Negotiation –

by

We were watching The Patriot with director’s commentary. For a fellow who made a movie about the American Revolution he had the standard liberal’s misunderstanding of what war is and what negotiation is.

Deep sigh. First off, negotiation requires that the parties at hand be willing to sit down at a table and discuss the issue(s) at hand. Secondly, in the liberal understanding of things they seems to think that both parties will each give a little bit and arrive at a mutually satisfactory settlement.

If the parties hold diametrically opposed views and/or one will not sit down to discuss the matter, then what? Kosovo comes to mind. The liberal view is that the parties should have just sat down and talked out their differences. Fact is, you had Moslem invaders that had been systematically persecuting native Christians for 400 years, and wanted to keep on doing so. You had native Christians (the Serbians) who wanted these invaders and persecutors out. As usual, the libs leading this country had us siding with the Moslems and bombing the Christians. But anyway, where is the negotiating room here? The Moslems weren’t going to leave peaceably. They were not going to stop persecuting the Christians. The Moslems had (as usual) no intention of giving any on that position. The Christians wanted freedom and the Moslems out of their hereditary lands. There was no give in their position.

Liberals seem to think that war is the same thing as a fist fight, and if everyone just went home and slept it off everything would be fine. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of war. War is not testosterone gone amuck. War is an instrument of national policy. War takes place when negotiations and diplomats have failed. If a nation has a goal which can not be achieved by diplomatic means it must either give up that goal or resort to war as the final choice.

For instance, the Germans of the 1930s entered into all kinds of negotiations and signed all kinds of agreements, which they happily broke and then entered into more negotiations and treaties, buying all kinds of time. Chamberlain was the liberal of his day and proudly proclaimed “peace for our time” after entering into the Munich Agreement which gave a chunk of Czechoslovakia to Germany in return for the German’s promise to be good boys and not do it again. After digesting the big bite for a year and consolidating their position, the Germans invaded Poland. The only way to stop a nation that will not negotiate honorably is war. Otherwise they will do what they please.

The Korean War took place when North Korea invaded South Korea. South Korea appealed to the United Nations for help. North Korea’s position was that they had conquered and would hold South Korea as theirs and would not give it up. The United Nations declared war upon North Korea and invaded to free the South Koreans. The United States troops sent to Korea were part of the UN forces. The United States did not declare a separate war upon North Korea. Contrary to the TV show MASH with its frequent soulful “why are we here” dialogs, most people understood quite well why we were there. It had nothing to do with “stopping the red stain” as Frank Burns so stupidly and piously intoned. Notice the standard Hollywierd liberal ploy of making all liberals reasonable and intelligent and all conservative positions stupid and ridiculous? It had everything to do with honoring the UN resolution to protect an ally who was being systematically conquered and pillaged. That is the same UN which the current crop of liberals wants to have running the planet nowadays. Especially if it puts the US in a bad position. BTW – if that had been a US war and we had finished it, instead of pulling out when the UN said to, we would not have the North Korean problem today. The people of North Korea would not be starving, they would be just as fat, sassy, and wealthy as the South Koreans are today.

Anyone who thinks that negotiation can be successful when one of the parties will not make treaties or hold to honorable terms will deserve what they get. Conquered. Or should we continue to let aggressors do as they damn well please until there is no freedom in the world? A nation that will not fight will not continue to exist. A people that will not fight will not keep freedom.

If we take war off the table, then there is nothing to make rogue nations such as Iran, North Korea, etc. even come to the table. We have to no reason to expect them to even go through the motions of negotiation, much less keep their word if there is no expectation of retaliation and punishment through war.

While no one in his right mind considers war desirable, it is still an instrument of policy that must be available. No pantywaist liberal abhors and hates war as much as the military does. The difference is that our military accepts the role of protector of freedom. The loudmouth pacifistic types seem only to protest those who protect freedom. I never see them protesting those who would take freedom away. When was the last time you saw the Code Pink people protest radical Islam? When was the last time you saw the peaceniks protest an aggressive dictatorship such as North Korea? When was the last time you saw protests against the murderous bombing of innocent civilians by Moslem terrorists such as we see every day on the news?

Them’s the facts, ma’am.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: