« 25 and Counting: The Last Winery Part 1 | Main | Now We Need Savage To Introduce a Dick Cheney Shotgun »

10/09/2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Yeah, that objection has sounded weak since Day One. It may well be part of his honest views, but I just don't agree.

There is a difference between being willing to talk to your enemies, and being willing to talk to your enemies without precondition.

Petraeus spoke with our enemies, but he also took steps to kill them in record numbers while making nice to the local leaders. All of this combined helped to turn the tide in the war. Saying that you will sit down and talk to Ahmanutjob without preconditions, as Obama himself said, is the polar opposite of what Petraeus did.

Telling your enemies that, essentially, you will never attack because you believe everything can be solved by negotiation emboldens them, because they know that as long as they keep you talking, they can go on building up their arsenals and/or committing whatever atrocities they want, with no repercussions. I know you're a WWII buff, so surely you've noticed that this is exactly what the Japanese did while planning their attack on Pearl Harbor. Talk, talk, talk, and then attack.

On the other hand, telling your enemies they have a deadline to comply otherwise you're going to drop the hammer on them is much more likely to motivate them to be reasonable at the negotiating table.

That is what most liberals don't get. It's not that Republicans are bloodthirsty savages, out looking to bomb anyone we can, it's that we realize that sometimes things will never be solved by talking unless there are loud booming noises in the background, as the enemies command and control facilities are being decimated. No one wants war, but sometimes they are necessary evils. That is the problem that I have with most anti-war protesters. It's not that they're against any war in particular, it's that they are against all wars, never bothering to take a moment to examine facts as to whether or not it was justified. Because in their eyes, nothing is worth fighting for.

“Telling your enemies that, essentially, you will never attack because you believe everything can be solved by negotiation emboldens them, because they know that as long as they keep you talking, they can go on building up their arsenals and/or committing whatever atrocities they want, with no repercussions.”

Why would that be true? That’s nonsense. Plus Obama is hardly a pacifist, I never had the impression that he ever was or is against all wars. Your last paragraph simply is something that doesn’t apply to Obama. Liberals with such a view will not vote for Obama (either that or they are very stupid).

Why would that be true? Maybe you should try cracking open a history book. The Japanese stayed at the negotiating table up until the morning they attacked Pearl Harbor. The Germans signed treaties with the Russians and then attacked them. Saddam Hussein pretended to go along with U.N. sanctions while gassing the Kurds. Kim Jon Il talks a great game while pretty much doing whatever he wants in North Korea. Do you not pay any attention at all to what actually is happening in the world, or do you just wait for CNN to spoon feed it to you?

Liberals like that are lining up to vote for Obama, because he is the fresh, new face of the pacifists. He has said over and over again that he doesn't support the war in Iraq while making pretenses of supporting actions in Pakistan. We'll see how that plays out when the actual rubber meets the road. I'll bet dollars to donuts he wouldn't support military action anywhere in the Middle East.

He stated he wants to cut defense spending. He wants to cut R&D for new weapons technologies. I could go on all day, but you can go listen to his plans for yourself. Then explain to me exactly how he plans on keeping the military prepared for the challenges it is going to be facing over the next decade by slashing it's budget. Because we saw how well that worked for us with the defense draw down of the 90s.

“Why would that be true? Maybe you should try cracking open a history book. The Japanese stayed at the negotiating table up until the morning they attacked Pearl Harbor. The Germans signed treaties with the Russians and then attacked them. Saddam Hussein pretended to go along with U.N. sanctions while gassing the Kurds. Kim Jon Il talks a great game while pretty much doing whatever he wants in North Korea. Do you not pay any attention at all to what actually is happening in the world, or do you just wait for CNN to spoon feed it to you?”

And that just tells you that having talks doesn’t mean that your enemy has turned into an angel. Uhhhh, who would’ve thought that! Of course you have to be extra careful, but if you are I can see nothing wrong with talks. If your enemies nevertheless continue their atrocities (or whatever they are doing that you want to stop them doing) you can start dropping bombs at any time. Why wouldn’t you be able to do that? It’ll even be easier to legitimate (since you actually talked before).

And Obama as a pacifist? Just because someone wants to cut military spending doesn’t mean that he is a pacifist. And all the other things you mentioned seem more like differences of opinion than pacifism.

The comments to this entry are closed.