Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (256941)	2/19/2008 3:38:41 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

I agree with less_. It does no harm to talk, or extend an olive branch Did FDR extend an olive branch to the Axis during WWII? If not, why not, if it does no harm? FDR understood that he was fighting a war against America's enemies, and that war is a test of will. He understood that. You don't. It can do tremendous harm to talk, if the enemy you talk with takes it as a sign of your weak will, and uses it to buy time to improve his position and extract concessions with false promises. That's why real peacemakers know they are taking big risks. Your problem, like most of the Dems today (unlike those of 40 years ago whom JFK spoke for) is that you don't believe that there can be an real enemy. You think an enemy is only someone whose grievances you haven't assuaged yet. As for Brzezhinski, I assumed the least negative thing I could about his visit to Damascus. I assumed that he made no explicit pact to curry favor with Damascus in exchange for Damascus holding off terror attacks before the election. I assumed that his visit would only create such terms implicitly. If Brezhinski explicitly made deals with Assad for partisan advantage, that would be much worse, even treasonous.