|
mcp -> RE: JIMMY CARTER'S NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS!!! (4/23/2008 11:59:43 AM)
|
quote:
If merely "negotiating" with terrorists is reprehensible, then the government of the United States should be morally censored by you folks just as you are doing to Jimmy Carter. The US government has not only negotiated, but worked with, abetted, and assisted groups that have been identified as "terrorists."
In other words, if you're going to demonstrate moral indignation, don't be selective about it because of who's involved.
The problem with this, statement is that you make a false association with what your opponents on this thread believe. The issue here is authority and subversion of US official protocol.
For most conservatives, if the function of the federal government is for anything, it is for foreign relations and a common defense [right or wrong]. There may be other methods, but this is the best structure in our eyes; just like our fallible courts system.
Yes, we have always used the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy because the principle of beating the "evil" at hand was of immediate concern. We have also generally paid or bribed the middle east region to appease their relations with us; happened during the end of the 1st Barbary wars for example. We worked with Stalin in WW2, because without him, post 40s would be a wholly different world of struggles than the cold war. There was anamous for stalin even among the allies' leaders; but what could be done?
Both strategies almost always come back to bite the US in the rear, but in the fog of foreign relations, we weigh the odds and move forward with the plan.
To turn around your (and others) false analogy with another general argument---
I find it amazing that more liberal-leaning individuals cannot find common ground or the ability to have a diplomatic "summit" with their political adversaries here in the relative safety of America (note the filibuster and lack of bipartisanship in Congress; this doesn't surprise Conservatives that either side would use this tactic). Yet, the Carter types think that a logical discussion with overseas dictators will sway the heart or that their proposal will be considered fair by both parties soon enough. I guess the zealous, polarizing obstinence of conservatives is just not persuaded by logic and has to be shouted down and/or ignored. What if by these actions, conservatives send out a video tape stating that due to this marginalization in the Westernized/liberalized institutions, we are going to lash out due to our victimization? Would you come meet with us then to feel our pain? Will we get a seat in the human rights council of the UN with equal vote?
The reality is that, yes, we (US govt) do have plans on discussions/summits with all heads of state. But principles and strategies are weighed in on the timing and approaches used in all situations. As for Bush talking to the Saudi royals- one, Bush is head of state with authority to represent the US in this way; two, the Saudis have issues and can be dangerous, but their history with the US and colonial powers of Europe proves them a promise of help in our struggle to bring peace to the middle East. Yes, oil figures into the strategy; it has since the late 1800s.
I see it foolishness to assume that discussing concessional arrangements with certain leaders at any place, any time always equals the work of a peacemaker. How should we define peacemaker?- I don't believe it easy (after all, verses in Rom 13 complicates the turn-the-other-cheek-of-others deductions), but due to the principles and strategies needed to bring peace, phrases like "Peace through strength", "Peace through deterrence" and "war, in order to preserve the peace" should be considered imho.
|
|
|
|