The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Indecent Appeasement

5.28.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 6 of 6)

Mr. James's letter concerning the history of the U.S. with respect to Iran is accurate, as far as it went. It is true that the U.S. supported the sitting Shah in dissolving an elected constitutional government. It is true that the U.S. supported the Shah and that the Shah was by Western standards a despot; arguably not more so than the current ruling government, however. It is also true that the Shah was deposed by an alliance of conservative religious groups. Here, though he diverges from history. By occupying the U.S. embassy in 1979, holding US diplomats and State Department employees as hostages and declaring war upon the U.S., the new Iranian government forfeited any claim to peaceful neutrality. The arming of Saddam Hussein, by the U.S., for his war against Iran was a surrogate war against a country that had declared war upon the United States. Whether any of this a good or noble course of action is up for debate.

This part of history is of little import to the world at this time, however. What is important is the fact that Iran, like Iraq, has been actively pursuing nuclear armaments for the last twenty years. The current Iranian government has consistently shown a willingness to agree to almost any diplomatically negotiated conditions limiting their nuclear development, only to disregard those agreements as they wished. Based upon the track record of the Islamic Republic of Iran, it is foolish to expect them to react favorably to diplomatic negotiations. Iraq was attacked for several reasons, including the fact that Saddam Hussein had repeatedly violated the terms of the cease fire that ended hostilities in the First Gulf War.

Now, I hate to be the one to point this out, but JFK did not negotiate an end to the Cuban Missile Crisis empty handed. It was only resolved after JFK loaded nukes aboard tactical bombers in Europe, raised the Def-con to only one step below a pre-emptive missile strike on the USSR, mobilized US forces for both tactical air strikes and an invasion of Cuba and interdicted surface shipping to Cuba. In this case negotiations were instigated by the USSR through back channels, largely because the U.S. had a five to one advantage over the USSR in nuclear weapons and a significantly superior delivery system. In other words, the USSR and Cuba capitulated to the U.S. because they would have lost any nuclear exchange and it appeared that JFK would launch such an exchange if they called his bluff.

The point here is simple. You must always negotiate from a position of strength. Otherwise, no one will listen to you. As Teddy Roosevelt so aptly put it, speak softly and carry a big stick.
-- Michael Tobias
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

Umm, Rick at the risk of negating the rest of your nut case rant, the "deal" Kennedy "did" with the Soviets over Cuba was at the point of a gun, the U.S. Military gun to be precise and at the risk of all out global nuclear war!

Patton and Caesar might have recognized this as "negotiation" but you have your wires shorted out if you think the Soviets buckled to anything but the reality of over whelming armed force. And force, like it or not still is the THE governing principle of global politics and is unlikely to be replaced by any moonbat naval viewing we are the world narcosis in the foreseeable future. Except in the UN.
-- Craig Sarver
Seattle, Washington

MY TWO LEFT FEET
Re: Joseph Johnston's letter (under "Life of Johnston") in Reader Mail's Having it Both Ways:

Mr. Baum seems a little confused by Mr. Johnston's use of the term "chicken-hawk." The term chicken-hawk in Liberal-speak refers to all those who don't think the Iraq war is the most egregious violation of human rights in the history of the world. Service in the military is irrelevant. If it were, Senator McCain would be the final authority both by dint of his service as well as having a son (soon to be 2 sons) in harm's way in Iraq. No, following are the Liberal rules for who may speak with authority about military action:

1.You must be against the Iraq War
2.You must hate George W. Bush
3.You must have served in the military, but only if the following conditions are met:
a.See 1 and 2.
b.You must have seen combat
c.In combat, you must have seen an atrocity committed by a U.S. soldier
d.The combat had to have been in Iraq.
e.Conditions 3b, 3c and 3d are not required if Condition 3a is met
f.You will not get credit for death, loss of limb, permanent disability, or heart-warming story unless 3a is met.
g.In case of your death, your relatives may speak for you if you do not leave behind any note contradicting requirements 1 or 2 and if they meet requirements 1 and 2

Are we clear?
-- Andrew J. Macfadyen, M.D.
Former USNR
Chicken-Hawk
Omaha, Nebraska

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, Trade, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, Television, Economics, Business, Religion, Islam, Environment, Hollywood, Movies, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Israel, NATO, Africa, Nuclear Weapons, Energy