We now have a real philosophical difference that demarcates the Democrats from the Republicans. George W. Bush drew his line in the sand by declaring that it is dangerous for the United States to entertain a dialogue with terrorist states, while Senator Obama voiced his opposition to this as being a veiled attack upon his proposed foreign policy. Both sides are now fired up. The Dems are outraged, and the GOP is digging in. The rest of us need to consider what this philosophical difference really means.

The GOP is resolved that Middle East is fraught with terrorist states that are sworn to acts of violence and are beyond the reach of reason. They further contend that acts of appeasement would be ruinous to our national security. They affirm that our sworn enemies must be eliminated or in the very least, reduced to a position of weakness to which they can no longer present a threat to the United States.

The Democrats, quoting JFK, propose, "We should never negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate." This philosophy represents a paradigmatic shift from force to reason. That is how this debate really breaks down. This is what "We the People" really need to decide. Do we agree that reason, diplomacy, and appeasement are futile and that deadly force is our only option?

During the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, John F Kennedy was ridiculed as being soft, and militarily inept, but history recalls how disastrous the situation could have become. Many were those who called for all out war, but this chapter of our history ended peacefully and proudly. Reason worked. It wasn't easy, but cooler heads prevailed.

As we draw closer to our decision this November, we would do well to recall our lessons from the past.

Appeasement/Pandering is when we are not allowed to have open debate on Israel's actions and silenced or called Anti-Semite by AIPAC lobby even if it cost US 9/11. US politicians want to score points with AIPAC lobby and Israel for speaking hawkishly. Negotiate only if the party is European , else flex your muscle and bomb them.

This is considered a prudent US policy for any politican's political career in Washington. :)

Sad but true.

wdp

If I were any of the US coming presidents, I would wait and see, and I am quite sure that Iran would not be able to go further than what it pretends or tries to offer to the Islamic fanatics as a false image to what it really is. Israel and the US, maybe unaware, are opponents in a chess game that only Persians excel in. As far as how Obama and McCain should be dealing with Ahmad Neejad's issue, I think it is one of the ways to win a large number of voters. They should be wiser and give Iran a chance to find an honourable exit and to consider options that will not be very different from Gaddafi's to be more reasonable and, therefore, Iran can preserve its image of a " an Islamic state "which requires respect and be treated as such.

Amen!

I agree only Israel (a US Mistress) has a right to go nuclear. US believes but not sure (US is in bed with Israel - can anyone believe this?) that Israel has nuclear war heads (150) funded by US.