama or anyone else asks them to nicely. Ditto for their terrorist supporting ways. The carrots on the nuclear issue have already been offered by the Russians, and the Iranians turned them down flat. The Iranians have been invited by the world community to develop peaceful nuclear capability for energy purposes, as long as there is IAEA oversight to insure nuclear weapons are not being developed, and the Iranians turned the world down flat. Now Obama comes along and tells us that the problem is that Bush isn't negotiating with Iran. Sorry, no sale. That is a false construct on Obama's part. It bears little relation to the reality of the situation. Since the Iranians have unequivocally turned down the carrots, what the world community should do is apply the sticks. Iran should be pressured, sanctioned, and isolated. Economic sanctions should be applied. Sending in Barack Obama to talk would be meaningless and counterproductive at this point. The only thing that would accomplish is to give the terrorist-supporting Iranian state a larger stage to push their propaganda. The last thing you want to do with terrorists is to legitimize them. Even Obama agrees if you switch the name of the terrorist entity from Iran to, say, Hamas. Hamas is Iran's surrogate, an elected body in Palestine, yet Obama says he would not negotiate with Hamas unless they renounced their terrorist and violent ways. That is totally inconsistent with his Iran policy, but Obama's Hamas policy is the correct one. The USA can't negotiate with terrorist groups. If we do, we give the terrorists leverage.
Though I have to give Obama a little credit here. A few days ago he said Iran is a tiny country that wasn't a big threat (not sure what he was smoking when he said that). He has now reversed that and said Iran is a grave threat. Baby steps forward for Barack. I hope for all our sakes he figures this stuff out before he steps into the Oval Office.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:53 am
Brent—Iran is "hell bent" on the destruction of Israel. How will you feel if and when that happens? Relieved that the problem has been irradicated? No more whiny Jews to deal with in the land of Israel? Will the world be complicit in the desruction of the Jewish people? Again?
Not me. I stand with the Jewish people. The Jewish people are my people.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:21 am
Also, Brent–you ask "what is the point…stipulations to negotiating?"—why ask for pre-conditions, you ask?
Well, it puts out into the open and on the world stage exactly what the dialog participants real objectives are, where they stand, their motives, their intentions, and so on—as the other negotiating party, it shows our resolve as a nation, what we are willing to tolerate, shows our "give me liberty or give me death" attitude—that's what.
If you were to call a family member into a family meeting to talk about their out of control drinking, one stipulation would be that they should try to be sober when they attend the meeting–or else the meeting is off, and that would be the final straw for the family camel's back—enough already! When said addict is ready to quit for real and join in the sane community, then we'll talk—'til then, no talk.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Again…ridiculous. Israel has 100 nuclear missiles. Iran has ZERO.
Israel has attacked numerous middle eastern countries. Iran has attacked ZERO countries.
The whole discussion has been distorted.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:13 pm
You are WRONG, Rev—and furthermore, your usage of Rev is really an afront to people who do value their religion—it is immature of you—so are your attacks on the Beacon Journal, especially your allusion to Brokeback Mountain and now, I have outed you for what you really are—an anti-semitic demagogue type who is deluded by other anti-semitic demagogues—keep that true personality coming out—I think you are an ass.
Israel has not threatened to wipe Iran off the face of the earth—Israel has extended olive branch after olive branch after olive branch—take a real look at history and take out a map, while you're at it. I do not value your opinions, nor do I think you are smart. I think you are a pompous fool.
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Thanks for the recommendation.
I am a former Reverend and have every right to use that title. Or perhaps the title is only reserved for folks like Swaggert, Baker, Hagee, and Haggert? Holy men like that?
And…wherein am I wrong? Israel has attacked other countries, they've done it twice in the last couple years….Lebanon and Syria. I ain't making it up. It is also true that Iran hasn't attacked anyone.
Israel has those nukes and Iran has nothing….all true.
So is it being anti-Semitic to tell any truth at all now?
I have no animosity towards any single group of humans. Jews, Gentiles, whatever.
To have tunnel vision over the Israeli-Palestinian issue isn't helpful. Just as the majority of U.S. citizens want us out of Iraq…..so too, the majority of Israel's citizens want to make peace with the Palestinians.
And just as the majority of U.S. citizens are being ignored by very bad men in Washington…..so too, a small sliver of very bad extremist men and women in Israel ignore the will of Israel's citizens.
Frankly, I thought my Brokeback Beacon title was rather clever.
Oh yeah….and thanks for the maturity lesson….."I think you are an ass…..I think you are a pompous fool."
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Elijah,
I know it doesn't seem possible, but the Rev is serious about the nonsense he spews. He really believes it. He really thinks Israel is the aggressor in the Middle East. He lives in upside-down world, and I agree with you that anti-semitism must be at the heart of it. There is no other logical explanation, when anyone with a shred of an intellect can see that Israel has been under attack for decades and is fighting for it's very survival against those who would destroy it. Iran has even openly stated that the destruction of Israel is the goal, but the Rev somehow views things differently. He is not a well man.
May 24th, 2008 at 8:05 am
King: You misled a bit there. I think both sides are aggressors.
Those of a more conservative bent are those who view only one side as the aggressor.
That's the problem…..and just look at the low threshold conservatives have for calling someone an anti-semite.
To state fact is not anti-semitism. To state empirical, measurable fact is not bias.
A very strange thing has happened in America. NO ONE is permitted to point out facts if those facts suggest that Israel is less than perfect. And keep in mind here. The Jewish populaton in the U.S. represents 2.1% of our total population.
Just look at your comment King….you say Israel has been under attack for decades and yet refuse to acknowledge that Israel has also, for decades, attacked others as well.
It's myopia or it's brainlock.
May 25th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Rev,
If I attack you violently in an attempt to kill you (let's call me Hamas) and then you fight back violently to save your own life (let's call you Israel), that doesn't make us both the aggressor.
Hope this helps to ease your profound confusion regarding Israel.