Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-11-2008, 02:11 PM
 
232 posts, read 948,794 times
Reputation: 57

Advertisements

im support obama but sometimes he is off............


Obama Needs a History Lesson

By Jack Kelly

In his victory speech after the North Carolina primary, Sen. Barack Obama said something that is all the more remarkable for how little it has been remarked upon.
In defending his stated intent to meet with America's enemies without preconditions, Sen. Obama said: "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."
That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit.

I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.
FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.
Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman's response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.
Perhaps Sen. Obama is thinking of the meeting FDR and Churchill had with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Tehran in December, 1943, and the meetings Truman and Roosevelt had with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam in February and July, 1945. But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than FDR and Truman were. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam, which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so.
When Stalin's designs became unmistakably clear, President Truman's response wasn't to seek a summit meeting. He sent military aid to Greece, ordered the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, and sent troops to South Korea.
Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961.
Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit.
"There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy's measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions," Mr. Abel wrote. "There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America's power. He questioned only the president's readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are 'too liberal to fight.'"
That view was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: "Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs," Mr. Reston wrote. "He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed."
It's worth noting that Kennedy then was vastly more experienced than Sen. Obama is now. A combat veteran of World War II, Jack Kennedy served 14 years in Congress before becoming president. Sen. Obama has no military and little work experience, and has been in Congress for less than four years.
The closest historical analogue to Sen. Obama's expressed desire to meet with no preconditions with anti-American dictators such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the trip British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French premier Eduoard Daladier took to Munich in September of 1938 to negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolf Hitler. That didn't work out so well.
History is an elective few liberals choose to take these days, noted a poster on the Web log "Hot Air." The lack of historical knowledge among journalists is merely appalling. But in a presidential candidate it's dangerous. As Sir Winston Churchill said:


"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."




made this thread from another
AllHipHop.com: Happy Mother's Day, Moms! - Obama needs a history lesson. (http://allhiphop.com/forums/19838617/ShowThread.aspx#19838617 - broken link)

Last edited by arimor; 05-11-2008 at 02:13 PM.. Reason: http://allhiphop.com/forums/19838617/ShowThread.aspx#19838617
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-11-2008, 03:02 PM
 
1,176 posts, read 1,821,706 times
Reputation: 260
Excellent post. I definitely see some areas of concern and in today's unsettled times it is hard not to wonder what if.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2008, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Charlotte
12,642 posts, read 15,617,275 times
Reputation: 1680
Mm hmm

Weren't we in talks with Japan before Pearl Harbor? How about the talks between FDR and Stalin - stated in the article? Great History lesson you've provided us. The author tramples on his argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2008, 03:31 PM
 
1,176 posts, read 1,821,706 times
Reputation: 260
Russia was our ally in WWII and justified talks between FDR and Stalin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2008, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,994,056 times
Reputation: 7118
A perfect example of Obama's naivety and misguided and dangerous ideas. He is weak. A pacifist.

The media is in the can for him, so it will be up to others to point out his incredible statements.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2008, 04:05 PM
 
Location: Albemarle, NC
7,730 posts, read 14,173,898 times
Reputation: 1520
History aside, I'm more concerned with his ability to follow the Constitution rather than ill-conceived precedents set by other Presidents.

I wonder if Obama would do like Dubya and send troops into a sovereign country without a declaration of War by Congress. He's railed against those that approved the Iraqi invasion. Would he be willing to take that same power in his hands and trust his judgement? Having seen the outcomes of Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq again, and any other countries several Presidents have invaded using powers given to Congress by the Constitution, not the Executive branch. As a Constitutional Law professor, I would hope Obama would be more interested in maintaining adherence to our founding document.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2008, 04:09 PM
 
31,687 posts, read 41,080,669 times
Reputation: 14434
Quote:
Originally Posted by paperhouse View Post
History aside, I'm more concerned with his ability to follow the Constitution rather than ill-conceived precedents set by other Presidents.

I wonder if Obama would do like Dubya and send troops into a sovereign country without a declaration of War by Congress. He's railed against those that approved the Iraqi invasion. Would he be willing to take that same power in his hands and trust his judgement? Having seen the outcomes of Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq again, and any other countries several Presidents have invaded using powers given to Congress by the Constitution, not the Executive branch. As a Constitutional Law professor, I would hope Obama would be more interested in maintaining adherence to our founding document.
Does congress or the American public have the stomach for authorized conflict after our current experiences? Obama is more of a pacifist and flexible. McCain is now more of a hawk and not flexible. They have both staked out positions on Iraq that they may regret if they stay true to them regardless of the circumstances in the future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2008, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Albemarle, NC
7,730 posts, read 14,173,898 times
Reputation: 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Does congress or the American public have the stomach for authorized conflict after our current experiences? Obama is more of a pacifist and flexible. McCain is now more of a hawk and not flexible. They have both staked out positions on Iraq that they may regret if they stay true to them regardless of the circumstances in the future.
I don't see Obama as a pacifist. I believe we should be talking to some of the countries we have called enemies recently. I think Iran would be a great country to have open talks with. Our current conditions on Iran call for them to stop everything we don't want them to do. That's what the talks are for, not the conditions of talking.

I see Obama as a little naive though. I see Ron Paul the same way. If we do just leave, we may create more problems in the future. Blowback got us here. It doesn't end when the Bush Precedency does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2008, 04:21 PM
 
Location: NC
1,142 posts, read 2,123,118 times
Reputation: 368
Obama was indeed wrong about Presidents Roosevelt and Truman talking with our enemies. We had broken off diplomatic relations with both Germany and Japan prior to hostilities. FDR had no contact with Japan's leaders prior to the war other than through the American Ambassador. As mentioned his policy was one that demanded unconditional surrender and he would not negotiate. Truman followed the same policy.

If Obama was referring to FDR's meeting with Stalin he is confused as to who our enemies and allies were. Stalin was the premier of the Solviet Union. The United States and the Solviet Union were allies.

Obama doesn't understand American History and doesn't understand foreign policy. He's too inexperienced and naive. We need a leader who is versed in foreign policy and makes good decisions--HILLARY CLINTON
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top