Peacemakers needed, not warmongers
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Domenic Mantoan
Published: June 3, 2008
I would like to comment on Cal Thomas’s article “Obama: See No Evil.” The point of Thomas’s article is that evil should not be handled diplomatically but aggressively stamped out. The “evils” that
Thomas names are Syria, Iran, Cuba and North Korea. Obama’s approach is to rationally discuss the issues with these countries and find peaceful solutions.
This is the correct answer as it is wrong, and, in fact, irresponsible, to label every country that disagrees with the United States as “evil.”
Cal Thomas argues that dictators cannot be negotiated with. Well that’s fine, but the listed countries are not necessarily pure dictatorships.
The ruling parties of Iran and Syria have popular support and are mass movements. What would Cal Thomas have the United States do? Wipe out all 19 million Syrians? Or all 70 million Iranians? We
have to live on the same planet as these people and it would be much more constructive to negotiate a solution than to demonize them as being “evil.”
There once was a wise old film from the 1950s that said “that there is either security for all, or security for none” (The Day the Earth Stood Still). The only way to achieve peace is for all people to feel
secure.
These countries can be reasonable and the past has revealed this. Do you remember, Mr. Thomas, that during the first Persian Gulf War that Syrian tanks fought side by side with American tanks? Do
you remember, Mr. Thomas, that Iran had moderate leaders until Pres. Bush’s aggressive United States diplomacy lead to the election of hard line leaders?
For South Korea’s sake it would be wise not to antagonize North Korea with its nuclear weapons; talking is a better option. Cuba, meanwhile, may not be an ideal government, but it is not a threat to its
neighbors and is no worse than a country like China.
Funny how Thomas fails to mention China, or even a truly repressive regime like the Sudan.
No, Mr. Thomas, I prefer Obama the peacemaker over the McCain/Bush style of warmongering any day.
DOMENIC MANTOAN
Woodbridge
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( Sammy B ) on June 05, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Willow, the our response to the Cuban missile crisis is exactly what I am talking about. The Kennedy Administration made a very intelligent move by using tough diplomacy (exemplified by Adlai Stevenson’s demand of the Soviets at the UN, “Don’t wait for the translation, answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’!“) backed by a credible threat of force. That is how this “game” is won. I am arguing against this silly notion that many conservative pundits have that diplomacy and force are mutually exclusive and therefore preferring the former makes one an “appeaser.“ My apologies if my previous comment was unclear.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( willow703 ) on June 05, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Sammy B,
Yes, we did talk to the Soviets and they sent ships with military equipment to Cuba.
We sent warships to meet those ships in the Atlantic and they turned back. That was not diplomacy, that was the use of military force. I was, by the way, on my second hitch in the U. S. Army.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( jVA ) on June 05, 2008 at 12:08 pm
“I’m agnostic, I could accept a godless political system; so long as it allowed others the freedom of any free religion. “
I totally agree. Its extremists on both sides who mess this up for all of us who just want to be free to make our own choices.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( jVA ) on June 05, 2008 at 12:04 pm
“We have become Berkleyized, peace at any cost; even if it be our freedom. “
I just find this to be a ludicrous statement. We have been at war for the last five years. We launched a preemptive war, basically unprovoked with VERY little dissent from the public, politicians or the media.
Our country spends $623 billion per year on our military. The rest of the world COMBINED spends $500 billion.
To say that we are a nation of Berkleyized hippies unwilling to fight when necessary is just completely ridiculous.
I think after five years in Iraq a larger truth would be that most Americans have realized we need intelligent leaders who will pick our military battles carefully, go in with a clearly defined mission and have an exit strategy.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( willow703 ) on June 05, 2008 at 8:00 am
kgotthardt,
Sorry, if I mischaracterized your writing.
What more can we do to defend our right to “be”? Accept a violent, misogynistic “religion”? Accept a violent, godless, dictatorial, political system?
I’m agnostic, I could accept a godless political system; so long as it allowed others the freedom of any free religion.
I could not accept a system that would not allow me the opportunity to select those who run my country.
What more can we do?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( willow703 ) on June 05, 2008 at 7:39 am
jVA,
I don’t know that it’s a stretch, at all.
We have been talking to the Soviet Union
(yes, it’s still the Soviet Union, whatever it calls itself) for more than 65 years and it still arms our enemies and uses its power to thwart our attempts to stop genocide in Darfur, to stop starvation in North Korea, and to assist victims of natural disaster in Burma. It has used proxies in Korea, Vietnam & other places to enslave hundreds of millions of people to a brutal fascistic system. (Those who believe that a communist system of government has ever existed in the Christian Era are idiots.)
We have been talking to China for 35 years and they are still using their power to do as the Soviets are doing.
Eisenhower settled for a draw in Korea, Nixon & Kissinger sold millions of Vietnamese in to slavery; Kissinger & his North Vietnamese counterpart were awarded Nobel Peace Prizes. Only Kissinger had the gall to accept.
What threat would we, not the president, respond to? The control of gulf oil by Iran? The seizure of the Arctic Ocean by the Soviet Union & a Soviet supported invasion of Mexico by Cuba, Colombia & Venezuela?
Most Americans today would have us respond to nothing less than a direct attack on the United States. They would not assist in the defense of Israel, Finland & the other Baltic nations with troops, material, or money. They would dither until we were the only free country in the world, it would then be too late.
We have become Berkleyized, peace at any cost; even if it be our freedom.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( jVA ) on June 04, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Willow703, I understand what you’re saying but comparing talking to Iran or whomever today to talking to Hitler in the 30s is just a bit of a stretch.
A President Obama can choose to hold talks with whatever countries he wants. It does not mean that the US has to capitulate, give anything away or stand idly by. That’s a HUGE leap to take in your argument. We are still the most powerful country in the world, and nobody can force us to do anything. Under what threat would ANY US president be forced to just start giving away our interests? That just makes no sense in the current climate and is HIGHLY unlikely.
We’re still in a pretty good position to hold talks with any country. And talking with our enemies from a position of strength certainly beats talking with them from a position of weakness.
There has to be a middle ground between completely giving away Europe to Hitler and the Bush policy of sticking our heads in the sand and refusing to speak to those we disagree with. I would expect either President Obama or even President McCain to be smart enough to walk that middle ground just like Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Nixon, Kennedy, etc; all seemed to manage to do before them.
This just seems like the lamest McCain talking point and a real reach as a political attack. You can see how well it worked for Hilary Clinton.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( kgotthardt ) on June 04, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Who said I’m a liberal?
I just don’t think we do enough to prevent having to kill each other to defend our right to “be.“
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( willow703 ) on June 04, 2008 at 11:03 am
To correct my last post: I meant to say, “We all know that the countries Cal Thomas didn’t mention, China & Sudan, are allies of Syria & Iran. Don’t we?“
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Sammy B ) on June 04, 2008 at 10:16 am
Willow, do you recall that we talked to the Soviets? We managed to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis with diplomacy backed up by the threat of military force. Who says we can’t do the same with the evil powers of today? If you want a platitude to go with that, try, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.“
Report Inappropriate Comment