That’s Right Nate

Thoughts from a right thinker.

Obama and Appeasement 101

with 5 comments

America’s first foray into Appeasement was in 1794 with the John Jay Treaty signed with England where America agreed to pay prewar debts to British merchants if England stopped capturing American merchant ships.  Over 150 years later JFK agreed to take missiles out of Europe if the Soviets removed theirs from Cuba.

Appeasement is identified as acquiring peace from your enemies by giving them gifts or concessions.   What Obama has proposed doing is bargaining with Iran in order to get peace in the middle east.  In theory Iran would call off their friends in al-Qaeda as well.

What Obama fails to reallize is that Iran is right by Iraq.  What Iran would love more than anything is to influence politics in that country.  If that happens it would be disastrous for the war effort.  Aside from Iran who else would Obama talk to?  Cuba? Venezuela?  North Korea?  Libya?   We have a lot of enemies and talking with them won’t get us anywhere. 

Few have the foreign policy expertise of Oliver North.  He’s their history guy.  Here’s his take, “That’s what the President said yesterday in Jerusalem. And a little reminder today, a shot across the bow here at the NRA, when John McCain got up and said, ‘You cannot have these kinds of unconditional, no preconditions discussions, with despots and dictators’ – dead on the mark.” 

This man has been an expert on foreign affairs for over 25 years and he comes right out and calls it.  You can’t deal with despots and dictators.  What Obama wants to do is a recipe for disaster.  The United States can’t afford that kind of leadership.


Written by thatsrightnate

May 19, 2008 at 9:17 pm

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. We have a very interesting article by Bill Harrison at NeoConstant at the moment that questions both Obama and McCain’s stances on appeasement and diplomacy.

    I Am an “Appeaser”

    It’s a tricky question to be sure….


    May 19, 2008 at 9:22 pm

  2. Interesting article. The reason I didn’t go into Neville Chamberlain is that I always thought he got a bum rap. He was trying to protect himself from the Soviets who he saw as a bigger threat than the Germans.


    May 19, 2008 at 9:32 pm

  3. Oliver North does know something about despots and dictators, not to mention Iran. He wasn’t afraid to negotiate with Iran. I’m not sure what they got in return for arming the Contras, but I’m sure it was something good. I know I’ll always be grateful for the friends I have who I never would have met if they hadn’t come here to escape America’s other good friends – the death squads in El Salvador.


    May 20, 2008 at 5:17 am

  4. Chamberlain was certainly not all bad, though I think he suffered from being too optimistic. I think he more than made up for his flaws during the war, though. A decent man all around.


    May 22, 2008 at 1:21 pm

  5. I don’t know that I’d call him optimistic really. I think he saw the Soviets building up and the Germans and feared the Soviets more. Like you say though, a decent man.


    May 22, 2008 at 5:20 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: