Your grasp of WWII is not very solid. I would suggest you read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

Among other things you will learn that Stalin wanted ALL of Eastern Europe and So did Hitler.  Russia went to war with Hitler over Europe.  Stalin was building his forces to strike so Hitler struck first.

I’m afraid you have your History wrong and thus the legs for supporting your arguement do not exist.

Hitler should have been put down when he first started violating the WWI aggreements and building his army to attack the west.  The Appeasement that allowed him to build a superior military went on for many years with disastorous consequences...but many western companies got very rich helping Hitler to rebuild Germanies military!

Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are about as far left as you can go in the Senate and still be a US citizen.  Obama is over there too which is why this web site so loves him.

But One Senator from Mass gets a lot of work accomplished....that’s Kennedy.  Kerry is the one that flys off to France and doesn’t like to “legislate”.  He prefers the lime lite and has done well just radicalizing his base and declaring he’s going to do something, any day.

Kerry opposed Regans handling of the Soviet Union and instead felt we should accept the elsavement of eastern Europe under them.  To hims this was enligthement.  He was terribly wrong but you won’t hear him admit it.

He was wrong about the surge and as things turn around in Iraq and the government is standing up...Kerry grows silent on Iraq.

And here he is, Mr Do-nothing, telling the presidnet of the United States how to appease and surrender to Iran.

Mr Kerry hasn’t met an enemy of the US yet that he wasn’t prepared to surrender to.

“Take this Guy out for the Love of sweet Jesus!”

You mean, like, on a date? Looking forward to a good by kiss?

Jesus said love thy neighbor, but that is not exactly what was meant.

Oh, you mean ASSASSINATION! Like just, MURDER him? Yeah, Jesus would like that, bdog.

Sadly, moronic arguments like his prevail the USA’s leadership.

If, like so many say, America has the best values, ideals, etc., and is the home of the BRAVE, then we should talk directly to Iran and show how much COURAGE we have.

But, no, we’ll just bomb Iran like COWARDS.

He then writes; “Iran won’t care for much of what we have to say—but at the right moment, it is not unreasonable to think Tehran would cut a deal in exchange for economic incentives, energy assistance, diplomatic normalization or a noninvasion guarantee.”

You’re confused again russ, or maybe just not up to date.

Cyrena, I think you meant to write that John Kerry is confused. The quote you cited is his. Not mine.

Appeasement!

As far as WWII goes.  It was England that jumped into the war.  Look into history people and see where areas of Germany had been divided after WWI. Appeasement is a lot more complicated than it is being made out to be.

A great many Poles and Russians died because discussions were not performed during Germany’s march into that portion of Poland that was full of Germans.

Think about Hitler’s bluster and that of our own President.  Bush knows NOTHING about history or geography.  He is making up for his own shrinking away from his duty as an Airman when he went AWOL and now struts around with a puffed out chest behind the lives of our young men and women in the military.

We need to get along with the people who have the oil don’t you think?  They are getting rich on our money and laughing all the way to the bank.  They don’t need a big military to defeat this country.  Just patience, which this country does not have.

That’s right. Iran is refusing to talk.

He then writes; “Iran won’t care for much of what we have to say—but at the right moment, it is not unreasonable to think Tehran would cut a deal in exchange for economic incentives, energy assistance, diplomatic normalization or a noninvasion guarantee.”

You’re confused again russ, or maybe just not up to date.

In reality, Iran has requested MULTIPLE times, to initiate dialogue with the US, (in this administration) and has been whacked down each and every time. Once they even attempted to go through the Swiss to broker some talks. Sometimes we find about about these efforts long after the fact, but they are rarely much publicized to the US. (in other words, one has to really pay attention to the small print and the small stories, because State Sponsored media obviously doesn’t want us to know these things).

Now I DID read a few months back, that the Iranian regime had finally decided that there would be no more attempts at discussing anything with the Bush Administration. I wish I could find the direct quotes for you, but I’m afraid they evaporated when my system crashed.

Be that as it may, I did read this, and as usual, the comments (and the decision) did NOT come from Ahmadinejad, but rather from the concensus of those in the regime, who actually call things.

Now, in my own opinion, (which I already know you disagree with) I think this was the logical position for Iran to take for now. It’s what common sense dictates to anyone willing to use it, regardless of the circumstances.

In other words, just in everyday life, we all come up on these circumstances, where we make attempts at important engagement, based on reason and logic. If the parties that we need to engage with either REFUSE to come to the table, or REFUSE to embrace any reason or logic...hint here...THE DICK BUSH REGIME, then how much sense does it make to keep spinning ones wheels? Does it not make more sense (after so many attempts) to just wait until somebody with a bit of reason/logic/willingness to come to the table, might show up to replace the assholes?

And what would they do in the meantime? Well, continue to do whatever it is that they have an already legitimate right to do...a right that doesn’t change dependant on who is ‘in charge’ in the US at any given point in time.

And yes, since Iran became a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, they DO have the right to enrich uranium, and to acquire nuclear technology. They don’t NEED the permission of the US under ANY regime, in order to do that.

Now, just a minor correction to your statement here, about Obama agreeing, (if he becomes President) to meet with Ahmadinejad. If I’m not mistaken, Obama has agreed to meet and talk with IRAN, (the Iranian regime) without pre-conditions.

The difference may seem minor, but it is not. The reason it is not, is because Ahmadinejad is ONE person in Iran’s political landscape, just as the US president is ONE person in our own. This constant reference to Ahmadinejad as if he is the only voice of Iran, is really self-defeating.

Iran has their own ministers/diplomats/experts/etc, etc, who are perfectly capable of engaging in discussions on these and other issues. Like I said, Iran had these rights before they had Ahmadinejad, and they will have the SAME rights (based on the treaty) when Iran elects a new president.

And, no one (that I’m aware of) is ‘elevating’ Iran or any of members of their administration. Additionally, your description of Iran as a ‘rogue’ state is probably inappropriate, since that description is generally reserved for Nation States who act outside of, or in violation of agreed upon rules of contracts and treaties.

Since Iran is NOT in violation of any treaty agreements, they aren’t a ‘rogue’ state, in that respect.

Now, Israel would be. So is the US. But of course, since the Bush Admin has ‘designated’ Iran as such, that just means they are, eh?

Iran has grown stronger: continuing to master the nuclear fuel cycle; arming militias in Iraq and Lebanon; bolstering extremist anti-Israeli proxies. It has embraced Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and spends lavishly to rebuild Afghanistan, gaining influence across the region.

These are Cary’s words, seeming to be for peace and good; realy just further demonizing Iran.

In my post above I should have typed E.U. (European Union).

It was incorrect of me to suggest there is only one explanation to why Sen. Kerry states that Sen. Obama didn’t three times say he would, as president, meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. It is possible, however unlikely, that Mr. Kerry has only read the various press accounts of what Mr. Obama had said. In that case Kerry would not be lying. He may be simply misinformed.

The term “appeasement” has taken on an abused meaning----essentially that talking to a perceived enemy is such.  This, of course, is wrong.  It has been used to describe Chamberlain’s talks with Hitler and then when he returned to the UK to say that, “Peace has been achieved within our time.” Talking with Hitler was not appeasement, but failure to confront him on his invasion into the Sudentenland was!

Like Theodore Roosevelt said, “Talk softly and carry a big stick” or for a more modern version, “Never negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate.

Interesting,

Mr. Kerry explains in the beginning of the above missive how the U.S. is not talking to Iran. But then much further into his dialog he states that the U.S. has, on several occasions, sat down with Iran to talk about Iraq, however, now Iran refuses to continue talking. That’s right. Iran is refusing to talk.

He then writes; “Iran won’t care for much of what we have to say—but at the right moment, it is not unreasonable to think Tehran would cut a deal in exchange for economic incentives, energy assistance, diplomatic normalization or a noninvasion guarantee.”

The interesting part of that statement is how it actually mimics the current administration word for word. But if you ask Mr. Kerry the current administration is doing it wrong?

Mr. Kerry goes on to say; “second is the conversation America’s president should be having with the Iranian people. We should seize the chance to tell some of the region’s most pro-American people how their own president has isolated them, denying their great culture its place in the world and the region a constructive dialogue.”

So in one paragraph Kerry states that Iran is all the stronger today and expanding it’s position in the region, however, in another paragraph he tells us how Iran has been isolated and how helpful that is. Putting aside that contradiction it’s somewhat telling that Mr. Kerry does not go into any detail about how and why Iran is now isolated.

The why is because the nations of the U.E. and others , including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait and the UAE have forced that isolation due to the actions of Iran. And who helped to lead that isolation that Mr. Kerry says may, “at the right moment’ force Iran to cut a deal? The United States.

Mr. Kerry states that “by engaging Iran, we reclaim the moral high ground’. ‘If Iran refuses to budge, we have new leverage to expose it as a threat whose bad intentions cannot be explained away”. But yet Mr. Kerry has very clearly stated that Iran is, at this time, refusing to talk.

Lastly, in his piece in the Post, Kerry states an outright lie. He claims Sen. Obama never stated he would meet with Ahmadinejad. But doing a simple Google or Yahoo News search one will find that Sen. Obama was asked, very specifically, three times, that very question. The answer? Yes. Obama has said he would, as president, meet with Ahmadinejad without “preconditions”. If Mr. Kerry believes in what he writes why does he feel the need to lie?

No one is debating the need for contacts with Iran. The debate is over the wisdom of elevating rogue states and their tyrants, easing their isolation, and increasing their leverage by granting them unconditional meetings with the president of the world’s superpower.