Thursday, May 29, 2008
Posted by:
Tom DeLay
at
12:21 PM
If voters want even more insight into what a Barack Obama presidency would mean for U.S. foreign policy, look no further than the world leaders who support his candidacy…
|
Disarming america???? for what purpose and to what end would Obama want to do so? His love for our enemies domestic (ayers) and foreign (all terror regimes) raises the concern of how he would use his power to pardon. Would all the terrorists be pardoned - as a gesture of good will with rogue nations? Obama is a bad idea for president - it would destroy everything american about us. I have faith that americans will pick an american president. |
|
Clearly, the fact that Barack Obama has a fighting chance to win the Presidency speaks volumes about how recent conservative and Republican actions squandered a once thriving "permanent majority" of conservatism in America. Conservatives have a lot of explaining to do to the American people: They are asking, If you love us so much, why are we so broke now, why is our foreign policy in such a shambles, and whatever happened to thrifty government?
Yes, conservatives have a lot of work to do. Roll up your sleeves and get started. |
|
Here's a challenge for Mr Delay - next time he and Mrs Delay have a falling out, try to resolve it by vowing not to negotiate with each other. I think he will find that communication is a better way to resolve disputes than a vow of silence and aggression, which is effectively what he is advocating here. The truth is, and I know it's a cliche, if you want peace you have to talk to your enemies, not your friends.
In fact, if the United States pursues this policy of non-communication and successfully defeats "terror", it will probably be a first in modern history. Can anyone think of a terrorist group that was permanently defeated by force, and force alone? Probably the only example is in Chechnya, and if the US wants to do to each and every hostile middle eastern city what the Russians did to Grozny, well, that's their lookout. Probably impossible without the use of nuclear weapons anyway. Major terrorist groups, such as the IRA, ETA, the ANC (once viewed as terrorists by many white South Africans), all ceased their military operations not because they were defeated in battle, but because they came to the negotiation table with people that were prepared to negotiate.
Deep down, all people want to live in peace. That's why these foreign leaders, "terrorist", dictator or otherwise, like Obama - because they believe he is someone they could come to the table with. Those who prefer perpetual war, vote for the moronic continuation of the Bush policies that McCain proposes.
|
|
CriticalBill writes:
Here's a challenge for Mr Delay - next time he and Mrs Delay have a falling out, try to resolve it by vowing not to negotiate with each other.
To equate terrorists who have vowed to wipe out first Israel and then the US to a husband and wife falling out and to people that can actually be reasoned with is beyond moronic in the use of your own words. They wave guns in the air and chant, "Death to America." Their so called dispute with us is that we are not Muslim. "Hello." We are infadels that need to be put to death to create another Islamic caliphate. Chamberlain was labeled a traitor for actually thinking that we could talk to Hitler and this is another form of Nazism make no mistaked about it only this time Christians are lumped in with the Jews. |
|
|
|
Great, Victoria. By all means let's put all our enemies to death. And let's start by taxing America into the ground to be able to afford to do it properly and with minimal loss of American life.
Or we can -- who knows -- talk. If we had tried that first, 3,000+ young Americans would be alive today and our country would have two nickels to rub together.
Don't like that option? See paragraph 1. |
|
Let's allow people like planet gene and critical bill to talk with the socialpaths, and try to understand them with psychology and therapy. I choose to elect individuals that will redirect evil behavior with negative reinforcement.
|
|
I don't know where you get that garbage about Chamberlan - I'm British, and he I have never before heard of him being referred to as a traitor. Misguided perhaps, duped, for sure, naive, definitely. But he was certainly not a traitor.
Of course Mr & Mrs Delay are not the same as your average Al Quaeda lunatic. However, both cases illustrate a universal truth - that bridges are only ever built by negotiation and communication.
I was listening to the radio just half an hour or so ago on NPR. It was a programme about increasing diplomatic and trade ties with Libya. Libya eh... one-time scourge of the West, sponsor of terrorism, Islamic dictatorship, you name it. Of course, diplomatic and trade ties between Libya and the US are possible because the Libyan army was slaughtered in battle by American forces... wasn't it? I mean, by your logic that would be the only way it could happen... surely it wasn't diplomacy was it???? |
|
Critical Bill writes:
I don't know where you get that garbage about Chamberlan - I'm British, and he I have never before heard of him being referred to as a traitor. Misguided perhaps, duped, for sure, naive, definitely. But he was certainly not a traitor.
That was not the right word. I should not have used the word traitor but an appeaser as most conservatives think Obama is.
As Ann Coulter put it in her last article-- What possible reason is there to meet with Ahmadinejad? To win a $20 bar bet as to whether or not the man actually owns a necktie?
We know his position and he knows ours. He wants nuclear arms, American troops out of the Middle East and the destruction of Israel. We don't want that. We don't need him as an ally against some other more dangerous dictator because ... well, there aren't any.
Will President Obama listen respectfully as Ahmadinejad says he plans to build nuclear weapons? Will he say he'll get back to Ahmadinejad on removing all U.S. troops from the region? Will he nod his head as Ahmadinejad demands the removal of the Jewish population from the Middle East? Obama says he's prepared to have an open-ended chat with Ahmadinejad, so I guess everything is on the table.
Of course--maybe there should be diplomatic relations with Iran because Pelosi says Iran is the reason for the success of our troop surge in Iraq--and not the hard work of our troops.
Maybe this is why Obama is so eager to meet Ahmadinejad -- he wants to give him a thank you gift.
|
|
|
Seeing as there have been no official diplomatic ties between the US and Iran for many, many years, I do not see what harm opening ties up can do. Why should everything not be on the table? Hear what they want to do, tell them why they can't do it and negotiate from there. As I wrote before, which you conveniently chose to ignore, Libya was once a rogue state but is now firmly on-side, all thanks to negotiation and diplomacy. The carrot is just as powerful as the stick, and the stick doesn't appear to be working too well at the moment. Besides, Ahmadinejad is full of bluster - he is not even the most powerful man in Iran to begin with. Israel has enough warheads to wipe every major Asian city off the map, and everyone (including the Iranians) knows it. A very obvious downside is that if they are desperate to acquire nuclear weapons, they will acquire them - just like Pakistan and India did, and just like North Korea will do. American attempts at forcing non-proliferation through its own military might and threats are a miserable failure... Libya excepted. Which ought to tell you something... |
|
John Shaft writes, "Let's allow people like planet gene and critical bill to talk with the socialpaths, and try to understand them with psychology and therapy. I choose to elect individuals that will redirect evil behavior with negative reinforcement."
Great, John. Then of course you're in favor of increasing our troop strength by, among other things, reinstating the draft and making it truly universal this time so the rich kids will get to fight too? You're in favor of increasing taxes, especially on the rich, to pay for the increased effort? You're in favor of mobilizing the country, a la World War II, so we can get this war over and done with?
No? Then shut up and let the diplomats do their thing. War is expensive, in lives and money, and unless you're willing to go the distance in what you say, just bugger off.
And Victoria, you lose 3 points in credibility for admitting that you pay any attention at all to Ann Coulter. |
|
Planet Gene,
I recall a comment of yours in the beginning of Tom's new blog here where you were very interested in McCain, who I believe said something to the effect that he didn't care if it took one hundred years over there in Iraq. Anyway, why do you equate me saying that we should not have conversations with killers and psychos to me wanting our troops to stay over there fighting? I have never said that. Iraq is a screwed up mess, no doubt. But you know, I used to turn my computer on or the news and there would be the daily car bombing or the latest death toll of our troops and anything else bad that could be posted. But now months into the troop surge--total silence of the media of practically anything over there. And Obama doesn't even have the decency to go over there and meet with our troops or meet with Patreaus, but yet he wants to meet with Ahmadinejad. It is all very interesting. I read a lot of the blogs and articles on Townhall and elsewhere and not just Ann Coulter and whether or not you think I am credible or not doesn't change certain logics. |
|
CriticalBill writes:
Of course, diplomatic and trade ties between Libya and the US are possible because the Libyan army was slaughtered in battle by American forces... wasn't it? I mean, by your logic that would be the only way it could happen... surely it wasn't diplomacy was it????
I hadn't hear about this so I looked it up.
Here is an excerpt of what I read--
A senior U.S. official said Libya had sought the global settlement talks out of concern about U.S. legislation that gave terrorism victims greater ability to collect damages from governments like Libya by having their assets frozen. In addition, a U.S. judge in January ordered Libya to pay billions of dollars in damages to relatives of Americans killed in a 1989 suitcase bombing of a French airliner over Niger.
I don't know all I can do is shake my head because Libya is "concerned" about US legislation and a US judge ordering them to pay billions of dollars....Most terrorists could give a rats "___" about our legislation and our judges. Maybe we really can sue Saudi Arabia for gas gouging. I don't know if you call that diplomacy or not though.
|
|
Victoria, I read again today (admittedly in the Washington Post Pravda, as my conservative friends like to call it) that the people of Iran really don't like their leader, Ahmadinejad, very much at all, and they want to be more like Americans. Surely the ruling elite of Iran has heard this too -- that the kids want their iPods and Gameboys and the adults want their fashions -- and know that it is foolish not to pay attention to this fact of life. So why not make an attempt to reach them with diplomacy. Iran is definitely NOT filled with sociopaths and war-mongers, but it does have a certain fear of U.S. intervention (I wonder why). I'm convinced we can work this reality to our favor, saving untold numbers of Americans lost in another futile battle that just hardens the hearts of our would-be friends and of course ruins the American economy.
For God's sake, it doesn't cost nearly so much to try!
And we can then spend the money we save hardening our ports and borders against terrorist attacks, something we can not afford to do properly right now because Iraq is sucking us DRY. |
|
|
Then there is one world leader who endorsed McCain: George W. Bush |
|
|
ABOUT THE BLOG
The importance of the blogosphere in shaping and motivating the current conservative movement is unquestionable not only has it served as an important tool in breaking through the liberal MSM clutter but it has helped to keep our elected officials true to princicple.
This blog is meant to further the online discussion in the marketplace of ideas.
|