I'm sorry the link of my previous post is wrong.The correct one is:
http://kotzabasis4.wordpress.com

Faustino

"the test will be whether offering compromise to unreasonable despots will in fact achieve better outcomes than a harder-line stance. It's never worked before."

Really? How about the following examples?

1) Compromising with Stalin for the purposes of defeating Hitler.
2) Negotiating with Stalin to agree nuclear non-proliferation treaty (plus many other international treaties).
3) Dealing with a large variety of despots in the Middle East, thus getting access to oil and, remarkably, getting a degree of peace for Israel.
4) During the Cuban missile crisis compromising with the Soviets regarding US missiles in Turkey, thus avoiding nuclear war.
5) Holding serious and friendly talks with Gorbachev, thus ending the Cold War. (Check out the interview with Reagan where he admits that the USSR is not the 'Evil Empire')

And that's without even thinking too hard.

Even George W Bush gave up the hardline stance with North Korea in favour of compromise and got much better results.

Contrast this with the hardline examples:

1) Invading Iraq
2) Invading Afghanistan
3) Using torture
4) Refusing to talk to North Korea
5) 50 years of sanctions against Cuba (where's that got us?)
6) Vietnam
7) Driving up the arms race in the early 80s nearly causing nuclear catastrophe in 1984
etc. etc.

And that's just considering the US's actions. A few failed hardline examples from other countries:
1) Arabs attacking Israel.
2) Al Qaeda attacking the US
3) Palestinians attacking Israel
4) Israel attacking Palestine
5) USSR invading Afghanistan
6) Iraq invading Kuwait
7) Hitler invading everywhere

And I forgot - perhaps the best example of each - Allies hardline treatment of Germany after WW1 versus Allies friendly and generous treatment of Germany after WWII.

Cazza,
You're very knowledgeable!

I enjoy these articles. The Right is so desperate to land a blow on Obama that it’s reduced to churning out pages of sputtering, insubstantial rage, which some kind editor has organised into paragraphs.

The “freedom” argument is particularly hearty. The Bush administration talked a lot about freedom, but proving that it created any is a bleak prospect indeed. Rather, “freedom” became a magic word for capturing the moral high ground and dodging reasonable criticism.

“Why did you punch me in the face?”
“For freedom. Do you hate freedom?”
“That’s not relevant! You punched me in the face!”
“If you like freedom why are you complaining?”
“Hang on! You just…”
“Freedom-hating socialist.”
“No, you…”
“Freedom.”
“But,”
“FREEDOM, FREEDOM, FREEDOM!”

Themistocles, I’m going to assume you were angry and perhaps a bit drunk when you wrote your 7:43 post. The only other explanation is that you previewed it and thought, “Yes. This is convincing, substantive, and not at all childish”. And I just can’t believe that happened.

But just for fun, let’s run with your theory. Let’s say the Democrats’ policies and election strategy were irrelevant, that the Bush administration didn’t run the global economy into the ground or destroy what remained of sensible conservatism, and that millions of starry-eyed Americans simply fell deeply in love with one Barack Hussein Obama.

And who were the suitors? On one hand, a driven, articulate black man who speaks with clarity, logic, and the adaptability of youth. Who has authored two books, survived the vicious world of Chicago politics, campaigned on the message of hope after a decade of fear-politics, and has overcome the inertia of racial prejudice to become nominee for the most powerful post in the world.

On the other hand, an undistinguished but thoroughly decent old man limping toward retirement.

Hard choice for the voters, eh?

Themistocles, if we accept your...quaint theory of political science, then the Left is a gorgeous super-stud who pulls the girls for obvious reasons, while the Right is pimply, overweight, and shut in its bedroom, weeping and masturbating in a bog of self-pity.

The yanks have a long history of being taken in by B grade evangelists, with a good line of bull.

Fortunately, none of them ever got this far before.

Unfortunately, this one is going to cost them , & probably us, dearly.

Yes all you Obama rubbishes just think how wonderful it will be to have Limbaugh leading the Republican party.
You people have got to be kidding Bush,Thatcher and co where a disaster as PM and President.
But you silly right wingers are still pining for the most incompetent person ever to be in power in the US and the bunch of crooks thieves and war criminals he had with him.
Still you always have Faux News and the OZ to sustain your delusions