Appeasement « NEOAVATARA

Appeasement « NEOAVATARA

I had never totally bought into the right wing claim that Obama was an appeaser. Sure, he is willing to give up a lot for talks with foreign parties, but he had never given up anything huge.

Until today.

The Obama Administration has released five Iranians who were arrested in Iraq in 2007 for providing assistance to the Shi’ite extremists in the south of Iran killing US soldiers. The Bush administration identified the five as members of the Quds Force, an elite unit within the Revolutionary Guard, tasked with fomenting terrorism and undermining the US in Iraq.

Yes, these are people that have links to killing our men. But apparently, for Mr. Obama, killing our soldiers is not a criminal offense.

So, for giving up murderers of American soldiers, what did Obama receive in return?

Nothing. Squat. Nada.

These Iranian soldier were purportrating acts of war against our soldiers. These men were involved in helping militants create the IEDs (with Iranian materials) that were so deadly to our soldiers. But, oh well, all in the name of political expediency.

I understand the reality. Sometimes you have to give up people like this to achieve something: to get promises from the other side, for them to give up prisoners, etc. But in this exchange, Obama got nothing, Zero.

I am sorry to say this, but this is the first act of President Obama’s that out and out appeasement. There is no other word for it.

UPDATE

Just when I posted this…this came across the wires.

According to the Times of London, the Obama Administration offered to scrap plans for a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe if Russia helped to stop Iran developing a nuclear bomb.

This is two days after Mr. Obama said the following:

“I know Russia opposes the planned configuration for missile defence in Europe . . . I have made it clear that this system is directed at preventing a potential attack from Iran and has nothing to do with Russia,” Mr Obama said in a speech to students graduating from Moscow’s New Economic School.

So, which one is it Mr. President? Are you willing to give up a purely defensive weapons, with no use against Russian armaments, to trade with the Russians in a plan to stop Iranian nuclear implementation? Of course, this assumes the Russians even have the power to stop Iran, which is highly dubious proposition. Let us not forget, Russia is helping Iran build there nuclear arsenal. This is not a passive relationship.

My additional concern is this: there is no reason to believe nuclear proliferation will stop with Iran. The United States should proceed with defensive missile systems, regardless. What if North Korea attempts again to give missile technology to Syria, for example? Will we all of a sudden restart SDI from scratch?

I am willing to talk to the Russians about this, if they are willing to make major in roads regarding North Korea and Iran. Maybe we can include them in any system that is established, to allay their fears. But anything less than that, in my humble opinion, is sacrificing American security with some inane hope of peace.