- This topic has 4 voices and 7 replies.
-
Posts
-
Neville Chamberlain wanted to negotiate and try diplomacy with the person who caused the Holocaust.The Iraq Study Group and many others suggest we negotiate and try diplomacy with Iran whose president denies the Holocaust.The similarities are kind of scary when you think about it, are they not?
Anyone who denies the holocaust has already brought into question their mental state as well as their intelligence. I personally would not negotiate with a man who I knew I couldnt trust. And really when has man learned from his mistakes? He usually makes them again sooner or later.
Neville Chamberlain wanted to negotiate and try diplomacy with the person who caused the Holocaust.
I think that there's a problem with your analogy here. Correction: not a problem, but something to watch out for. I don't know enough about Chamberlain to comment on his actions, but given his position prior to the War I don't think it should be outright criticized as the wrong way of going about things. We didn't know the true extent of Nazi atrocities until after the War was over, so we cannot really comment on Chamberlain's actions with our knowledge, which is truly after-the-fact.I don't think it's wrong for leaders to search for diplomatic solutions to problems to avoid very large problems down the road. As a matter of fact, I think it's the truly good thing to do. As for Iran in particular, I think that the key is that if the country wants to enter the modern era and the economic advantages that come from it, it will have to come to the negotiating table and comply with the rules of the international community. If Iran wants to keep threatening, then investors will stay away and Iran will remain in the dark age - just as North Korea has done to itself.
Churchill criticized Chamberlain from the onset for negotiating with Hitler. So the opposition party was somewhat aware that Hitler was someone that was dubious and unreliable. But it didn't hurt Chamberlain to try….where I fault him was he was so naive.
where I fault him was he was so naive.
History repeating. Many are naively saying now that Iran isn't really a threat.
His stand on issues, including the Holocaust, should send up red flags for everyone. Theres no reason for anyone to be naive here.
The question becomes this – what do we do about it? Also, what do people consider to be a “threat”? The Soviet Union was a “threat”, yet we were able to deal with it without resorting to war. Cuba was a “threat” as well, and we dealt with it with a certain policy. Iran, too, is a “threat”, but it's not too unlike others we have dealt with in the past.
The question becomes this - what do we do about it?
We finish the job in Iraq and Afghanistan, because that would cause a lot of problems for Iran. Perhaps even consider keeping a permanent (but smaller) military presence there. I'm not against having a nuclear ready and capable US Military installation in Iraq. That would initimidate Iran and may be all we need to do (for now) A good and hopeful sign in Iran were the recent elections where most or all of the candidates voted in are against Ahmadenewhackjob's policies.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
