| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
In "How Would Iran Read Obama?," the feature article at Human Events today, I discuss the Let's-Sit-Down-And-Talk stance of Obama the Unready:
Reeling from President Bush’s criticism of the proposition that we should negotiate with terrorists, “as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Barack Obama was at first indignant, declaring: “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists.” But apparently he doesn’t consider Iran, for all the genocidal bellicosity of its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a terrorist state: on Monday he reaffirmed that he would indeed sit down with the leaders of Iran (as well as with those of Cuba and Venezuela), and that no one should be disturbed by this, since these countries “don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”And speaking specifically about Iran, the presumptive Democratic nominee continued: “If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn’t mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least, we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world.”
Yes, he really said that “we should find out other areas of potential common interest.” He didn’t explain what these might be, but here John McCain’s comment was particularly apposite. “It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment,” observed the GOP standard-bearer, “to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says that Israel is a ‘stinking corpse,’ that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?”That’s not all. Obama is apparently not aware that Ahmadinejad has made it clear that he is in no mood to sit down with Americans unless the Americans know their place. “The American administration,” he said in 2006, “is still dreaming of returning the Iranian people 30 years backwards. As long as America has this dream, these [relations] will not happen.” What should America do instead? “They should wake up from this dream and see the facts. They should change their behavior and mend their ways. They should take a fair position. We have told them what they have to do, and if they do it, there will be no problem as far as we are concerned.”
“We have told them what they have to do, and if they do it, there will be no problem as far as we are concerned”! As if that weren’t clear enough, he warned America and its allies that “if you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender.”
Would Iran’s Thug-In-Chief regard Obama’s invitation to sit down and chat as a sign that he was willing to “bow and surrender”? There is no reason to think he would regard it in any other way. Islamic law stipulates that Islamic forces may only ask for a truce with the enemy under two conditions: if they have a reasonable expectation that the enemy may convert to Islam, or -- more commonly -- if the Muslims are weak and need to buy some time to recover their strength to fight again more effectively. With this understanding, the Iranian mullahs might be forgiven for assuming that if Obama is coming to them hat-in-hand, he must be weak. Given Ahmadinejad’s oft-repeated declarations that Israel will soon cease to exist (it was only last week that he said that it was “on its way to annihilation”), weakness might not be the wisest thing to project to them at this point.
Unless, of course, the bright new President Obama is prepared to deal with a nuclear mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv. That will certainly give him and Ahmadinejad plenty to talk about.
Posted by Robert at May 21, 2008 7:58 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Obama isn't even a Manchurian candidate. He's quite open about his contempt for American culture. With him, the world is not enough.
His type of mentality now control most of the actual land on this planet, but they have wrecked it and disregard it, now only eyeing with envy the jewels of capitalism in the West, without considering the methods used to gain them. He is of the Ghengis Khan mold, but with a patina of liberal sophistication. He's a spoilt child never satisfied with a new toy, only wanting what another has.
//www.bravenewsworld.blogspot.com
Posted by: Max Publius![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 21, 2008 8:31 AM
Obama also makes the excuse that he would talk with Iran just like Kennedy talked with the Soviets in the Cuban missle crisis, linking that and Iran as the same is naive and completely mistaken. He's repeated it a few times and I've yet to hear any reporter or "republican" guest on CNN to simply state that it was completely different then. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doesn't exist with a suicidal state, and most importantly, when Kennedy spoke with the Soviets, the Soviets were aware that Kennedy was preparing for an invasion of Cuba and the two countries were on the brink of war, Deathcon 2. Those talks that Kennedy had with the Soviets had the threat of force behind it.
Completely different with Iran now and yet Obama tries to use the example of the past as if it's the same as now when it's simply not. Obama wouldn't have the threat of force behind him when he would engage in such talks so Iran wouldn't have the same threat that the Soviets had.
Obama is such a fake. There are no good choices for the US elections, but Obama is definately the worst choice.
Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at May 21, 2008 8:32 AM
Obama sees the whole world as a clean slate. All you have to do is respect it. Problem solved.
Posted by: Sounder at May 21, 2008 8:49 AM
"...we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen..."
The audacity of pusillanimity.
Brave, brave, Sir Robin ...
Posted by: Stendec at May 21, 2008 9:16 AM
The lunartics will elect him anyway...they always have, and they always will. The only way around that is don't let the lunartics vote.
“George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists.”
Politicians have there own version of taqiyya, that statement by Obama is an example.
Posted by: duh_swami at May 21, 2008 9:22 AM
Obama will be 'The Tin Foil President'...
Beasty Boy Ahmadinijad and the mad mullahs', almost sounds like a rock group. I think Iran would be very happy with Obama. 'Finally an American President we can look down on. One who recognizes our superiority, and the superiority of Islam'.
A lot like Bush's kissy relationship with the Sauds.
Allah has given these devotee's iron clad will, Obama he supplied with tin foil. It is difficult to bend an iron clad will, but tin foil can be crushed or formed into any shape you wish.
No one knows what chain reactions, or lack of chain reactions, that may or may not happen, will happen when Bush attacks Iran, 'if' he attacks Iran. But the next prez will inherit it, whatever it is, or isn't.
If you can follow that, you are doing better than I am.
In short. You need more than tin foil to deal with Iran...
at May 21, 2008 9:46 AM
Obama is the inevitable result of indugling ourselves for forty years in the ideology of "multiculturalism", "diversity" and the other loathsome manifestations of cultural Marxism. What should one expect from policies and attitudes that
1. Have indoctrinated masses of young people into hating their own country.
2. Have flooded this country with third world hordes who when they obtain the vote empower the likes of Obama.
3. Have cultivated the myth of the "magic Negro" while ignoring or excusing the social pathologies endemic to Blacks.
And if we don't start changing the way we think, how we vote and what we tolerate we will end up with someone even worse than this abandoned child of a polygamous Muslim. We might in fact end up with the real thing - a genuine Muslim as president. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves".
Posted by: RBLA at May 21, 2008 10:59 AM
They'll never have a chance.
Unless Barry joins an NGO, after losing in November, and goes to Iran on his own with some Black Liberation group to chat with other loons.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 21, 2008 11:18 AM
sneakyzionistcrusader:
Right on Cuba. When we "talked" with the Soviets during the missile crisis, the US had already established a naval blockade of Cuba, preventing the USSR from sending more equipment. Any ships that were en route turned back.
The talks weren't aimed at "resolving our differences". They were about getting those missiles out of Cuba. They were concrete in nature, with an established goal. We weren't looking for any understanding. Each side knew where the other stood. Just about every negotiation we engaged in with the Russians during the cold war was on a specific issue, such as arms reduction. On what basis would Obama "hold discussions" with Iran?
Would Iran survive a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv?
Forget Israeli retaliation or an American response. What about the effects on the region of that one attack on Tel Aviv or Haifa or Jerusalem? We have to assume that even the most primitive nuclear weapon Iran could deploy would have more firepower than those dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
If Israel responded in kind to a nuclear attack then Turkey would have to worry about its own safety as well.
at May 21, 2008 11:19 AM
Muhammad is the AntiChrist.
Obama is a "useful idiot"
Posted by: Davegreybeard at May 21, 2008 12:31 PM
Barack Obama is a well educated, sophisticated, charming, charismatic fool. In other words, he is the most dangerous type of fool.
Posted by: Wellington at May 21, 2008 1:12 PM
Obama & Ahmad will be kissing and holding hands and then taking their vows if things go much further. Picture that in the back of your minds and then vote accordingly (McCain...cough).
Posted by: champ at May 21, 2008 1:29 PM
Our history of engagement with Iran is long and spotty. We seem to have been in talks with them, with plans for more, as recently as this year.
We have engaged them, are engaging them, will engage them. I fail to see the loss or gain in taking it public.
Cuba is another matter entirely, as is Venezuela.
Posted by: Not Telling at May 21, 2008 3:18 PM
Obama states: "If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn’t mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least, we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world."
Is Obama kidding? Nukemad has made his intentions widely known: that he aims to destroy the US & Israel. What does BO need, a nuclear bomb dropped on his head before he wakes up?
And what of this "common interest" that he hopes to find to reduce TENSIONS around the world. Were it that "tensions" was the only issue facing the world. "Tensions" is putting it mildly.
Obama is one slick and dangerous fellow, and he is WRONG for the American people and the world as a whole.
Vote NOWAY to NOBAMA!
at May 21, 2008 4:08 PM
"We have engaged them, are engaging them, will engage them. I fail to see the loss or gain in taking it public."
by not telling
Propaganda value. Image is everything to them.
Do you want a picture of Obama and Ahmadinejad greeting one another to show up on your screen everytime there's a story about Iran?
The issue isn't so much engaging them (we've gone through the Swiss ever since 1979) as it is engaging them at the highest levels. That normally takes place only after results have been attained. What will Obama do at this meeting?
How are Cuba and Venezuela any different?
Posted by: PMK at May 21, 2008 4:34 PM
It seems Obama is unaware that Venezuela is spending 2 Billion dollars of Iranian Money to pay for Russian Military hardware. Not to mention what can be done with it if in concert with Iranian aggressive moves.
Obama needs the White Flag treatment.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 21, 2008 4:47 PM
....why not....he raises Red Flags everywhere else.
Posted by: champ at May 21, 2008 5:07 PM
The Obama-Ahmadinejad Summit
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/the_obamaahmedinejad_summit.html
In the reader response to this article Amil Imani, an Iranian dissident addresses the "is he a Muslim" question in relation to legislation that is going through the Iranian parliament and says unequivocally: yes. It stands in contradiction to those who say you can leave before adulthood.
Is he off the mark? (remarks edited for length)
Who is an apostate according to the legislation? Anyone in the world, not just Iranians, born to a Muslim parent; also, any convert to Islam who leaves it. Only one parent needs to be a Muslim at the time of conception for Islam to own that child for life. Islam is Ummehist. Islam doesn't recognize nationalities and national boundaries.
[...]
You may protest that you are free to choose your religion and that you have chosen to be Christian. Nothing doing! You are stamped as Muslim at conception because your father was Muslim. Further, you have been doubly-stamped by your middle name Hussein. Muslims name their sons Hussein in honor of one of Islam's most revered saints. Hence, the Muslims want what is theirs and you either repent and return to the fold or prepare yourself for the ultimate punishment: Death.
by Amil Imani
at May 21, 2008 6:18 PM
We're all doomed, I may have to move to Saudia Arabia or Sudan to be safe if Obama wins.
Posted by: AllahSnackbar at May 21, 2008 6:28 PM
His face belongs on the cover of MAD Magazine.
Posted by: champ at May 21, 2008 7:02 PM
at May 21, 2008 9:10 PM
PMK: I'm of the opinion that high-level talks between the US and Iran would be nonproductive at best. Without specific goals or conditions, what could a meeting between Ahmadinejad and POTUS be but political theater? Better in this case to keep things low-level and specific.
Cuba is different from Iran in that its value, even as a symbol, evaporated long before the fall of the USSR. Normalization of relations would not harm American interests outside of the "exile" community in Florida.
Venezuela is a nascent regional power trying to rally support from neighbors by casting itself as a challenger to American hegemony (contrast with Iran, an established regional power with the sort of influence Chavez can only dream about.) Open engagement with Chavez seems pointless to me; mostly an invitation for him to deliver unrealistic demands from the Rose Garden.
I don't see much production from these meetings, but they wouldn't cause the sky to fall.
Posted by: Not Telling at May 21, 2008 9:10 PM
An example from history of how meeting to talk with a rogue regime can sometimes be disastrous: Before Neville Chamberlain went to make a deal with der Fuhrer (gave him the Sudetenland in exchange for "peace in our time"), some German officers had been planning to assassinate Hitler. But Chamberlain's plan to visit Hitler and find a compromise took away part of the rationale for the officers' assassination plot, and undermined their opposition to him. So that group of officers didn't attempt at that time to kill Hitler. If not for Chamberlain's naive appeasement strategy, therefore, Hitler might have been dead before having a chance to start World War II.
This story gives an example of how, though it might under some conditions make sense to meet with dangerous regimes, it is completely naive of Obama to propose unconditional talks with all the rogue dictators of the world. Things are more complicated. Probably from her years in the White House with Bill, Hillary Clinton was able to understand that immediately. She instantly came down on Obama when he proposed this foolish "unconditional" meeting idea in an early Democratic debate.
Posted by: traeh at May 22, 2008 2:24 AM
Obama is now trying to pretend that what some are objecting to is simply his idea of "talking" to the enemy. But that is not what Republicans, or Hillary Clinton for that matter, objected to in Obama's position. The objection has been to the notion of meeting unconditionally. That is what Obama said he would do in an early Democratic debate, and that is what the uproar has been about.
The problem with an "unconditional" meeting is that it doesn't at all weigh the potential downsides, including the most obvious: meeting with a dictator tends in some ways to strengthen the dictator and his allies. So that potential downside and others should be weighed carefully against any potential upsides before a meeting could make any sense. But once the complications are considered, meetings with dictators do not always make moral or strategic sense, and therefore, an American president, despite Obama's naive views, should set whatever conditions are required to make the meeting of value to the U.S. and its allies. The fact that Obama is so naive as to not notice such complications (and many others) is troubling.
Posted by: traeh at May 22, 2008 2:46 AM
traeh,
Obama wouldn't be the first to have high hopes from meeting with dictators.
What was Clinton doing inviting Arafat, a terrorist "leader", back to the White House time and again, even after the violence had begun again and he had violated the Oslo Accords?
People castigate Bush for his meetings with the Saudis about oil but how was Bill Clinton any different with Arafat?
There are some people (Obama is not alone) who think talk is better than what they see as confrontation. Hillary Clinton may have shot him down when he made the argument but I suspect she would have made the very same argument if her debate opponent had been George W. Bush or John McCain. Hillary is no hawk.
at May 22, 2008 10:25 AM
PMK, you said:
Obama wouldn't be the first to have high hopes from meeting with dictators.
True.
What was Clinton doing inviting Arafat, a terrorist "leader", back to the White House time and again, even after the violence had begun again and he had violated the Oslo Accords?
Perhaps Clinton was wrong to do that. But was Clinton ever so foolish as to explicitly support unconditional high level meetings with all the world's dictators? That is what Obama supported, though he has been backpeddling and rephrasing and parsing his way out of it ever since. But my argument above was not about meeting with dictators. My argument was against unconditional meetings with dictators.
People castigate Bush for his meetings with the Saudis about oil but how was Bill Clinton any different with Arafat?
Perhaps he wasn't very different from Bush on that.
There are some people (Obama is not alone) who think talk is better than what they see as confrontation. Hillary Clinton may have shot him down when he made the argument but I suspect she would have made the very same argument...
No, I don't think she would have been for unconditional meetings with all the world's rogue dictators. That was Obama's position. I'm not a Hillary fan, but I don't think she is as naive as Obama. In fact she is fairly Machiavellian.
Hillary is no hawk.
I agree, she's not especially hawkish, though compared to Obama, she seems to be a hawk.
Posted by: traeh at May 22, 2008 7:34 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)