Newton’s third law of motion expressly states, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." The blow-affect is Newton’s third law of motion.
I do think a more balanced approach as it pertains to the Middle East will bring about security for the United States. In consistently taking Israel’s side only makes us insecure.
When Richardson stated, “I would not necessarily talk to Ahmadinejad. I would talk to moderate clerics, to business leaders” Like it or not, President Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected president and it is incumbent upon any elected president of our country to deal with him as they have done with other heads of states.
Prior to the wall coming down that separated the former Soviet Union from the rest of the free world; American presidents have dealt with their former heads of state. In fact, the late and former President Ronald Reagan met with the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev that many saw as a threat.
To see how diplomacy works by meeting a head of state as Reagan did, this is an important passage coming from the Encyclopedia Britannica, “U.S.-Soviet relations improved considerably during Reagan's second term, not least because Reagan softened his anticommunist rhetoric and adopted a more encouraging tone toward the changes then taking place in the Soviet Union. At a dramatic summit meeting in Reykjavík, Iceland, in October 1986, Gorbachev proposed a 50 percent reduction in the nuclear arsenals of each side, and for a time it seemed as though a historic agreement would be reached.”
Now if the late President Reagan could meet with the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev; why can’t Governor Richardson meet with President Ahmadinejad if elected? In fact, why can’t any of the other candidates who have expressed their unwillingness to meet with President Ahmadinejad or Venezuela’s President, Hugo Chavez for that matter?
As some have railed against Ahmadinejad when it comes to human rights; have we inched closer to war with other nations for their human rights abuses? I will leave you to answer that question.
In railing against President Ahmadinejad and Iran in particular as we claim they are violating human rights; why no march to war when it comes to the Congo? We claim of Iran they are threatening Israel’s right to exist, yet no one is speaking of Congolese children’s right to exist.
As written in this previous piece, The Congo: A Hidden Terror That is Not Our Top Priority, I cited Van Woudenberg, the Congo specialist for Human Rights Watch, “In November I tried to raise the issue with the US Mission to the UN in New York, and they told me fairly point-blank that they were aware rape was going on in the Congo, and it was just not high on their priorities…I had a similar response from the US State Department." I cited him after reading Jan Goodwin’s piece in The Nation called “Silence=Rape”. By the way, it was the Bush administration’s own U.S. Mission and State Department which turned their back on these innocent children. If you wish to read of human rights abuses, this is the piece you must read. It details how children are, forcibly raped, and how they are enslaved. Children as young as three years old mind you.
Some may say I am unfairly targeting Democrats, I have done so equally in regards to Republicans. The only presidential candidate I feel makes sense as it relates to our foreign policy in the Middle East is, Congressman Ron Paul. He is the only one who realizes our deficits as it pertains to our duplicitous foreign policy.
I find that the only way to address the instability in the Middle East is for us to leave Iraq and act as honest brokers treating all countries equally. No country in that region should be told their right to exist trumps all others. If we continue down that road, it will be at our very peril. Unending wars are simply not an option, only our demise as citizens of this planet.
Author’s email address is, xmjmac@optonline.net
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
