« Clinton Fatigue: Bill Clinton Lashes Out At Wife Being Treated “Disrespectfully Just For Running” (UPDATED)
Fox News Contributor Jokes About Obama Assassination »



Accusations of Appeasement Against Obama ‘Unfounded’

May 26th, 2008
By WILLIAM KERN

Print Print

What are German-speaking people saying about whether Barack Obama is a Neville Chamberlain-like ‘appeaser’ for suggesting talks with Iran - or as President Bush put it ‘radicals and terrorists?’

From Austria - one of the nations gobbled up by the Nazis before America entered World War II - Christian Ultsch concludes for Die Press:

“If Democratic candidate Barack Obama is denigrated simply because he wants to talk to the Iranian leadership, it is primarily election campaign rhetoric … Those who negotiate with Iran must not be accused of seeking to create a new version of the Munich Agreement . The accusation of appeasement is unfounded. Churchill once said that: ‘An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last.’ But if need be, the U.S. and Israel have a club in hand with which to hit the Iranian crocodile over the head.”

By Christian Ultsch

Translated By Ulf Behncke

May 24, 2008

Austria - Die Presse - Original Article (German)

Just because people like Barack Obama would like to negotiate with Iran doesn’t necessarily mean they are naive.

In 1972, Richard Nixon flew to Beijing and met with Chinese mass-murderer Mao Zedong; in 1985, Ronald Reagan sat down with the General Secretary the Soviet’s “evil empire,” Mikhail Gorbachev at the table. Republican presidents have met with their enemies time and again in recent history. Even George W. Bush, who is often portrayed as narrow-minded and oversimplifying things as black-and-white, has done so well negotiating with Libya that he has made agreements with North Korea.

If Democratic candidate Barack Obama is denigrated simply because he wants to talk to the Iranian leadership, it is primarily election campaign rhetoric. A normalization of U.S.-Iran relations could help prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and stabilize the region. Of course it would be naive to expect miracles from such a dialogue. Talks can be abused to play for time. Conversely, the hard-line approach has failed to deter the Mullah’s from giving up their nuclear ambitions.


READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. election.



This entry was posted on Monday, May 26th, 2008 at 10:56 am and is filed under World War II, Columnists, Barack Obama, Palestine, Nazis, Cartoons, Newsweek Blogitics, Newspapers, Hamas, Cartoon Commentary, George W. Bush, Foreign Affairs, Europe, 2008 Elections, Politics, Middle East, North Korea, Iran, War, Political Cartoons, History. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 7 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    The whole flack against Chamberlain is exaggerated anyway.

    The Munich Agreement didn't change anything, except make Chamberlain look like a complete fool when he said he secured "Peace in our time"

    Hitler would have gone on and marched into Czechoslovakia anyway, and many historians believe that, because the English military was less prepared, the delay in the start of the war allowed the English to build up.

    Some people thought the policy appeasement would work, because it had in the past. They naively figured Hitler to be an extension of German nationalist movements in the 19th century who just wanted to have German-speaking territory in their nation that had been carved up in a different way after WWI. They recognized that Europe had wronged Germany with the WWI reparations.

    Others, like Churchill knew Hitlers ambitions, and it made Chamberlain look like a fool when Churchill was right.

    But did Chamberlain's diplomatic policy actually strengthen Germany? I doubt it.
    • ^
    • v
    On the Iran matter, btw, people need to realize that the Bush administration is talking with Iran, they have open diplomatic channels and have meetings all the time. They just believe it would be wrong to have a face-to-face talk between Presidents.

    Bush was obviously being dense when he made the analogy between talking and appeasement; but the policy that talks should be at a different level is justifiable.

    Iranians currently dislike Ahmedinejad , and many US officials don't want to reverse that by Presidential talks. It may be smart policy to wait until the next President of Iran is elected, as to embarass Ahmedinejad like Iran embarassed Jimmy Carter.

    The former president, Mohammad Khatami has sharply criticized Ahmedinejad over his comments on Israel. If Ahmedinejad is embarassed, Iran might return to a rule by moderates like Khatami who tried to reform Iranian laws and bring closer ties to the West.
    • ^
    • v
    Barack-o is a shallow superficial person when it comes to foreign policy. He shoots from the hip/lip when asked questions about "unconditional negotiations" You don't talk to a rogue "republic" like Iran without an elaborate set of preconditions, that's rule #1 in serious int'l politics.

    Which Austria doesn't partake in.

    Iran is on the list of US terrorist countries, along with N. Korea [which still hasn't done its end of the bargain in talks started by Waddlin' Maddy Al-dull.] Talking for the sake of talking is simply bad policy, and gives a rogue government like Iran cachet it will use to impress its terrorist confreres, like Syria, for example.
    • ^
    • v
    Redfish made the kind of reasoned comments to be appreciated.

    It's not only the reality of current events that gets stifled by partisan tweaking and twisting.
    To regain a more reasonable perspectiveof history takes a long time, much longer than what has elapsed since the wars of the 20th century,much less the 21st.

    One thing is for certain. It is useless to talk in generalities. What works in one set of circumstnaces can fail miserably in another..For me, it's important that a leader be flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstnces, to keep all options open, to bob and weave. To be inflexible is to tip your hand to the opponent, giving him a fixed target to plot against. Perhaps professsional boxers and other athletees should be among those advising presidents, because they understand the importance of psydhological warfare. That requires understanding the opponent's mentality, as well.
    That's what was missing in the current administration for too long. When they finally realized they needed to adapt, however little, re Iran, too much of the damage had already been done. GWB succedded in tieing the hands and limiting the oportunities for the next president , no matter who that may turn out ot be.
    • ^
    • v
    Unfounded? No. Overblown? Oh my yes. But it's an election year.

    From the practical angle, what Redfish said. Also from the practical angle, Bush set a trap with non-specificity, and Obama leapt into the jaws of it by claiming it was aimed at him. Rookie error.
    • ^
    • v
    The Munich Agreement didn't change anything, except make Chamberlain look like a complete fool when he said he secured "Peace in our time"

    Hitler would have gone on and marched into Czechoslovakia anyway...

    I made this argument the other day. Nice to see I'm not alone.
    • ^
    • v
    Barack-o is a shallow superficial person when it comes to foreign policy. He shoots from the hip/lip when asked questions about "unconditional negotiations" You don't talk to a rogue "republic" like Iran without an elaborate set of preconditions, that's rule #1 in serious int'l politics.

    You mean we can't have negotiations with Iran unless they are setup to fail from the beginning. War should be the only viable option. And can you let me borrow that rule book? I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

    Iran is on the list of US terrorist countries, along with N. Korea

    And we're on Canada's torture watchlist. It's amazing anyone has diplomatic ties to us. Those types of lists mean nothing in terms of official contact between governments. That's rule #2 in seriously international politics

    Talking for the sake of talking is simply bad policy, and gives a rogue government like Iran cachet it will use to impress its terrorist confreres, like Syria, for example.

    Just reread that a few times and see if your head explodes.
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Clinton Fatigue: Bill Clinton Lashes Out At Wife Being Treated “Disrespectfully Just For Running” (UPDATED)
Fox News Contributor Jokes About Obama Assassination »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.