Quote:
Originally Posted by the makeout hobo  Nixon went to China in 1972 where he negotiated the Shanghai Communique, which outlined foreign policy aims and led to normalized trade relations. It also clarified the situations of Hong Kong and Macau. |
China is still a brutal dictatorship is it not? What “normalized trade relations” did we get? It seems pretty unilateral to me don’t you think?
Clarified the situations in Hong Kong and Macau? What was that, that the communists could take them over?
Bottom line, it accomplished NOTHING.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the makeout hobo What does China invading nations have to do with anything? They were still a brutal communist dictatorship that had killed up to 20 million of their own people (thank you marilyn), kept the rest of their population in extreme subjection, and threatened us with a mature nuclear weapon system. |
They threatened us with thermo nuclear destruction? Last time I looked, WE were the ones who had the capability. They were playing catch up and eventually caught up because we were too cowered to do anything about it.
Bottom line is this, those negotiations led to nothing more than China having the ability to continue it’s brutal regime and America giving the ability to continue through a unilateral trade agreement that favors their regime over our economy.
The ONLY reason Nixon was in China, and the reason I do not have a low opinion of him for it, is because he was attempting to work WITH the Chinese for a solution to the Vietnam, a war the Democrats hero John F. Kennedy got us into.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the makeout hobo Please, tell me what Sadaam has to do with anything? I believe the country Obama discussed meeting with was Iran, not Iraq. As to how China was like Iran, you're right, there's no comparison, Mao's China was much worse. |
I am hardly surprised that you did not understand the connection with Saddam. Here’s why he is relevant; after he was DEFEATED in Kuwait, we attempted negotiation for a decade with Saddam. In the end it accomplished nothing and caused even more suffering of the people in Iraq. We also found out after the fact that the humanitarian oil-for-food program was rife with corruption and enabling Saddam to hold onto his power.
The leaders in Iran have a similar mentality in that they see us a weak willed and unable to follow through on any of your threats. What part of TALK being useless do Liberals NOT understand?
China’s treatment of their own people was none of our concern or relevant in the discourse on the Middle East. China was not held to any UN resolutions or mandates as is the case with Iran and Iraq. So you can argue that it was a despicable dictatorship all you want, but Nixon had no choice but to attempt a dialogue to keep them from dominating the region.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the makeout hobo He held four summits with Gorbachev, in Geneva, Reykjavik, Washington, and Moscow, where he negotiated important test ban and reduction treaties.
Russia was holding all of Eastern Europe under its grip, and if they never got kicked out, it was only because they were too powerful. |
Reagan’s negotiations were warranted to prevent a global holocaust. To compare this effort with those of the Middle East are absurd in the extreme.
However, if we give the Liberals and UN enough time, there will be a similarity in that Iran will be armed with nukes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the makeout hobo Buddy, you really need to read up on history. |
This coming from someone attempting to compare the conditions in Iran with China and Russia; how profound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the makeout hobo Please, stop with the personal attacks, its annoying. Can you explain to me why it was ok for Reagan and Nixon to meet with Gorbachev and Mao, but why its not ok for Obama to meet with the president of Iran? |
I will attempt to explain the OBVIOUS to you. Nixon’s meeting with China was a meeting with a nuclear power that dominated the politics in Asia. During Nixon’s unprecedented meeting, we were also attempting to negotiate with the North Vietnamese for a cease fire and peace. China was the main supplier of arms and training to Vietnam. Any dialogue without Chinese involvement would have led to nothing.
Subsequently, and thanks to a Democrat held congress, the Viet cong violated their agreement and re-invaded the South Vietnamese taking them over thanks to Democrats not wishing to meet their promised obligation to the South Vietnamese.
Reagan’s meeting with Russia was also with a nuclear power and an effort to negotiate an arms reduction in an attempt to make the world a slightly safer place. Reagan also ramped up the arms race and development of the anti-ballistic missile shield. He also called the Russian regime “the Evil Empire” which made Liberals quake in their booties and proclaim the end of the world was near and that this irresponsible cowboy was going to start WWIII.
The main difference between Nixon, Reagan and their negotiations is that Iran is not a Russia or a China. It has no nukes, YET, and has very few resources other than oil. Iran will only become a threat if we allow it to arm itself with nuclear weapons. Unlike Russia or China, the current situation in Iran is that they signed onto the UN Nuclear non-proliferation agreement and now are secretly trying to defy it.
The notion that the Bush Administration is not in talks with Iran is a Liberal MYTH and disingenuous partisan rhetoric. This Administration is in a dialogue with Iran and working with the UN to achieve a settlement. The disingenuous rhetoric from Barrack Hussein Obama is the notion that the Bush Administration is not in a dialogue or that the Presidents personal involvement is requirement.
My comments are based on the FACT that the ideas from democrats and Barrack Hussein Obama that TALK is going to matter to despots is naïve and absurd. Reagan and Nixon did not accomplish much with the “dictator’s” you mentioned as the historic record will show. However that stated, their staffs (Secretary of State) had had numerous meetings with both nations prior to a meeting at the highest levels and only after some agreement was assured did these Presidents meet with the leaders of China and Russia resulting in some form of agreement. This is still NOT the case with Iran.
For you to attempt to make such absurd assertions based on my comments is nothing more than a weak attempt to try to defend the indefensible; pathetic partisan rhetoric intended to do nothing more than promote an ideology that when honestly debated would never have a chance at power in this country. Therefore, Liberals and democrats enter in to a world of lies, distortions, innuendo, character attacks and hyperbole in order to promote the FALSE notion that Bush and this Administration is incompetent. I find it offensive in the extreme when the men and women of our armed forces are at risk carrying out the mission that their elected officials sent them to do.
Stop the personal attacks? What personal attacks? I have made no personal attacks to anyone on this forum other than my apt and accurate description about my personal feelings about Liberals. Do you find it offends because you feel your ideals fit the description? My response to that is grow some balls and quit your whining.