Let me help you understand this complex matter:
Well, since your comment is on the Iowahawk post I’m unsure what matter you are writing about, but I’ll just respond to your comments.
And, then, secondly, there's a bit of hypocrisy here because merely talking with our enemies, that's something that Ronald Reagan has done with the Soviet Union, Richard Nixon did with China. John McCain advocated just a few years ago that we should be talking with Hamas. The issue, it becomes appeasement only when you're under threat and you give something away. When you give something away, that's very different from talking with your enemies and I think that's why, perhaps, on an intellectual level, John McCain loses here.
Uh, the issue is talking with terrorists and states that sponsor them. Speaking with Iran about Hamas is speaking with Hamas, but both Iran and Hamas can use the fiction they are separate entities and blame each other. And Nixon and Reagan met only after detailed pre-meeting discussions.
The real issue is that there is nothing to discuss. Their position is they want Sharia law and demand the west not interfere as they cut our throats and destroy our culture.
Hussein doesn’t understand that and thus would seek to appease, thinking he could get "peace in our time." His comment that his middle name gives him an advantage in dealing with Muslims shows his lack of knowledge that Muslims kill Muslims on a regular and routine basis. I mean, really. Such a middle school level comment coming from someone wanting to be President is funny. That the Demos will actually nominate him is astounding.
I ask you. What would you be willing to give up to receive assurances that Iran stops their nuclear program???
Remember, leaving SA and the ME doesn’t stop the problem.
As OBL told Peter Arnett in the 3/97 interview.
So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.
As I quoted in the comment, our current Secretary of State said a while back:
ReplyDeleteIn January, Rice - speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland - said that, if would halt its uranium-enrichment program, she'd meet her Iranian counterpart "any place, any time, anywhere to talk about anything." Crocker, on instructions from Washington, has held three meetings with Iran's ambassador to Baghdad.
Perhaps you could have Ambassidor Crocker recalled for talking with a representative of a "terrorist state."
As for my 'snark', I'm just here to tell the truth, same as when
you announced that was your purpose when you started commenting at TL.
When Crocker becomes the presumpative Rep candidate let me know.
ReplyDeleteNow. Please use current posts for comments.