Senator William Edgar Borah, [R - Idaho] (1865-1940) -- as Nazi tanks
crossed into Poland in September 1939
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and
radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been
wrong all along.  We have heard this foolish delusion before.  As Nazi tanks
crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared : “Lord, if I
could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided."

President George Walker Bush -- 15 May 2008

Bingo!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

the point to remember is that if we take a strong policy, then we need
to have a response ready to back it up. if we do not or cannot have a
response ready to back it up, we are negotiating an appeasement
proposition, which will be easily seen.

The issue of 1939 with hitler is that by 1938, the nazi's had
developed the messershidt figher, studka dive bomber, panzer tank, and
had perfected the strategies of the blitzkrieg. Meanwhile, the US, UK,
and future allies were still bragging about the 3 sopwith camel (bi
planes from ww i) patrol over the UK possessions in news reals, the US
army trained soldiers how to use a machine nest by having them setup
on a wooden horse and use a 2x4 plank as a toy machine gun, and the
only non bi-wing figher available in the US was the p-38. A sopwith
camel against against a messschidt would have been suicide (120 mph
plane with slow climbing, no armament against a fast climbing, 400 mph
plane, with heavier guns and cannons).

Therefore, the allies bought time in 1938 so that Churchill could
wisely develop the spitfire and radar to make it operational.
Remember, in the battle of Britain, about 400 spitfires held off the
entire Luffwaffe with the help of radar and operations management
planning on how to rapidly respond. If the allies had directly engaged
the nazis in 1938, the battle of britain would have been lost by sept
1939 due to the US not being ready to go to war production and the
massive peace block that existed then.

The point regarding negotiation is that a summit can be good thing.
But, we should not be fooled into a summit to give an enemy time to
plan a new offensive. Also, their should be clear and measureable
goals, we should not negotiate in fear or to avoid doing what is
right.  The problem obama needs to clarify is that certain principles
as the helsinki accords, the five freedoms, democracy, and quality
education for all are not negotiable. I still need to see this from
him.

Their is a way to begin a discussion, but it is different than what he
is proposing. I know, because I initiated many in the post cold war
period of 1989 to 1999.

And none of his advisors are smart enough or strong enough to take the
shovel away from him.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
---------------------------------------------

AP -- "In Charleston, W.Va., speaking before Obama's speech, McCain told
reporters: "I made it very clear, at that time, before and after, that we
will not negotiate with terrorist organizations, that Hamas would have to
abandon their terrorism, their advocacy to the extermination of the state of
Israel, and be willing to negotiate in a way that recognizes the right of
the state of Israel and abandons their terrorist position and advocacy.""

"McCain contended that Obama wants to "sit down and negotiate with a
government exporting most lethal devices used against soldiers.  He wants to
sit down face-to-face with a government that is very clear about developing
nuclear weapons. ... They are sponsors of terrorist organizations. That's a
huge difference in my opinion.  And I'll let the American people decide
whether that's a significant difference or not.  I believe it is.""
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------

I reckon so.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

I saw a documentary which showed a movie newsreel from the late 1930's
about the sopwith camel patrols over eygyt.

A second point, is that even in 1968 "All Our Yesterdays" from the
original Star Trek TV Series, the then young generation supported the
view that if the Allies had continued negotiations with Hitler past
1941, the allies would have lost WW II because the nazi's would have
perfected the atomic bomb by 1942/43 and the super v2 (new york bomb
by 43/44) and new york city would have been the American Nagasaki that
caused the US to surrender. This was further supported in the star
trek series "Enterprise" in the fourth season episode regarding the
"time travel cold war" story line, in which the nazi's were able to
capture the Eastern corridor (DC to New York to Charleston) corridor
due to resources being spread too thin and the US government had to
abandon Washington DC and fight WWII from the base of Chicago, i.e.
midwest USA.

So, my point is this, even though some may not always support the
conservative side or the liberal side, it is a consensus among certain
people of various points in the political spectrum, that negotiation
needs to be used carefully. In addition, we should be careful about
when an enemy uses negotiation to further military operations.

--
Nik Simpson

In matters of national defense and in world prosperity, the people
want leadership not a referendum.

the point to remember is that if we take a strong policy, then we need
to have a response ready to back it up. if we do not or cannot have a
response ready to back it up, we are negotiating an appeasement
proposition, which will be easily seen.

Your premise is wrong.

Churchill said that WW2 was the mostly easily stopped war in history.
The German generals understood how if France/Britain had reacted when they
entered the Rhineland etc., the Germans  would have been easily defeated or
at least stopped, and the Nazis probably would have fallen.

The last good chance was in 1939, during the war with Poland. Instead of
launchng a serious campaign, there was some minor offesive that they quit
after a short time.

The issue of 1939 with hitler is that by 1938, the nazi's had
developed the messershidt figher, studka dive bomber, panzer tank, and
had perfected the strategies of the blitzkrieg. Meanwhile, the US, UK,
and future allies were still bragging about the 3 sopwith camel (bi
planes from ww i) patrol over the UK possessions in news reals, the US
army trained soldiers how to use a machine nest by having them setup
on a wooden horse and use a 2x4 plank as a toy machine gun, and the
only non bi-wing figher available in the US was the p-38. A sopwith
camel against against a messschidt would have been suicide (120 mph
plane with slow climbing, no armament against a fast climbing, 400 mph
plane, with heavier guns and cannons).

Therefore, the allies bought time in 1938 so that Churchill could
wisely develop the spitfire and radar to make it operational.
Remember, in the battle of Britain, about 400 spitfires held off the
entire Luffwaffe with the help of radar and operations management
planning on how to rapidly respond. If the allies had directly engaged
the nazis in 1938, the battle of britain would have been lost by sept
1939 due to the US not being ready to go to war production and the
massive peace block that existed then.

The point regarding negotiation is that a summit can be good thing.
But, we should not be fooled into a summit to give an enemy time to
plan a new offensive. Also, their should be clear and measureable
goals, we should not negotiate in fear or to avoid doing what is
right.  The problem obama needs to clarify is that certain principles
as the helsinki accords, the five freedoms, democracy, and quality
education for all are not negotiable. I still need to see this from
him.

Their is a way to begin a discussion, but it is different than what he
is proposing. I know, because I initiated many in the post cold war
period of 1989 to 1999.