When The Only Thing We Had to Fear Was Fear Itself
Barack Obama will follow in the footsteps of the above-pictured reckless and inexperienced men:
Here’s the truth: the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons, and Iran doesn’t have a single one. But when the world was on the brink of nuclear holocaust, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba. Why shouldn’t we have the same courage and the confidence to talk to our enemies? That’s what strong countries do, that’s what strong presidents do, that’s what I’ll do when I’m president of the United States of America.
Wow. A grownup treating grownup issues in a grownup manner, and speaking to us grownups as if we were grownups. It sure beats the jingoistic grunting we’ve endured for the last 7 years.
McCain wants a debate about dealing with countries that are hostile to us? Bring it.
Barack Obama » When The Only Thing We Had to Fear Was Fear Itself Says:May 20th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
[…] UrbanGrounds wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptBarack Obama will follow in the footsteps of the above-pictured reckless and inexperienced men: Here’s the truth: the Soviet Union had… […]
Chris from OP Says:May 20th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
What do you expect from men who refuse to wear flag pins?
Mike In WNY Says:May 20th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
I guess it all depends on what Obama wants to say that matters. Historically, the Democrats have been a war-mongering party. Even Bush only finished carrying out an Iraq policy started during the Clinton administration.
STEEL Says:May 20th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
You forgot to add TR to that list. His reckless and dangerous naivete led him to form a coalition with Stalin. Imagine thinking that a move like that would allow us to defeat Hitler…Oh wait…never mind.
Oh and didn’t Bush, Cheney, and Regan give Iran, Osama, and Iraq arms? Funny how short the Republican memory is.
eac Says:May 21st, 2008 at 12:28 am
inevitably, some republicanist asshat is going to comment to you:
“but, *these* guys are terrorists, you can’t talk to them. They are irrational.”
No, not like England talked to Sinn Fein. Not at all.
(inevitable comeback: “yes, but those were white, christian terrorists…”)
Fearmongering is the old black.
Queen Carlotta Says:May 21st, 2008 at 12:58 am
EAC…
Darling, the difference between Sinn Fein and Hamas is that Hamas hates the Jews and the West more than they love their children.
Hamas is a VERY dangerous and destructive organization; even Dr. Hanan Ashrawi, a fierce advocate for the liberation of Palestine, has argued that Hamas the same. The difference (and there is a HUGE difference) between Hamas and Sinn Fein is that the Irish Republican movement had nothing against the English people, they were against the oppression of Irish people by the UK government.
Jerry Adams a la Sinn Fein never argued for the extermination of the English people. At NO time did Jerry Adams a la Sinn Fein advocate using Irish children as suicide bombers to kill innocent people. Your analogy is so off mark - but then again, from all observations, you really don’t seem to know what you are talking about.
To make such naive statements as yours is like shitting your pants while sitting at the theater. People who have the misfortune of being in proximity to you will give you dirty looks and wish you would just go away.
Queen Carlotta Says:May 21st, 2008 at 1:35 am
STEEL,
Darling, did you intend to type FDR rather than TR? Tsar Nicholas II was still in power during TR’s presidency. Neville Chamberlain attempted to “negotiate” with Hitler’s Nazi Germany. How many millions were killed as a result of that “negotiation?”
What brillaint statement can anyone make that will reverse the rabid hatred Hamas has for the Jews, Christians (including Christian Palestinians) and the West?
LBJ didn’t “negotiate” with the Ku Klux Klan - he did everything possible to make it impossible for that “Hamas-esque” organization to operate. LBJ didn’t negotiate with the Klan because no clever “dialogue” would ever change their philosophy. It is downright outrageous to put Hamas in the same league as Krustchev, Brezhnev, Mao, Gorbachev or Sadat.
dougk Says:May 21st, 2008 at 2:50 am
BP, JFK never spoke with Khrushchev, you must have meant former Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs, Andrei Gromyko. Oui?
hank Says:May 21st, 2008 at 8:33 am
And what did Kennedy say to the Russians through DIPLOMATIC CHANNELS during the Missile Crisis? Well we don’t know word for word, but there was more it than “the USA will remove its missiles from Turkey if you get yours out of Cuba”.
I’m reasonably sure there was also a “Let’s see WHO BURIES WHO if you want to play global thermonuclear war”.
China and the USSR both had the dream of global Communist rule, but neither did they hate the USA and its people.
For example all of the USSR Party First Secretaries knew their people would starve without all the grain they were buying from the USA.
And even Mao knew that without the trade with the USA, his people were going to have a much harder time making it.
As for the Camp David Accords, it should be a lesson to Barry O that he’s not going to make any more progress than Carter or Clinton did.
Nations can work out differences through negotiation.
Negotiation with nations whose governments are controlled by religious fanatics will be as successful as negotiations with any other stripe of psychopath or sociopath.
Arabs hate the Jews. The KKK hated the Jews. LBJ didn’t invite the Grand Wizards of the various Klan Groups to Washington for a sit-down, now did he? Nor did he change their minds–not then, and not now either.
Yet that’s what Barry O portends for the fanatics running some of the SW Asian countries, nations who sponsor Hamas and Hezbollah (Iran).
LBJ DID sic the FBI on the Klan, and the Congress passed legislation so folks like Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center could run them out of business, not unlike the FBI and the IRS finally took Capone off the street.
The analogy is so far off you can’t find it with a GPS
The Amherst Times » Blog Archive » When The Only Thing We Had to Fear Was Fear Itself Says:May 21st, 2008 at 8:35 am
[…] May 20th, 2008 News 8 Comments […]
Russell Says:May 21st, 2008 at 8:38 am
Gorbachev was a reformer when Reagan met with him and Reagan held a very hardline stance. Carter brokered peace between two countries. We were not very threatened by either country in that mix. China never threatened the US before Nixon talked with them. So, BP, your comparisons do not compare.
On the Soviet question Barack brought up, Kennedy never met with Cuban leaders. In fact, he cut all ties and contact with them and made it US policy to have no talks or contact of any kind with them, not just at the Federal level, but all the way down to the private citizen. The Bush Administration’s policies toward Iran go nowhere near what Kennedy’s policies were toward Cuba. Perhaps you and Barack should both take a history class.
Russell Says:May 21st, 2008 at 8:45 am
While you’re at it, you should take an international relations course or one in game theory. You’ll find that it’s a very dangerous strategy for a greater power to meet with a smaller power. Generally, it can only serve to hurt the greater power and strengthen the smaller. The USSR and China were equals in some sense with the US during the times in question. Iran is by no means an equal and granting them that status would be dangerous at best.
Buffalopundit Says:May 21st, 2008 at 9:08 am
I think every one of those images reflects the fact that enemies speaking with one another is not always dangerous, naive, reckless, or indicative of a lack of experience.
And what I haven’t yet done is come up with a post showing all the shitty brutal dictators with whom we haven’t merely spoken, but with whom we’ve been downright friendly.
When the Cuban Missile Crisis hit in 1962, we came right to the brink of war at which point diplomacy took over and nuclear holocaust was averted. I tend to think that was probably the right way to proceed.
And we speak with “smaller powers” all the time. Being the lone remaining superpower, it’s sort of de rigeur.
UPDATE: How could I forget Mao? No, China didn’t “threaten” the US before Nixon spoke with them. But it did go to war against us.
OPNY Says:May 21st, 2008 at 9:55 am
Democrats and Our Enemies
By JOSEPH LIEBERMAN
May 21, 2008
How did the Democratic Party get here? How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose?
Beginning in the 1940s, the Democratic Party was forced to confront two of the most dangerous enemies our nation has ever faced: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In response, Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled, internationalist, strong and successful.
This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.
This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, who pledged that “it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.”
And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom.”
This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in Vietnam. In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party. Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and “inordinate fear of communism” represented the real threat to world peace.
It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because they were inspired by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest. Rather, the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them, because we threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the respect they deserved. In other words, the Cold War was mostly America’s fault.
Of course that leftward lurch by the Democrats did not go unchallenged. Democratic Cold Warriors like Scoop Jackson fought against the tide. But despite their principled efforts, the Democratic Party through the 1970s and 1980s became prisoner to a foreign policy philosophy that was, in most respects, the antithesis of what Democrats had stood for under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.
Then, beginning in the 1980s, a new effort began on the part of some of us in the Democratic Party to reverse these developments, and reclaim our party’s lost tradition of principle and strength in the world. Our band of so-called New Democrats was successful sooner than we imagined possible when, in 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were elected. In the Balkans, for example, as President Clinton and his advisers slowly but surely came to recognize that American intervention, and only American intervention, could stop Slobodan Milosevic and his campaign of ethnic slaughter, Democratic attitudes about the use of military force in pursuit of our values and our security began to change.
This happy development continued into the 2000 campaign, when the Democratic candidate – Vice President Gore – championed a freedom-focused foreign policy, confident of America’s moral responsibilities in the world, and unafraid to use our military power. He pledged to increase the defense budget by $50 billion more than his Republican opponent – and, to the dismay of the Democratic left, made sure that the party’s platform endorsed a national missile defense.
By contrast, in 2000, Gov. George W. Bush promised a “humble foreign policy” and criticized our peacekeeping operations in the Balkans.
Today, less than a decade later, the parties have completely switched positions. The reversal began, like so much else in our time, on September 11, 2001. The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.
Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.
Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party’s left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.
In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.
John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America’s friends and America’s enemies.
There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.
Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.
If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.
A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned “no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.” This is a lesson that today’s Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.
Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut. This article is adapted from a speech he gave May 18 at a dinner hosted by Commentary magazine.
eac Says:May 21st, 2008 at 10:08 am
Q. Carlotta,
what are you, Ann Coulter? Your analysis seems about as superficial and anti-intellectual as hers. And frankly, she’s much better with the insults- “shitting your pants in a theatre?” What? Does this happen to you a lot or something? Anyway…
Certainly some Hamas leaders and many of the followers believe the useful rhetoric of “sweeping dirty Jews into the sea,” but when you get down to brass tacks, the Palestinians want land and rights more than the eradication of the world Jewery. Same truth in Iran: Ahmedinijad as well likes to use incredibly divisive and exaggerated language when discussing Israel, but at the end of the day, Iran is more concerned with the missiles pointed at Tehran then with genocide. How else to understand the fact that Iran has, in fact, the greatest number of Jews in the Middle-East after Israel? Not really a free thriving religious minority, mind you, but they haven’t all been shipped off to some Persian Dachau, either.
Gerry Adams, and his IRA brethren were fighting for roughly the same thing in N.I. as Palestinians/Hamas are in Israel. You are right to point out that it was not about an intrinsic hate of the English (though again, some of that certainly is true: violent terrorist movements often draw the same sociapathic types that otherwise find an outlet in the armed forces- think of the loyalist Shankhill Butchers, e.g.), and was certainly not about whether you believed in the Pope’s infallibility or not. It was about freedom, civil rights, equality, and overarchingly: economic opportunity.
It is far superior to address the conditions that cause terrorism than to battle the terrorism itself, though of course the latter necessary.
STEEL Says:May 21st, 2008 at 10:17 am
Queen Darling,
Yes I meant FDR of course. Still can you imagine him dealing with a tyrant who hilled as many if not more people than Hitler. How reckless of him.
Buffalopundit Says:May 21st, 2008 at 10:29 am
Consider:
And this:
Russell Says:May 21st, 2008 at 11:16 am
It’s simple, Hamas is not the IRA. Iran is not China or Russia. You do not handle them in the same way and it is very naive to think you should. There are a number of reasons for this, but one huge point is that Russia, China and even the IRA were willing to work within the International System where Hamas and Iran and working to destroy it.
Proxy wars between competing great powers are not direct wars. China never went to war against the US.
And your point about us being the only superpower so we talk to smaller powers all the time is another demonstration of your naivete. First, there are still great powers. Second, the level and topic of discussion is nowhere near the same with a great power and a small power as it is among great powers or among small powers. It cannot be.
Buffalopundit Says:May 21st, 2008 at 11:37 am
No, Iran is not China or Russia. It is Iran. It is an expansionist terrorist-supporting theocratic state that is a destabilizing force in the Middle East. Let’s smash it and ask questions later.
STEEL Says:May 21st, 2008 at 11:51 am
I thought we were at War with China in Korea. We had a general at the time who wanted to fight right into China. Good thing we had a president who thought that to be a bad Idea. He eventually negotiated with the Chinese to stop the fighting.
Russell Says:May 21st, 2008 at 12:07 pm
No, I have a better idea. Let’s sitdown to tea and discuss what’s bothering them and so we can change ourselves to make them feel better, because obviously it’s us not them.
Russell Says:May 21st, 2008 at 12:09 pm
STEEL, once again, it was a proxy war, not a direct war. There’s a huge difference.
Buffalopundit Says:May 21st, 2008 at 12:14 pm
During Korea, Chinese soldiers fought American soldiers. The only thing proxy about it was that we were fighting under UN auspices. Otherwise, it doesn’t get much more direct than that.
And obviously, we do not sit down to tea and discuss what’s bothering Iran. We apply a carrot and stick approach to coerce good behavior from and to determine why, if, and how we re-open diplomatic ties. Sort of like how Bush did with Qaddafi.
Name one positive thing we’ve accomplished politically as a result of our Cuba embargo. All we do is perpetuate the revolutionary fervor of an Iranian mullah or a Castro by refusing to change what we do when it quite palpably has no real positive effect.
If it’s broke, fix it.
Russell Says:May 21st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
It’s difficult to play counterfactuals, but I would guess that containing a potential threat very close to our borders has been beneficial. Sure, they would have been more like a nuisance than a full threat, but there would have been plenty of games they could have played if they were stronger militarily and economically.
Seriously, BP, it was not a war of the US against China. This is not a minor point. We were not on their soil. They were not on ours. We were not the main players and neither were they. It was not a direct war and this is a tremendously important point. Your naivete is bordering on ignorance now and could be demonstrating why you’re so supportive of Obama’s foreign policy ideas. Really, the differences between a proxy war and a direct war could not be greater. It’s not just a technicality.
Your points for consideration earlier are also naive or ignorant. It’s not a conservative policy style to favor a bi-polar international system. Anyone with any knowledge of international relations will tell you a bi-polar system is much more manageable than any other alternative. It’s been that way for centuries. It’s not a product of US Hegemony or Bush policies. It’s the nature of the system. There has not been a fundamental change in that system in about 75 years. It’s rarely, if ever, brought on by a single person or political policy goals. It’s usually derived from economic changes and needs. It’s certainly not going to be brought about by someone with no executive or military experience, just years removed from Chicago City Council.
Queen Carlotta Says:May 21st, 2008 at 1:12 pm
STEEL,
Darling, its alright. You will always be welcome in Mortville!
*hugs an kisses*
Queen Carlotta Says:May 21st, 2008 at 1:16 pm
EAC
Darling, was it not you who echoed the cheap, rude and obnoxious spirit of Anne Coutler? That has as much appeal as the Jackie Collins collection at SEARS. You recklessly denounced anyone who critically challenged Obama’s slip as a “republicanist asshat.”
The crystal clear fact is that Hamas is an organization which is on the same level as the Ku Klux Klan. Perhaps you have a special place in your heart for groups that not only preach but actively attempt to destroy an entire group of people. Most of the chattering classes, both liberal and conservative, are in agreement that the racist dogma and policies of Hamas should not be tolerated.
Hamas has a messianic vision (supported by Iran) that leaves little room for anyone that is not like them. Hamas indoctrinates a hatred for Jews from the womb forward. They celebrate in the streets (like some would like to celebrate a Stanley Cub victory for the Sabres) when their husbands and children kill innocent people. Again, what magical words can be uttered to change this rabid hatred?
You made a clearly erroneous analogy between Sinn Fein and Hamas. It was you who attacked those who potentially failed to utter the shallow slogans you initially posted. I made the “shit in the theater” analogy to illustrate to you how obnoxious your statements were to any civilized person (regardless of point of view). Sir, it was YOU made superficial and anti-intellectual statements. Even those who might marginally agree with your views would distance themselves from your irresponsible rants listed above.
You’re a wicked little boy getting me all heated up, aren’t you? I’m going to have to give you a spanking!
STEEL Says:May 21st, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Russell,
That silly proxy war argument is meaningless. McArthur was removed because he wanted to attack directly into China. Truman thought that to be quite stupid and ultimately chose to talk with the Chinese. Unlike Bush who is ready to dive into any swimming pool without looking Truman understood the consequences of war without a plan, goal,purpose, backing of the people and a chance of winning.
Chris M Says:May 21st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
You couldn’t resist putting Reagan in there, could you?
Reagan was not ineffective. He was very instrumental in the tearing down of the Berlin wall, and in the dissolution of the USSR. “Mr Gorbachev TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!” was not exactly some diplomatic olive branch.
But his success wasn’t through appeasement, or negotiation. It was through uncompromed military strength. His star wars plan was laughed at back then. Turns out to have been quite visionary.
Russell Says:May 21st, 2008 at 1:41 pm
STEEL, it is not meaningless. It’s of paramount importance. If there is no difference between a proxy war and a direct war, why do you think MacArthur was removed for wanting to enter China? If there’s no difference then that wouldn’t have mattered.
And you cannot compare Iraq or Iran to China. They are not equal in any way. Perhaps some analogies could be drawn between Truman’s willingness to get involved in Korea, but even that’s not the same.
If Bush is half as willing to jump into any swimming pool, as you claim, then we would not have only been in Iran long ago, but we would have been in Syria and perhaps a few other places at least a couple years ago as well.
STEEL Says:May 21st, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Russell
We are not in those places because Bush broke his neck diving into Iraq.
The proxy war stuff is stupid and meaningless. We could have fought our enemy China on their soil or we could have negotiated with our enemy. Luckily we negotiated…end of story, Thank You Truman. We could have had a nuclear exchange with the USSR over Cuba or we could negotiate. Kennedy chose negotiation (and thankfully did not listen to the hawks in his cabinet). Thank You RFK!
The cowboy attitude of the Republicans is extremely irresponsible and has resulted in weakening our position in the world to a tremendous extent. By they way it has been a cowboy attitude with no teeth. This right wing crew has been unwilling to ask any sacrifice from the general public to back up their policies. Do you suppose that is because the public does not really stand behind them? Is McCain willing to ask for a draft to back up his shallow tough talk? I doubt it.
TR said talk quietly and carry a big stick (it was TR right Queen darling?) Bush and McCain squawk wildly and carry a little twig. Iran knows the US is all bluster now because we shot our wad in a worthless Iraqi war. That is the kind of reckless foreign policy we can no longer afford
Russell Says:May 21st, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Again, Steel, you’re showing you know very little about international relations and foreign policy. China and the USSR were great powers. Talking with them was a completely different option than it is to talk with Iran. Iran is more like Kennedy not talking to Cuba. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
The issue of not talking to states or groups like the ones in question is not unique to this administration or to Republicans. As has already been pointed out, Kennedy even followed this strategy. Furthermore, no talking with or negotiating with terrorists or terror groups was not a policy enacted by this administration.
And I don’t get your TR comment. You say folks like Bush are talking too much, but the issue of this thread is that he’s not talking. You also say he has no stick, but the issue of this thread is that he’s too quick to use the stick and wreckless with it. You cannot even keep your own arguments straight. I shouldn’t be surprised international relations is far beyond your grasp.
STEEL Says:May 21st, 2008 at 2:45 pm
My argument is quite straight Russell. It is you who is doing the dodging with your semantics.
To make it clear to you
Bush talks at people not with them. Bush makes big threats with nothing to back them up with. He is a completely failed president and McCain is standing with him and his failed policies. Bush’s failed Iraq policy has weakened the US to the point that we no longer have a big stick.
It is you that has no understanding of international relations. Iran is developing their own nukes unlike Cuba that was just a pawn. Iran is not a pawn in this issue. To compare Cuba is recless and naive.
Russell Says:May 21st, 2008 at 3:11 pm
The UN, Russia and China have all talked with Iran and it has gotten everyone nowhere.
Cuba was unable to develop nukes in large part because of our policies toward Cuba.
Iran is not a great power. They should not and cannot be treated as Russia or China or any other great power. Once again, these are not policies unique to the Bush administration. And the US’s stick is still quite strong. In fact, it is still the strongest in the world.
The quote from TR and the way he carried himself and his policies would be much more in line with talking at people rather than to them. “Speak softly and carry a big stick” was not about negotiating, especially not with rogue states or terror groups. It was about flexing your muscle so you didn’t have to say much.
And I haven’t dodged anything.
Buffalopundit Says:May 21st, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Cuba’s dictatorship very well could have gone the way of the Honeckers and Ceausescus if they,too, had a regular supply of Levis, Coca Cola, and Led Zeppelin.
STEEL Says:May 21st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Well Iran may not be a great power but they can potentially inflict great damage on us. For that reason alone they should be talked to. Ignoring them does not make them go away and the current policy is followed from a position of weakness thanks to the current administration.
To use the UN China and Russia as examples of how negotiation and dialog has failed with Iran makes it perfectly clear that you are only interested in partisan rhetoric.
Timothy Domst Says:May 21st, 2008 at 4:31 pm
BP, you bring up one of the most common wrong arguments about this issue, that it’s can be solved with economic solutions. The idea that Hamas, Iran, etc. would all be reasonable if they all had jobs or western consumer goods. That may have been true of the former Soviet Bloc countries, but it’s clearly not the issue with religious nuts. They have plenty of stuff and money, and they are still our enemies. What good is talking with them if abandoning Israel to them is their biggest demand?
Russell Says:May 22nd, 2008 at 8:07 am
No, STEEL, it actually demonstrates the problems, or even failures, inherent in small power/great power negotiations. Nothing partisan about that.
eac Says:May 22nd, 2008 at 9:20 am
Q.C.-
I’d say you display a relatively poor understanding of the sociology and psychology of these groups and their members, frankly. Indeed, many prominent Israelis and Israeli organizations think talking to Hamas has merit, too. And of course, we used to eschew talking to the PLO (when they were the only game in town)- now we talk to them in order to undermine Hamas. So clearly, a lot of talking–both official and unofficial–actually does go on.
eac Says:May 27th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Apparently, it’s worse than we thought: Israelis themselves, Jew-haters that they are, think talking to Hamas is a good idea.
But I realize a bunch of asshats on BP’s blog know better than the actual victims of Hamas’ terrorism whether or not talking to Hamas is worthwhile.