If elected president, Senator Barack Obama would meet with Iran's leaders and offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek "regime change" if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.Since Obama does not believe in appeasement (we know that because he said so in a very testy way) he must be saying that if you offer to pay another nation not to threaten you, and you agree to abandon the groups inside the country who are fighting against the government, that is not appeasement. And he has a point; that is not appeasement, it is tribute. Maybe Obama is trying to distinguish mere appeasement from the more cowardly practice of tribute which he endorses. Obama is not saying, "I refuse to be an appeaser, I will negotiate only from a position of strength!" He is saying "I refuse to be a mere appeaser; I will go all the way to tribute!"
The advantage of tribute is that the problem never goes away so you get to keep giving tribute over and over again.
So what is Obama offering Iran tribute for?
Obama said that Iran had been "acting irresponsibly" by supporting Shiite militant groups in Iraq. He also stressed that Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons program and its support for "terrorist activities" were serious concerns and that "we expect them to desist from those actions."Well, Obama may expect them to desist from those actions. I expect them to take our money and then go right back to those actions and demand more money. Isn't that what all extortionists do? Isn't that what practically every instance of buying off an enemy has led to throughout history? They don't go away; they just use your money to become a larger threat and then demand more money.
Sen. Barack Obama promised to stand firm in his opposition to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement on Wednesday–days after President Bush asked Congress to quickly pass the trade deal–in a speech to rally the union vote at the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO’s annual convention.So, let's summarize: under an Obama foreign policy, we actually give money and lend credibility to countries that are actively hostile to us, killing American soldiers, and working on nuclear weapons. But if a country is actively supporting us, and is struggling against a criminal force that supplies illegal drugs to the US and kidnaps thousands of people, then we can't even give that country a few breaks on tariffs.
Give money to our enemies and kick our friends ... hmm ... sounds familiar. I KNOW! Jimmy Carter! Yes, good ol' Jimmy Carter who managed to convince half of the world that they were better off as allies of the failing Soviet Union than of the United States. Well, what would you do? If you were an enemy of the United States you would get money from Russia and money from the United States. If you were a friend of the United States you would get kicked around by Russia and kicked around by the United States. The mystery is how the United States retained any allies at all during that horrible wreck of a presidency.
And the Obama presidency is shaping up to be just as bad.