Even the secty of defense thinks we should be finding a way to talk to Iran and the other states we are in conflict with. Gates is no appeaser. He has shown more practical sense than anyone else in the current administration.

Unless we really do plan to occupy Iraq for 100 years, we'd better be using diplomacy to get the the neighbors around the table to work out ways to keep the situation moving in a positive direction.

Wouldn't that qualify as "supporting the troops"?

The problem with the "let's talk to our enemies" nonsense is that it leads to wishful "diplomating" and meaningless agreements (e.g. Wye River, Agreed Framework). Moreover, those who support such an approach cannot (and have not) differentiated between talking to the likes of Chavez or the former hostage taker Ahmadinejad and talking to the head of Hamas, Hezbollah and/or OBL. Why won't Obama agree to meet with those groups if we must indeed "talk" to our enemies. Obama must recognize that some enemies are beyond talking to; China and the FORMER Soviet Union, despite their communist governments, were not in the league of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas or Chavez.

Finally, the Europeans are not the standard when it comes to avoiding war through diplomacy. Exhibit #1, the recent wars in the former Balkans. As soon as the USSR dissolves, old ethnic fights, ethnic cleansing, etc. They have been talking to Iran for years with no meaninfful agreements whatsoever.

Please write more, Bruce. I'm looking forward to reading your opinions on, say, the rulers of Burma ("Lovely people!"), Castro ("A great voice for freedom") and Stalin ("Still one of my personal faves!").

I'll bet you dislike Obama because he's much too conservative for your tastes.

This isn't any better.

You are still an idiot.

The good guys won the Civil War. We won WW II. We won the Cold War. Mao died. That made us safer. Negotiations didn't make us safer. Sometimes you just have to kill your enemies.

Do you really believe these fanatics have secret things that they aren't telling the world already? What is it that we don't already know they want? Don't you read, Bruce? Geez, Louise. Even a kid could color within these lines. You're dealing with fanatics, and you think you can negotiate away their primary beliefs if you talk to them enough.

You are unqualified to be a professional opinion columnist because of a lack of critical thinking ability. And you choose to re-write history to fit your ideology. Sometimes, life is just ugly and you have to be tough, not give an inch, and kill them before they kill you.

Please hand in your resignation letter immediately. You've now not only defended Hitler, you've defended Stalin, Mao and these Islamofascists.

And note that your "talking" here hasn't changed my mind or anyone else's mind. In fact, it has done just the opposite. The more you talk, the more I want you fired.

You've constructed quite a strawman there.

People arein't "inflamed" because of your views of "appeasement", but because you said this:

"What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable. He wanted the German-speaking areas of Europe under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.
"

Now, I realize you completely erased the offending words, but this being the internet, they don't go away.

Go back, admit what you wrote, restore it with your, um, 'additions', and move on.

You can't erase something from the internet. Any mildly competent adult knows that by now.

Bruce,

You are so in the bag for the Obamassiah that we cannot even see your feet. It is not enough for you to support the Messiah's latest 11 year old whine ("he was looking at me when he said that!) about Bush and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Oh No!. Next you first try to rehabilitate one of the more odious acts of appeasement in recent memory. Now that you have been slammed on your (already supine) back with that pathetic attempt, now you try some sohphistry combined with a historical rewrite.

First, no one ever said that talking with enemies is always appeasement. Only beginning discussions without any conditions was a precursor to appeasement. So, no, Regean talking to the Soviets was not appeasement.

As for political aspirations of a large group...if the large group is genocidal and desires nothing less than to erase you and your society then maybe you don't need to talk to them to "find out what they want". Like Hitler, the Arabs have been very clear what they want (elimination of Israel). The muslim militants have been very clear what they want (return of the Caliphate). On what basis will the Obamassiah talk? How we will surrender? How we will stand by while an important ally (economic, social, and political) is dismembered and its people murdered?

Nitwite

So what did Carter's talking to Hamas accomplish again?

Find out what they want??? Someone has not been paying attention.

They want you either dead or Muslim. Are you ok with those options? I am not.

Sam,

You wrote: "We won the Cold War. Mao died. That made us safer. Negotiations didn't make us safer. Sometimes you just have to kill your enemies."

Um, check your history. We didn't kill Mao. We didn't engage the Soviets or the Chinese militarily. We instead kept up civil (if chilly and tense) relations with these countries, and simply waited 'em out. Worked pretty well. Expensive, but not nearly as expensive as going to war.

�You have to ask: do these people represent the political aspirations of a large group? if they do, you'd better talk to them, because they're not going away.�

There's another question to ask, apparently considered trivial by the media. That is, do those 'representatives' of large groups enjoy their spokespositions through coercion and violence against those of the 'represented' groups who speak out against the 'representatives' on one issue or another? This is the prevailing model in countries whose central governments (Palestine while Arafat lived, Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq until early 2008) have not got the physical power to enforce normal laws against violent coercion of its citizens.

Yet the media writes of those 'representative' groups as if each were some sort of solemnly elected, responsible body. These bodies come in two flavors. One seeks to ultimately dominate civil life, as Hamas hopes to do through obliteration of Israel and violent imposition of its own rule. The other, Hezbollah in particular, enjoys the status of a metastasized cancer in the national corpus. It does not wish for the responsibility of governing, but will exert veto by violence against any unwanted policy of the elected civil government. Both sorts are NGOs of a vile and thuggish sort, eagerly supported from Iran and even the EU as proxies against elected governments.

I can understand media's infatuation with the radical chic of violent organizations, but does this confer some sort of authority to do business with them as if they were reliable, responsible political entities?

What can be the benefits of negotiating with, and perhaps signing some solemn agreement with, these unelected 'representatives' of a population? Their accountability to the body politic is exactly nil, since they've shot and bombed and murdered their way into their 'representative' positions. How can it be believed that they would comply with said agreement one minute longer than it would take them to digest what they've gained through the pact, and then thought up the next set of demands?

You must be kiddding. Do you REALLY think that Russians backed because Ragan TALKED to them? They backed becase Reagan bankrupted them first.
Chamberlain TALKED to Hitler and the worst war ever ensue. I'm from Central Europe, right between Russia and Germany and we do know something about evil empires. Talking doesn't matter, as long as you are strong enough. If you just talk, they crush you.
Ondrej

"I grew up facing the prospect of nuclear death from the Russians"
For what it's worth, please note that the Russians still have thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on the USA. Less than before, but theirs is still the only arsenal that could utterly destroy the USA.

Ondrej,

Um, no I don't think that the Soviet Union collapsed because Reagan talked to the Soviets. But it also didn't collapse because Reagan bankrupted them. It collapsed all on its own, because it was based on a ridiculous system, and only maintained the fiction of its world power status by being a hollowed out economy.

All the US needed to do to win the cold war was to a) be a vibrant, expanding economic force (yes, in part demonstrated by the US's increasing ability to build and maintain an overwhelming military power), and b) avoid any real showdown with the Soviets until the trends from part (a) got to the point where it was hopeless for the Soviets and their goofy economy to oppose us. Aaaaaand that's what we did. And it worked.

We certainly didn't fight the Soviets into submission--no need to do things the hard way if there's an easy way. Which is something that Reagan recognized: remember "trust, but verify"? That's a statement of level-headed diplomacy, and a recognition that yes, you can deal with your enemies.

I'm sympathetic to your experience in Central Europe; however, things are very different in this context. The US is an immensely strong nation, and has nothing to fear from Iran, a very weak country whose government is disliked by its own people and maintains power in part by being perceived to stick it to the West. The Iranians are in no position to "crush" the US, whether we talk with them or not.

See the First Rule of Holes.

We talked to the Russions, and finally Communism went away. Breathtakingly disingenuous.

We can talk to terrorists, but why should we reward bad behavior? If you reward bad behavior, you get more of it.

And what if those terrorists want, for example, the destruction of Israel? All non-Muslims to leave the Arabian Peninsula?

I wasn't alone in predicting that leftists would defend Hitler if it meant disparaging Bush.

You people are hilarious.

Ummm... the opening to China was made possible by the hostility between China and the USSR.

"The enemy of my enemy" and all that.

Which is similar to how we were able to make an opening with the Sunni in Iraq- once they decided that Al Queda was more of their enemy then we were.

That is not the situation with Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran.

The situations are not the same. This is a bad historical comparison that anybody with even a little bit of historical knowledge can point out as flawed.

Talking is great when it might actually result in an agreement that is tolerable to both sides. However, if the differences and interests are irreconcilable, then striving for a diplomatic solution becomes a burden leading us into a cycle of eternally dashed hopes. Usually with negative real world consequences for us.

The most important qualification for a leader is knowing when to talk, and when to fight. Always trying to talk is going to end up in disaster as surely as always deciding to fight.

Talk to terrorists???

Even Obama isn't dumb enough to suggest that. Granted, he undoubtedly agrees with you, but at least he isn't stupid enough to admit it.

Terrorism, Bruce, is the intentional targeting of civilians to bring about political change. You are suggesting that once a terrorist organization kills enough civilians, we should grant them an audience.

Surely even you can see how that would send the message that terrorism works?

And you are undoubtedly what leftists consider educated and enlightened. God save us all!

Mr. Ramsey,

You are naive beyond words.

Bruce,
There's a reason you don't negotiate with terrorists. It's like negotiating with a deadly virus. The virus has one purpose in life: Spread throughtout your body and kill you.

Same thing with non-state actors like terrorists. The only talking we should be doing with them is the interrogation after any capture. Other than that, they need to be disposed of.

I think I understand, though, what you're getting at. The way your blogs read, I think you're not getting the point you want to make across. I believe what you're saying is this:

Talk to the people, those not acting as terrorists, and figure out how we can peacefully coexist. Shoot, figure out a way to make them partners for a great future with us. Address grievances, build up their economies, whatever we need to do to help them out. Great. I'm fine with that. This efforts should be aimed at the Palestinian people and others in the Middle East.

But global terrorists and their state sponsors? No quarter. Use every last dirty trick in the book to take them down: freeze their money, hack their websites, and make them disappear in the dark. That's the only way to deal with al Qaeda and their ilk.

Bruce, I'm not sure how you can extend the hand of tolerance to a group, let's say Hamas, who explicitly state in their charter that they want to not only kill every Israeli, but every Jew.

You sir, are why I left the Left. you would sooner sell out the rights of every woman, gay, jew, and other minority for the sake of craven appeasement.

You would rather relinquish the rights we enjoy that our forefathers fought, bled, and died for than summon up an ounce of courage to challenge tyrants and dictators

We have no right to give one inch up of our rights that were given to us by our forefathers for the sake of appeasement.

Really, sir, you miss your own point. Hear the terrorists out. Find out what they want. The problem with your nice suggestion is precisely that--what they want. Certainly in the case of the Palestinians, what Hamas wants--and has said repeatedly--is the absolute destruction of Israel. They are not shy about this message, and it is stated forcefully by both intellectuals and street-fighters. What many other anti-American terrorists want is to destroy Western democracies in the name of Allah. These are not negotiable positions; they are strongly held religious as well as political beliefs. Chatting with madmen will fix nothing.

"3:04 PM, May 18, 2008

So what did Carter's talking to Hamas accomplish again?"

Quite a bit, actually, before the Bush administration quashed the concessions Carter had gotten from the Hammas. The Hammas was elected by the Pallestinians, and their lawful representation stolen by Bush and the Israelis. We may not like them, but they are not forcing their will on a population by force, they are the legitimately elected representatives of Pallestinians. Preventing them from negotiating peaceful resolutions to the conflict is not caving in to terrorists or promoting security.

Talking is not appeasement. Dialogue is mandatory for resolving conflict. And despite the rhetoric, the Bush administration is talking with Iraq through a six nation coalition. His stance is pure posturing for cheap political gamesmanship. Support the irrelevant Bush/republican rhetoric is you wish, the clock is ticking towards the end of their place in history. However, perhaps vitriolic critics of Bruce Ramsey, per your criteria, should stop posting on this blog, apparently doing so is appeasing him. ;)

Post attempt #2. Damn type size in the comment field is too small.