Barack Obama has said on various occasions that he would like to take the Jimmy Carter route and talk with terrorists and terrorist nations that wish to do us hard in an attempt to ease the tension, and ultimately ease peace.Obama has used a line similar to this: "Ronald Reagan talked with the Soviet Union and that worked to end the Cold War, so why can't we do that now. I think we can talk to them without pre-conditions and without negotiating."
What Obama, and the like of Jimmy Carter, fail to realize is that Ronald Reagan did not go talk with just any leader of the Soviet Union, he talked with Gorbachev, who was a self declared supporter of change in that nation. He wanted to improve the relationship between the two most powerful nations at that time.
Likewise, Reagan did not go into Russia without pre-conditions. He knew exactly what he wanted to get out of talks with Gorbachev, and so did Gorbeahev. Reagan was not about to go into Russia to create a platform for the Soviet leader to boost his ego and credibility around the world. His goal was to end the Cold War, and create a victory for Capitalism.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had absolutely no intention of changing his views toward the destruction of the Nation of Israel or non-Muslims, and he has openly said so by his many radical statements. And he certainly doesn't care about capitalism. So what further is there to accomplish by talking with him other than to give him a platform and credence.
The same can be said regarding talking with terrorists. When we negotiate with them what happens? They pretend to be abiding by the terms of the negotiation while working to destroy us behind our backs. It was not like this in the 1980s when Reagan was talking with Gorbachev.
While experts said he was foolish, Reagan's plan to win the Cold War was to create peace through strength. And, with the economy booming in the U.S., he boosted military spending to make the U.S. military the strongest, most powerful military in the world. And he started the arms race with the Soviets that ultimately broke the back of Communist Russia because they simply couldn't keep up with the capitalistic America.
Knowing this, Gorbachev had no choice but to talk with America. Meetings were set. The two great leaders met with preconditions, treaties were signed. And, shortly after Reagan left office, the Soviet Union collapsed and a new democracy was formed.
In 1994 Jimmy Carter travelled to Pyongyang for talks with Kim Il-sung, and a deal was worked out where the North Korean leader decided to stop his search for nuclear weapons in exchange for a few things on the U.S.'s part.
However, Kim Il-sung had no incentive not to renege on his offer. Or maybe he did, but his son certainly didn't, as we later learned.
That in mind, it would be wise for Obama to take the Reagan route if he were to meet with foreign dictators such as Ahmadinejad. However, Obama has already talked about how he wants to tear down the U.S. military, to cut back on intimidating defense mechanisms like our space missile program.
Likewise, he said he would "slow our development in future combat systems... and will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons." Then again, if we have no nuclear weapons, we will have no way to stop those who wish to acquire them, and those who do acquire them will have to incentive to give them up.
I have no problem with our next leader talking with our enemy, but only if our enemy has an incentive to give in to U.S. demands, to compromise, and can be trusted.
Ahmadinejad has made no indication that he will do anything other than what benefits Iran. Such a platform would only give thugs like Ahmadinejad a platform to preach his hate for Israel and Jews, hatred for gays and other minority groups, hatred of Christians, and hatred of America.
That's something we do not need more of.
6 comments:
You hit it right on the head on this! The DDBMSM is making out the Great Man as some loony lefty a la Sen. Messiah Barack. The Great Man was full of conditions. Hello? Remember the talks in Iceland? Why did those initial talks end? Because Gorby would NOT GIVE IN to the conditions the Great Man set down! I think that this is what happens when the left writes the history of any given era. FDR is God Almighty. Coolidge, Calvin who? And, as an aside, young people today may not remember what we do.That the Great Man was piloried on a daily basis by the DDBMSM and their allies. There was no conservative talk radio. No internet. No strong conservative media. And yet, the Great Man won two landslide elections. Go figure!
The fundamental problem with Iran is well, they are fundamentalist Muslims on the verge of an inquisition. All the great thinkers Iran has to offer have either left or been censored. They produce little of value. The young are poorly educated and poor. What was once the great Persian Empire that was a leader in the world in scientific advancement and thought has become a theocracy hell bent on realizing their own revelations. Iran, unlike Russia, has nothing to lose and are willing to prove it. Look at the rhetoric from Ahmedinejad lately. Too bad America's PR effort on the current wars is in such a terrible state otherwise we could be taking out the real threat in the region.
Great point DB. I don't think the current state of affairs will affect our policy on Iran. And then their always Israel. I'd rather see Israel take down Iran than the U.S. anyway. But definitely not Obama. I don't want to see him anywhere near Iran.
Well the biggest thing that goes unaddressed is the power he will have if the Senate and House are both Dem. I hear all over about the pres. race but little about the other races. We need to be vetting those other positions as well. If the conservatives can take at least one then they can keep some of the craziness at bay until the next election.
Good post. Reagan would break their backs. No if Reagan was in they wouldn't even be plotting against us for fear of his policies.
Thanks for stopping by my place, I'm going to add you to my blogroll.
Russia and Iran are 2 different birds. The two can't be used as examples of what worked for one will work for the other concepts. Also the cold war and the war on terror are two different things as well. Obama saying that the policy hasn't worked is saying the people who we are negotioting with are willing to negotiate but the US is not willing to talk when in actuality the players have no intentions of changing and are not trustworthy at all. He has to take a Bush opposite vantage point to appear unlike him. :)N
Post a Comment