Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Perdogg

Obama claims to be following in the footsteps of FDR, JFK, Nixon and Reagan in being willing to meet without conditions with our enemies. What on earth is he talking about?

FDR never met with Hitler, Mussolini or Tojo. True, we normal diplomats were meeting with the Japanse in the fall of 1941, and FDR did send a personal letter to the Emperor pleading for peace and an end to Japanese aggression. That negotiation was sadly interrupted on Sunday, Dec. 7 1941. Perhaps Obama is confusing FDR’s meetings with Stalin. However Stalin was at the time an ally, not an enemy. The cold war would not start until 2 years after FDR’s death.

Kennedy did meet early in his term with Kruschev. Soon thereafter Krushchev decided to place nuclear missiles in Cuba. The summit was apperently not terribly successful in persuading Premier K. to end his hostility to the west.

Nixon met with Mao, but only after careful preparation, and with a specific goal in mind. Soviet and Chinese troops had recently fought a border war, and Nixon realized an opportunity to split the communist world. He know what to expect, what he wanted to achieve, and what he was willing to give to get it (ending recognition of Nationalist China as the legitimate government, including China’s seat on the UN Security Council). Nixon was engaging in high stakes realpolitik, not “let’s get together and talk things over” optimism.

Ronald Reagan? Remember those early Reagan summits with Soviet leaders? Breshnev? Chernenko? Yuriup Andropov? No? Not surprising. All three died in office without every meeting with Reagan. In fact the Democrats weeped and wailed and tried to make the fact that Reagan didn’t meet with them an issue in 1984. Of course, Reagan did eventually meet with Gorby, but only after a strategic victory had been achieved in the Cold War, and he determined he was dealing with a stable leadership that was not ready to abandon it’s intransigent hostility.

Obama is an historical ignoramus, who says anything he thinks sounds good to his ignorant followers.


18 posted on 05/19/2008 8:52:12 PM PDT by Hugin (Mecca delenda est!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Hugin

Should read “was ready to abandon it’s intransigent hostility”


22 posted on 05/19/2008 8:56:33 PM PDT by Hugin (Mecca delenda est!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: Hugin
Obama is an historical ignoramus, who says anything he thinks sounds good to his ignorant followers.

Yes, but you more than make up for. A top o' my hat for you excellent post.

33 posted on 05/19/2008 9:49:41 PM PDT by yankeedame ("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson