Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Just a Company of American paratroopers, a guitar plugged
into the outpost's PA system, and a whole lot of demolitions.
When Obama Negotiates With Terrorists
he'll do everything the UN does - nothing
By haystack Posted in 2008 | foreign policy | negotiating with terrorists | Obamafiles — Comments (45) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
[Image courtesy Cartoon Stock ]
Barack Obama promises he will talk to everyone - friend and foe alike. He's convinced himself our unwillingness to do so under the "Bush-Cheney" approach makes us look arrogant, [and] it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership."
Of course, we DO talk to all nations (friend and foe alike), we just don't sit down and make nice with them - we tell them to behave themselves and take care of their people with decency and the human dignity they deserve...and until they do, we're not going to do them any favors (or give them any cash handouts). Obama doesn't seem to GET that part of it, but this fact goes hand in hand with all the other things he doesn't "get" about Foreign Policy.
Obama wants to sit down with a country that considers one of our allies a stinking corpse doomed to disappear at the hands of another country currently run by the armed thug terrorists that recently endorsed his candidacy themselves. Of course, Obama "understands" why the terrorists running Palestine would endorse him...and why wouldn't they? These are the same lunatics who suggest that his Muslim-world dwell-time, his Muslim-like middle name, and his "worldly appearance" might preclude his using the "cowboy diplomacy" that has thus far enabled Israel to continue its existence despite continued Muslim efforts to the contrary. Why wouldn't they endorse him assuming they'll get away with a whole lot more evil-doing when the "why can't we all just get along" President takes over?
More below the fold...
To understand what Obama will achieve when he "changes the world" with his new approach to negotiating with terrorists, one need only put all the little pieces together in the story of Gilad Shalit, Corporal in the IDF's Armor Corps who was taken hostage two years ago by Hamas...yes, Obama-endorsing Hamas...and who remains in captivity today as Hamas keeps changing the rules about what Israel must do to get him back.
First, they wanted to trade the freedom of "women and youths" from Israeli jails for Shalit's own freedom, to which Israel said no. Then, [h/t the Coalition of Whiners, Complainers, Israel-bashers, Liars and Thieves] they just wanted the fighting to stop [winking that they'd stop firing rockets into Israel when Hizbullah stopped firing them].
THEN, it was going to be a mutual agreement to only fire on eachother's Military targets in exchange for Shalit's release.
Now?
Well, it WAS going to be a cease-fire...but Hamas has decided "you know what? Forget the women and youths...we want 450 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Shalit...and we want the cease-fire for free."
So, when Obama negotiates in good faith, and strikes a deal with terrorists who wish him into office, and they subsequently go back on their word(s) [which they ALWAYS do], and they keep upping the anty...what will Mr. Hope and Change and Change and Hope™ DO, exactly?
Why, he'll give a speech about Hope and Change of course.
« Walking Back The Cat — Comments (3) | Obama Chief Strategist Writing Off West Virginia and Michigan in November? — Comments (11) »
When Obama Negotiates With Terrorists 45 Comments (0 topical, 45 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It's not the meeting, in my opinion,
by shooflyguy68
it's the naivetee of "no pre-condition". I'm all for speaking to our enemies. I just don't want to give them even the illusion that we will countenance their ideas about the destruction of Israel or their views on global jihad.
they just aren't listening...or they tell us what they think we want to hear, then go on about the business at hand...sponsoring or executing terrorism, often against their own people.
Talking gets nothing...action always does-and Obama actions will not be conducive to stopping terrorism.
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
since 1979 and have talked innumerable times with them. And what has it gotten us? Nothing, bupkis, nada. They just get worse and take more lives in more places. Talk is cheap, lives aren't. And the more time we waste talking, the more people die. That's what they are banking on--that we will keep flapping our gums while they continue to stockpile arms.
Diplomacy with the Soviets
by Han Pritcher
Diplomacy with the Soviets lasted longer than that.
You just do not give up options when you may get something out of them.
It doesn't cost much money or political capital to have civil face to face meetings. The opportunity cost is low. I mean, seriously, WHAT DO YOU LOSE by talking? Hell, you can still bomb 'em later if you need to.
The idea that Senator Obama is a weaker candidate because he agreed to meet with Iran (which he has emphatically NOT done with Hamas, so please no one suggest otherwise) is preposterous. You can certainly, as I said earlier, take issue with what he might say, but don't do our diplomatic corps THAT level of discourtesy. You may not like what they do, but they ARE trying to further our interests.
The best kind of victory is one where no blood is shed. Obviously that isn't always possible. Violence and the full fury of our military will be needed, from time to time. If we do our jobs right, though, it really won't be THAT often.
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Not necessarily my own view precisely, but that quote is in keeping with my handle. Put in my own words:
Fight when you have to, not when you want to. The more of the latter, the more of the former.
talking isn't the problem
by KyleH
Obama's strategy is only talk, talk and nothing but talk, talk 24 hours a day with nothing else. He has no back-up plan. He has never mentioned anything about what he would do should talk fail. Meanwhile, Iran is busy building a plant to make nuclear weapons, sponsoring terrorism, supporting Hamas, and shipping shaped explosives to Iraq to kill our people. They have all but declared war on us. What is it going to take to muddled-headed people like you serious about Iranian intentions? Of course Iran wants us to talk. We talk and they sit there like a stereotypical husband occasionally muttering, "yeh", "sounds good", "uh-huh", all the while reading the sports page and zoning his wife out.
General Petraeus might disagree...
by liberalrepublican
"we tell them to behave themselves and take care of their people with decency and the human dignity they deserve...and until they do, we're not going to do them any favors (or give them any cash handouts)."
My problem isn't the talking. The problem is that Obama is just way too inexperienced and naive. He will be taken to the cleaners ala Stalin at Malta.
"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,
Cowboy Diplomacy Trumps Coward Diplomacy
by Dwight Wannabe
Having lived through eight years of Clintonian Coward Diplomacy, I'll take Cowboy Diplomacy every time.
Talk isn't going to stop terrorism. Iranian leaders don't want our respect. They don't want our values. They don't want a place at the table of nations.
They want the total and utter destruction of the state of Israel.
Period.
You really want to make allies of Middle Eastern nations? Really>? Then Join Hamas and Jimmy Carter in seeking the end of Israel. Otherwise, put up your dukes and stop taking cheap shots to the chin in the name of faux civility. They've defined their terms and reasons for the endless violence. Only fear of OUR ruthlessness and capacity for sustained violence will dissuade them. Ever.
Iran has consistently been a
by Han Pritcher
Iran has consistently been a rational actor in that it has defined its interests and uses all possible levers to secure them. Once you have determined those interests, some level of engagement is possible. There are any number of reasons why we should not treat Iran, a state actor, in the same way as we treat terrorist organizations.
Personally, the most idiotic thing this administration has done was lumping Iran into that "Axis of Evil" speech. Every time we provide the Guardian Council with an outside existential threat they are better able to rally the Iranian people behind them, nevermind that for economic and social reasons the under-30 demographic in Iran has shown VERY little love for their rulers.
Every time we make it seem as though we're going to attack we make it easier for those we hate to stay in power. "Speak softly, but carry a big stick" has been replaced with "I'm coming for YOU [edited by haystack]mofo!"
[Um, Han? less letters, less offense, less likely to bring the hammer round for a little scolding]
Negotiation worked against the most implacable foe we had known up to that point - the Soviet Union. While your argument may have merit as applied to terror organizations, when we are dealing with other state actors the "cowboy" approach is reckless and will invariably have unintended consequences.
dude.....
by ScottWP
.....I know it's really important for you to make your point about how arrogant you think we are...but there are posting rules...
f-bomb alert.
by c17wife
I think Hans just couldn't hide his inner Kos anymore.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
Got€ that right
by blooch
Before that, I thought he was just a prig.
heh. Just gently goading.
by blooch
This character reeks of spectacular self-destruction, and I want to be there with my welding goggles.
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
Their recent public pronouncements include statements that Israel will soon be annihilated. Yep, I guess being called part of the axis of evil for their sponsorship of international terrorist is far less rational.
Come on Han, you can do better than that....
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
A rational actor is what I
by Han Pritcher
A rational actor is what I described. A state that has defined its interests and uses what levers it has to further them. We've threatened several other states with atomic/nuclear attack when it served our purposes. The severity or frankly evil nature of an act, or threat, does not itself speak to how rational it is. Those things speak to its morality. I'm not passing judgment on the morality of the Guardian Council in the above passage. I consider the leadership of Iran to be evil. I similarly considered the leadership of the Soviet Union to be so (though Gorby had his moments, and I've gotta give him that).
Rational /= good!
I'm using it as a term of art.
wrong for OUR government to say so? I'm sure you think it's more diplomatic to let evil people act "rationally" and plot to annihilate another country and a whole race/religion. And you think that it's better to let them be evil and work WITH them than to call them out for their evil behavior. I think such diplomacy is what had gotten us into many of the messes we're in now. That squishy diplomacy gets us criticized from all sides and sows doubts about our willingness to stand for what we believe in.
By the way, we ARE talking to Iran. We may not be at a negotiating table, but we are sending and receiving messages. We are making OUR demands known and acting rationally by using tools at OUR disposal to get what we want.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Hay, you know what I think about this whole
by c17wife
situation.
And personally, I don't have a problem with cowboy diplomacy or the phrase "I'm coming after YOU, fuddpucker." It's better than the alternative.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
Fuddpucker sounds like a sour candy.
by shooflyguy68
You should copywright that quickly. My kids are all about Warheads and Sour Patch Kids, etc. Could be a money maker for you.
Pretty sure it is already.
by c17wife
There used to be a chain of restaurants called Fuddpuckers. Hubby and I ate there occasionally when we lived in Charleston.
It is also a substitute for a word (phrase) I am not allowed to say on here. I have been using that word long before I ever knew the restaurant existed. I'm sure I picked it up from some derelict I met at public school.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
That's Fuddrucker's
by shooflyguy68
Love the place. Great hamburgers. So, maybe you can still make a buck here. :-)
Fudpuckers is in Fort Walton Beach. Fuddruckers was in Charleston.
Both places are fun and yummy.
And both towns are a blast, though my heart will always belong to Charleston.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
Am Spectator: Palestinians phonebanking for Obama in Gaza.
by St. Louis Conservative
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=12703
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
There are unoffical
by The Default Attorney
low-level communications with some countries we refuse to have official diplomatic ties with, but this is not the same thing as "talks" let alone "diplomacy." And there is a big difference between talking and tit-for-tat negotiation, though I don't know why that would necessarily be a bad thing in some contexts. That is something that neither you nor this administration seems to "get."
Since Bush has been in office we have lost the support of much of the Iranian moderate population, as evinced by the election of Ahmadinejad. He won based, in part, on anti-US rhetoric that the population was receptive to given the invasion of Iraq.
Precisely my point, vis a
by Han Pritcher
Precisely my point, vis a vis the elections in Iran. We have helped to drive the Iranian electorate (inasmuch as they have agency in the matter, which is greater than zero, less than enough) towards the very leaders we decry.
Be pragmatic about these things! If your words make things worse, stop saying such things. Talk is cheap. Electing not to insult a country who's demographics make it rather UNLIKE those countries who seem to breed Al Qaeda is an inexpensive and wise thing to do.
Stop making this a Right vs. Left thing. That's not what I've been doing, gang. Sane and effective diplomacy is inexpensive. It will often fail, but when it works you've spent nearly nothing to accomplish it. When it fails, you can still say you tried.
are less favorable on the US. I know quite a few Iranians who want us to take a strong stand. There do seem to be quite a few protests over there, which is impressive given the penalties.
Still, its all annectdotal. Lets not pretend to really know the answer.
Well, we kind of do
by The Default Attorney
The aforementioned elections pitted Ahmajinedad against Rafsanjani, who was decidedly more reformist and pro-west. So Iranians voted for their preference.
As a side-note, I'm not defending Iran's electoral process where the Guardian Council has to approve all candidates. I'm just pointing to the fact that of two candidates, Iranians chose the anti-west one. Ahmajinedad also ran on a populist campaign though, so we might not be able to attribute to much to his election.
Persians that you or I know are probably not representative of the people who stayed in Iran after the 79 revolution (my Persian friends think both US and Iranian policy is a joke right now). It was mostly those who could afford to get out who did. Those who stayed in Iran have a fairly different perspective, I would imagine.
I think open talks benefit all. Like when Ahmajinedad spoke at Columbia and when someone asked him about homosexuals in his country and he said "oh we don't have gays in Iran." That was priceless.
Obama's priority in sitting down with Iran
by robertallen
I strongly suspect will be to convince Ahmajinedad to change his tune on homosexuality. That piddling nuclear and sponsor of terrorism stuff will have to take a back seat to the more pressing issues of the people powered netroots movement, namely respect for the homosexual community.
was seen as tied to the failed policies. Things have gotten worse since then and they have mass demonstrations all the time.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
"Of course, we DO talk to
by danny n
"Of course, we DO talk to all nations (friend and foe alike), we just don't sit down and make nice with them - we tell them to behave themselves and take care of their people with decency and the human dignity they deserve...and until they do, we're not going to do them any favors (or give them any cash handouts)."
What about Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China and Russia to name a few.
We make nice to them and they're pretty lacking in the decency and human dignity category.
George W Bush even peered into Putin's soul. He is very insightful.
"there’s more to conservatism than low taxes, Jesus, and waterboarding at Gitmo." P.J. O'rourke
1979. Russia exists because we defeated the USSR. Egypt made peace with Israel. SA kills terrorists.
None of the four are in the same league as Iran nor the death cult the palestinians have become.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Very true!
by danny n
"1979. Russia exists because we defeated the USSR. Egypt made peace with Israel. SA kills terrorists."
For the most part true, but I thought we were talking about human dignity or decency.
However, I would argue that SA breeds more terrorists than it kills. Wahhabism isn't exactly kind to America and most of the hijackers on 9/11 are from SA.
"there’s more to conservatism than low taxes, Jesus, and waterboarding at Gitmo." P.J. O'rourke
gc doesn't respond to bait and switches - nt
by gamecock
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
SA also funds all sorts of nasty books,
by JSobieski
travel for non-moderate Imams to the west, and a litany of other bad things.
One of the reasons why Soviet Communism was in some ways more dangerous to the West was the infiltration of communists in our society.
The same applies to Islamists, and SA funds most of that stuff.
Books, schools, university chairs, etc. that are in the aggregate very anti-US, anti-West, and quite Islamist in nature.
SA is not our friend.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
How about this analogy
by JSobieski
Native born leftists are like HIV--they weaken our collective immune system (PC disease)
With a weakened immune system, we are really really vulberable to Islamism/Jihadism/Islamo-Facism
People think Jihadism is a recent phenomenon, but it isn't. Its just that the West in a pre-PC age wasn't vulnerable to this stuff---and would take appropriate action.
Only in the post-modern age do we find these pricks to be a serious threat.
I agree with you, but read this blog everyday
by gamecock
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5417
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
However, the primary battle is ideological. The Islamists perceive us as weak even with a more militarily aggressive posture.
FYI,I recommend Diana West's columns
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2008/04/24/myrick_aces,_dc_...
I also recommend paying attention to Sue Myrick. Her plan is getting no play, here or in the MSM.
Nothing personal
by danny n
Gamecock, hope you don't take our spirited back and forth personally. I feel strongly that we could do better in the GWOT and at time we do not fight the GWOT as smartly as we should or dedicate the resources that are needed to succeed. I'm hoping McCain can improve things in this regard, which is the main reason I support him for president.
"there’s more to conservatism than low taxes, Jesus, and waterboarding at Gitmo." P.J. O'rourke
relative. We are not preceived like we were on 9/11 and before. The weakness perceptions today are due SOLELY to the bushlied/surrender crowd.
McCain is not as strong as Bush by far. See cia interrogations, lawyers for enemy combatents, gitmo, abu ghraib, etc
Bush understood that it was going to take TIME before any surge could work. McCain played politics with troop levels and his personal animosity to rumsfeld. Mccain pretends we could have put 500,000 troops in despite turkey and assumes (see also mmgw) that more troops would have ended the war sooner.
wrong
Bush is wiser.
McCain is wise, but he is no Bush.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
response in many respects.
I also agree that McCain will be inferior to Bush.
My issue with Bush is the limited box from which we fight this struggle. McCain is even worse in this regard (e.g. your reference to needing 500,000 troups to just about anything).
That being said, our inability to confront them ideologically has emboldened them, and they know that Bush is on his way out.
Anyway, time for some sleep.
agreed - nt
by gamecock
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
I like it.
by zsmvf6The situation isn't as desparate as that
by tcgeolThe Pile on is desperation
by JoliphantThank you for setting the record straight
by civil truthThe Real Jesse Helms
by William DaltonWhat did I do on Independence Day?
by LRAdamsReally?
by Jack Savageyes, he has come back
by David HinzPatton returns to address the War on Terrorism
by civil truthI always wondered why he never tried to come back
by Jack SavageBrooksy lurks here -- he checks us nearly every day
by David HinzRemember this?
by jonlesterNo huhu
by Neil StevensSorry Neil, spoke before I registered what you said.
by jonlesterThat's one department when it's pleasant
by jonlesterHTML cleanup in progress...
by Neil StevensThe extra 7 cents is for the Spam trademark <nt>
by jonlesterAnd I thought I was causing HTML disorder <nt>
by jonlesterOh for crying out loud ...
by Leverkuhn
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
If it was acceptable and laudable for several presidents to meet with the leaders of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, it is acceptable for our leaders to meet with the leaders/rulers of Iran and so forth.
Talking alone is no horrific concession. WHAT YOU SAY matters, and if you want to take potshots at Senator Obama for that, by all means do so, but I find the notion that we somehow surrender something significant by sitting at a table with people we find abhorrent is frankly perverse.
Avoiding such meetings makes the effusion of blood far more likely as we will have denied ourselves several other avenues of redress. Those avenues may well fail, but not to try them is wasteful.