I just read on the internet news that Obama wants to withdraw the troops and negoitiate with our enemies?
I learned in history plus from discussions with my grandfathers that this mistake has already been made many times over. During WW2 the democratic governments of the world tried this with Hitler, Stalin, and the Japanese leaders. These individuals pretended to make progress thorough negoitiation and used the time to get ready to attack us. Why does Obama think that talking to the Iranians and Syrians will do any good. As soon as we withdraw, they will pretend to make a peace as they prepare for war. The difference is that Obama or Clinton will be paraylized into inaction because they would not be able to recommit the American military. I challenge them to tell the people what they will do after a withdrawal if negoitiation with the enemy proves fruitless.
Tagged with: American Military • Democratic Governments • Enemies • Governments Of The World • Governments World • Grandfathers • Hitler • Inaction • Internet News • Iranians • Japanese Leaders • Mistake • peace • people • Rebecca • Stalin • Syrians • Ww2
Filed under: Internet News
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
I don’t see a question here.. hmmm..
yeah that’s the usual lefty ploy, head in the sand, keister in the air and invite your enemies to take a turn plowing you.
to the moron below if you call economic ruin “negotiating” or telling someone to tear down a wall negotiating or supporting the polish people and lech walessa negotiating or fighting the commies in afghanistan and arming the northern alliance negotiating, then yeah reagan negotiated. i’d say your definition as with most liberal definitions of words is screwy.
Did you also learn from your Grandfather that Ronald Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union?
What’s wrong with negotiating with our enemies? We did it with the Soviets during the Cold War. And they were our ENEMY.
(P.S.: You might want to brush up on your history a little bit more and stop using the second world war as a **** poor example of “negotiating with our enemies”. If you want to DEFEAT your enemies, then you have to UNDERSTAND them. Without that basic infrastructure in place, you’re not going to be getting anywhere anytime soon.
As this war in Iraq is proving many times over.)
Yeah well this is pretty typical of modern liberals today, what happen to the good ones? Like FDR and his type? I mean sure they weren’t at the top of my list for everything that they did but at least they got National Security right.
edit: Ronald Reagan didn’t back down from the S.U. and his negotiations consisted of thumbing his nose and installing missles in Europe.
next: Liberals were against Reagan the entire time he was confronting the S.U. and why was that? Because they thought the S.U. was great and just a little “mismanaged” that’s all. Communism would work here too if “they” were in charge of it.
You are talking complete nonsense….the Iranians and Syrians make war with or without us in the region. We are just another intruder to them.
It would make no difference at all if we left Iraq….in fact it would probably be better in the long run. Let them kill each other. We have nothing to fear from them. If they attack our allies, we smack ‘em.
You realize we aren’t dealing with a country, right? We’re not at war with Iraq. Please tell me you know this.
There are ZERO parallels to Hitler, Stalin and Japan. This is a unique situation.
If you’re against with drawal then what is your definition of victory? You wouldn’t stay in a war with no objective, would you?
Don’t worry Obama isn’t Neville Chamberlian. He won’t be appeasing the Syrians, or the Iranians. Nor will any president who does not want to commit political *******.
Well ,when we do withdraw the military will do what it always does…continue to build up the army, make newer better weapons , and spy. So with all this they will be prepared, yet there is a difference because we are not at war with these countries and these countries are more diplomatic then we think.If they wanted to we would already be at war with them , but that wouldn’t be smart being we are more developed and will have other countries with us.Also they’re only being more hostile because they don’t like the deaths of countless Muslims and want to achieve peace in the Middleast but we stand in the way along with Israel.It’s these negotiations that are keeping us safe right now.
U mean the enemies that Bush created?? Look they got something we want (oil) and we got something they want (American green backs). So who in their right mind would want war??? I do have problems with Obama though as he did vote to fund the war but speaks out against it.
Obama said that? Well even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
So what do you suggest we do.. continue to blow up innocent people? How about being mature and handling the situation instead of invading countries that never attacked us in the first place… btw I’m not even an Obama supporter
You can talk to your enemies and prepare for the worst at the same time. We did this in WWII, by the way, and we won that one. It’s a strategy as old as history — nothing new here. You’ll never know what diplomatic opportunities await if you never explore them. Ignoring enemies… well, doesn’t seem to be working to me. The Middle East is in chaos, and we’re on bad terms with a very large portion of the world.
This situation is very complex, and I don’t think your history class or your grandfathers did it justice. Neither will we here. You can pick and choose tidbits from any event and suit it to your argument, but the fact is that this is not WWII. Unless we institute a draft we ARE getting out of Iraq, and we’ll start to scale back by next spring in all likelihood. You’ll start to hear the story change later this year, probably around the time this report comes out from the White House in September.
This has nothing to do with politics, but rather logistics… our army is breaking, and we’re still fighting hard for small gains in Iraq (and Afghanistan for that matter), while political gains are even slower to come around. Either we get a large influx of new troops via draft or some type of miracle, the military breaks its promise about the length of deployments and rest time at home (which they would be loathe to do), or we’ve got to scale back our forces. It’s that simple. And let’s just be thankful no other force seems ready to deal with us just yet, as we are stretched incredibly thin.
We fudged up the war and we never devoted the number of troops we should have. Well, we shouldn’t have gone in the first place… but if you’re gonna do it, do it right and not half-assed.
There is no point in trying to ‘negotiate’ with people who think that they will get a special place in heaven with a bevvy of perpetual virgins if they kill ‘infidels’, which is anyone who won’t adopt the muslim religion and bow to Mecca.
On the other hand, I think we should just nuke the bunch and quit feeding them soldiers they can kill. Nuke ‘em into the glassy sand and leave the slag as a monument to stupidity and ignorance.
Of course, that’s just my opinion; I could be wrong.
There is an honor among men that you simply do not understand, I suppose. Something that Hillary can not comprehend as well. Only a man can say these words, as Obama has (from what I hear from you). And to have half a chance at getting a bit of respect to have the problem solved enough for the United States to take a reasonable stand. Definitely no one in the Middle East is going to respect anyone other than Obama after this coming election. And if they do not honor the decisions they come up with on any resolution, I believe our actions then, will be forthwith deserved upon those that violate trust. Its the way diplomacy works.
Heh, I’ve been waiting for this kind of question. Let’s compare, shall we? Hitler, Stalin, and the Japanese: all countries with massive abilities to mobilize, having large numbers of military at their disposal and basically scaring the world around them. Now lets see the Iranians. A country that has never made any sort of military gesture towards us and knows very well that war with the U.S. would be extremely destructive to them.
That not enough? Let’s continue. WWII is also what’s known as a world war. Which means lots of people are involved, on both sides. This situation involves several different countries that work independently and have, in many cases, fought amongst themselves. The threat is hardly comparable.
WWII also started so badly for the allies because they were unprepared. Meanwhile, we have outprepared our supposed enemies already. Military is already stationed in the area, and we have the entirety of the European countries behind us in case of an attack on our troops.
There’s also the leverage of nukes in this scenario, and if these Middle Eastern countries happen to have them, then mutually assured destruction is a prevention to conflict.
Withdrawing the troops causes them to come back home, meaning we have more, not less, protection. And besides, there’s still plenty garrisoned over there even if there was a pull out.
I could go on and on with reasons that they wont take advantage of our “moment of weakness.” Trouble is, this isn’t a moment of weakness. We’re treating these countries as equals when we go to talk with them, showing we respect them as we would respect our allies. If we continue to threaten them with troop movements, then they have an opportunity to feel cornered and try to do something drastic. If we talk with them on this level, we risk nothing with a chance to gain everything – a solid peace agreement that could last for decades.
One more thing. The idea of pulling out is on the basis of bringing some stability to a country (Iraq) where there is currently none. There’s historical basis for how pulling out stabilizes countries (ex: Egypt, India) that have been destabilized by occupation. And that way, we may just gain a little political leverage with Iran and Syria, by showing we’re not there just to control them.
With a name like Obama, maybe he will have more pull….