Posted 7 months, 24 days ago in 
Loading ...
The Bush/McCain policy of disengagement with nations that wish our country ill flies in the face of lessons learned in recent history.
A secretary of state whose truculent attitude exacerbated the anxieties and dangers of the cold war hamstrung President Eisenhower as he sought to promote peace. When the president was finally able to replace John Foster Dulles, he initiated dialog with the Soviet Union which — despite many difficulties over many years — resulted in a period of detente which obviated thermonuclear war.
Assertive persuasion is not appeasement; nor does it require capitulation or concession.
DUANE HOGUE
Grand Junction
41 Responses to “History warns against policy of disengagement”
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 12:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
There has been no disengagement between the Bush admiinstration and the enemies of this country. We have been engaged in talks with Korea and Iran as part of a group of nations as well as directly. The difference between the Obama approach and that of other US Presidents is that Mr. Obama proposes to meet face to face with terrorists like the president of Iran. Hilary Clinton criticized him for this in a recent debate. Anyone who believes that Iran will give in on their nuclear ambitions just because Mr. Obama sits down with the head dictator is naive. The Iraninans will do to Obama the same thing the Koreans did to Bill Clinton when they promised to stop developing nuclear weapons but proceeded to do it anyway. Obama’s meeting with the head killer in Iran will be seen as a sign of weakness.
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 12:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nevil Chamberlain said “Peace in our time” as he waved papers signed by Hitler. The next day, Hitler invaded Poland.
And to that I add
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 12:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
grandmasix-if you’re going to be quoting history you should really try and be accurate with your timelines. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned to London from the Munich conference with Hitler on Sept. 30, 1938 at which time he uttered the famous words “peace in our time.” Hitler invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, a full 11 months and 29 days after Chamberlain uttered the words on question, not 1 day as you indicate.
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 1:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
grandmasix-Sorry to say I made an error in MY timeline between Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” remark and Hitler’s invasion of Poland. The correct time interval is obviously 11 months, not 11 months and 29 days. Sorry about that.
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 1:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sugarfoot,
So what you are saying is Hitler bought almost twelve months of prep time because he got Chamberlain to go back and tell everyone that the sky wasn’t falling. Excellent point.
Grandmasix, you will notice that the end result doesn’t matter. What is important is whether you crossed your T’s and dotted your I’s, and how learned and intelligent, (in plain language how important) a liberal can make himself feel by pointing out your errors. Don’t you know Neville Chamberlain was just ecstatic with self importance when he uttered those words “peace in our time”. After all, he negotiated that little fiasco. Grandma, try to grasp this concept. It ain’t what you do, it is how you look doing it that is important.
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 1:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
” Sugarfoot
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 1:08 pm PM This User Report this comment
grandmasix-Sorry to say I made an error in MY timeline between Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” remark and Hitler’s invasion of Poland. The correct time interval is obviously 11 months, not 11 months and 29 days. Sorry about that. ”
Did you apologize to Rexall for jumping his case about one simple typo yet?
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 1:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
american_patriot- How about discussing the role Prescott Bush (Dubya’s paternal grandfather)played in the New York investment banking firm which, along with a number of German industrialists, helped finance Hitler’s rise to power. It makes for fascinating reading.
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 1:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I dunno about his typos, but I’m still waiting for Rexall to come out (from under a sheet, perhaps) and back up his statements about who’s an African-American, and who’s not.
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 1:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis-Please convey to Rexall my profuse apology for mentioning his typo and assure him I will pray to the Baby Jesus for forgiveness and salvation.
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 1:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Make your own apologies sugarfoot.
Suck it up, be a man and offer your apologies directly to him. Man to Man so to speak.
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 1:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I thought you guys had a problem with the whole “Man to Man” thing, or did the California Supreme Court change your mind?
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 1:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yeah, sugarfoot, cowboy up.
He walks, he talks, he crawls on his belly like a reptile.
God, that was good.
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 10:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall-as WLJ has suggested, I hereby profusely apologize for having pointed out the recent typographical error in one of your postings. As I told WLJ, I will pray for forgiveness for my transgression and salvation for my sinful carcass from the Baby Jesus. Furthermore, I hereby acknowledge that Christianity is the only true religion, accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior, and acknowledge that every word in the Holy Bible (the King James version,anyway)is literally true, cannot be interpreted and must be obeyed without question under penalty of judgment from God Almighty Himself, Herself or Itself. I also promise to be nice to the Tooth Fairy the next time she visits my house.
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 8:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
All postings here have become the “WLJ, etc.” show, and I see no other posters showing up other than the usual suspects. This is true of all subjects, and discussions usually end up being the typical back-and-forth rhetoric between Johnson and whomever, discussing some slight that someone made, or who is smarter than whom.
Why don’t you folks just form a nice little coffee klatch of your own, meet somewhere else, and let citizens with some thing else to say have a chance at these forums???
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 8:40 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
topic roland?
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 8:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
As you can see, Roland…WLJ is calling you to go back on topic.
The world is a playground for those not cursed with self-awareness.
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 9:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Topic is “general”…applicable to all subjects offered her for “discussion”.
THIS specific “topic” here is this is WLJ’s own playground,and if he doesn’t agree with you, or if you aren’t of the right political persuasion, be prepared to face his righteous monitoring. (we don’ see WLJ go off topic, ever, now do we?)
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 9:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
poor roland.
Here;s a clue, if you scroll all the way to the top, you will find these words;
” History warns against policy of disengagement ”
THAT is the topic of this thread.
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 9:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
my topic is STILL general, and also, I don’t want to engage in any discussions here. It’s pointless. I believe that there are issues that are critical,and deserve “real face-to-face” discussion, not puffing up with self-importance, self-righteousness, and ideas of superior intelligence. I have found other POSITIVE venues to engage in these discussions, and see no need to feed your ego. I still read these posts, and fully expect further attempts at belittling comments coming from you.
“poor roland”, indeed.
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 9:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
” History warns against policy of disengagement ”
You are going to disengage?
Ok, at least you did it while on the topic of this letter inspired thread.
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 10:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have also been watching the Willis Johnson show for a few weeks. I almost expect to see: Live, from Grand Junction Colorado it’s The Day Show. Now Here is the star of The Day, Willis Johnson. Que music. Que Willis.
“Welcome to my show. Hope your having a wonderful day and are ready to be insulted, belittled, and told how stupid you are. I’ll be right back after a word from my sponsor.”
It’s been fun. Click!
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 10:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dear roland and kemosabe.
there is already a HATE WLJ thread in the forums section.
take your crybaby ways there.
The topic here is why, every time the pacifists run away and hide from the bad guys, millions of people die.
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 10:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
no crybabies here, WLJ. Unless…….
I don’t hate you, WLJ, don’t even know you.
I just know you from your posts, and that’s plenty for me.
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 11:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, yeah, this will end well.
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 11:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well Curmie, I just created a whole new thread for them to hate me to their little hearts content.
I even promised not to comment on anything I actually said.
I’m betting 3 posts before somebody tells an untruth.
Let’s see now, the topic of this thread?
Oh Yeah.
” History warns against policy of disengagement “
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 11:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wow, you created a third thread that’s about….you? Is there a pattern here?
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 11:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The pattern seems to be attack Willis and try to drag the topic through the gutter.
Some topics deserve more respect.
They can hate me over there to all they want, and let the adults and other mature types stay on topic here without all the hate mail….
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 11:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmudgeon-we all need to remind ourselves that the key to Wllis’ psyche is having an audience. Without an audience who responds to his provocations, he will rapidly wither and die. If you want to get rid of Willis on this forum, simply don’t respond to him, no matter how outrageous he gets. Conversely, the more you respond, the more you feed his ego. Writing in this forum is most probably the first time in his life he’s ever felt important.
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 11:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmudgeon-you need to remember that what fuels Willis is the attention he gets by those who respond to his musings, no matter how provocative and outrageous they are. Without an audience who are willing to fall into his trap, he would rapidly lose interest and move the “Willis Show” somewhere else. The best way to end the charade is simply not to respond to anything he says. Isolation is the key.
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 11:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis- are you on the payroll at the Daily Sentinel? If not, you should be.
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 11:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Orpheus-there’s an old saying that “Every revolution eventually eats its young.” While Willis may have been considered of some small value to the Sentinel in the first few weeks of community.com, I’m sure that shine has long since worn off. In the end, market forces and the disgust of newcomers to the forum toward his rants will consume him.
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 12:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmudgeon, I tried, but, once again, this topic as so many others is destined to become another hate Willis rant by the liberals.
Even presenting them with a venue to vent their frustrations in peace and leave the adults and other mature persons alone didn’t help.
Maybe it’s the liberal mindset to whine to the largest audience they can find.
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 1:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmudgeon- see, it’s already happening. Willis is unraveling. Nobody is paying attention to him, so he thinks everyone hates him. People like Willis have a persecution complex, they revel in feeling like a persecuted minority. The more you hate them, the more they revel in their complex. The absolute worst thing any of us can do is to tell Willis we hate him, especially on one of his “hate” threads. Don’t you think it abnormal for someone to set up his/her own “hate” thread and invite everyone to “pile it on?”
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 1:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From post #14 to post #33 all but one has been on the topic of HATE WILLIS.
9 of those posts have been attempts to return to the subject of the letter;
” History warns against policy of disengagement “.
7 by me, and 2 by Curmudgeon.
All the rest have been attacks on me by liberals who are incapable of following the norms of reasonable behavior.
Why is that?
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 1:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey! C’mon. My post was not a hate Willis post. I was just having fun just like Willis. As he has stated before this is all in fun so I was wondering if he is on the payroll for the Daily Sentinel to keep things interesting. I’m a lover, not a hater. (well, not all the time)
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 1:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Naw, the paper isn’t in to hiring people that will, with glee, alienate some of their prospective customers.
Even if they have learning disabilities and can’t follow threaded topics.
Posted May 20th, 2008 at 10:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Regarding “History warns against policy of disengagement”
Nice letter. I agree. Talking is not appeasement or even negotiation. It can, however be a good way to prevent a fistfight, as most intelligent Americans learn in first grade recess.
Posted May 21st, 2008 at 7:37 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Let’s be clear about the issue, ashhugger. Nations on opposing sides, no matter how bitter the hatred, DO communicate with each other. It is most often done through back-end channels and not by the leaders meeting in public. That only happens once there is reason to believe that there is room for compromise based on what has been learned from prior contacts. For the President of the United States to sit down with leaders of terrorist nations, when there is no reason to believe ahead of time that there is room for compromise, is a sign of weakness. Mr. Obama proposes to do just that. A picture of Obama smiling with the Iranian leader would be read in the Middle East as the US being brought to its knees by Islamic zealots.
Posted May 21st, 2008 at 7:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
It would depend what was said at that meeting.
Leaders refusing to talk can also be a sign of fear.
A leader should talk to whomever he darn well pleases if he/she (along with advisors) decide there is a valid purpose toward doing so.
Posted May 21st, 2008 at 7:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
As a follow-up to my previous comment, here is a headline from today’s Wall Street Journal: “Israel and Syria said they are holding indirect peace talks through Turkish mediators — the first official confirmation of contacts between the longtime enemies.”
We have been talking to Iran for years. We have offered them, basically, anything they want, if they stop their drive to develop nuclear weapons. They have refused. They say their nuclear development is aimed at peaceful purposes. Anyone who believes that is a fool. What else is Obama going to offer them?
What he needs to say is that the US will do whatever is necessary to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. That includes bombing their facilities. Maybe when the Iranians understand that he is serious, they might be willing to compromise. But I doubt it. They will play the same delay, delay, obfuscate, lie, extend, etc., until it’s too late and they have a fait acomplis. That is what happened in Korea nad now we are stuck with a madman with nuclear bombs. The Koreans already supplied the Syrians with the means of producing a nuclear bomb. If it wasn’t for the Israelis, Syria would be on its way.
Posted May 21st, 2008 at 8:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
IN the op-ed of the WSJ today, Senator Lieberman writes about the difference between Democrats of today and of the past. At the end of his piece, he addresses the issue being discussed here. This is an excerpt from the op-ed piece:
“John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America’s friends and America’s enemies.
There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.
Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.
If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.
A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned “no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.” This is a lesson that today’s Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.