Winging Foriegn policy

[jreeves]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KQ2yJqWguCU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KQ2yJqWguCU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ2yJqWguCU[/ame]


U.S. Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama underscored his willingness to talk to leaders of countries like Iran that are considered U.S. adversaries but said on Monday that does not necessarily mean an audience with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Obama, the Democratic Party front-runner vying to face Republican Sen. John McCain in the November race for the White House, has said he was willing to meet with leaders of countries such as Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela without preconditions.

McCain has criticized that view, saying that sitting down with someone like Ahmadinejad would give the Iranian president a spotlight and send the wrong signal to U.S. allies such as Israel.
Advertisement

Iran does not recognize Israel's existence and Ahmadinejad has been repeatedly quoted calling for its descruction. Earlier this month, he called the country a "stinking corpse" and said that its destruction was imminent.

Obama, an Illinois senator, said Iranian presidential elections in 2009 would be a factor in the timing of any meetings, as would considerations of who wields the power.

"There's no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know that he was actually in power. He's not the most powerful person in Iran," Obama told reporters while campaigning in New Mexico.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/987506.html


First he says I will meet with him, then states well not necessarily.

 

[Nate Peele]

Nicely stated. You've cut right to the fundamental problem in Obamappeasement. The United States is a democracy. In a democracy the people pick the leaders. In Iran, foreign policy is controlled by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and their National Security Council which is headed by Ali Larijani who is also the country's top negotiator on nuclear issues.

The problem is as John McCain points out, "I mean, the fact is [Ahmadinejad’s] the acknowledged leader of that country and you may disagree, but that’s a uh, that’s your right to do so, but I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they’d know."

As a democracy we have chosen Ahmadinejad as their country's leader. Our strength as McCain has pointed out is in not negotiating with him. We cannot allow Obama to take away one of our fundamental rights as a country--the ability to pick national leaders. We must refust to speak to Ahmadinejad as a show of strength regardless of who may have actual power in Iran.

 

[jreeves]

Nicely stated. You've cut right to the fundamental problem in Obamappeasement. The United States is a democracy. In a democracy the people pick the leaders. In Iran, foreign policy is controlled by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and their National Security Council which is headed by Ali Larijani who is also the country's top negotiator on nuclear issues.

The problem is as John McCain points out, "I mean, the fact is [Ahmadinejad’s] the acknowledged leader of that country and you may disagree, but that’s a uh, that’s your right to do so, but I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they’d know."

As a democracy we have chosen Ahmadinejad as their country's leader. Our strength as McCain has pointed out is in not negotiating with him. We cannot allow Obama to take away one of our fundamental rights as a country--the ability to pick national leaders. We must refust to speak to Ahmadinejad as a show of strength regardless of who may have actual power in Iran.

Again we could just negotiate with someone who wants our destruction and calls Israel a stinking corpse. By negotiating with a leader like that you are affirming his legitimacy, which in turn makes that leader more significant than when you begun. For example, see Kennedy and Khrushchev....Kennedy left negotiations feeling like Khrushchev handed him his ass. Also, the Khrushchev negotiations without preconditions undoubtedly led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/o...em&ex=1211601600&en=25d43fe08790b361&ei=5087
IN his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy expressed in two eloquent sentences, often invoked by Barack Obama, a policy that turned out to be one of his presidency’s — indeed one of the cold war’s — most consequential: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Kennedy’s special assistant, called those sentences “the distinctive note” of the inaugural.
They have also been a distinctive note in Senator Obama’s campaign, and were made even more prominent last week when President Bush, in a speech to Israel’s Parliament, disparaged a willingness to negotiate with America’s adversaries as appeasement. Senator Obama defended his position by again enlisting Kennedy’s legacy: “If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that’s what he did with Khrushchev.”
But Kennedy’s one presidential meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, suggests that there are legitimate reasons to fear negotiating with one’s adversaries. Although Kennedy was keenly aware of some of the risks of such meetings — his Harvard thesis was titled “Appeasement at Munich” — he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the cold war, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age.
Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda and that the issues at hand could as well be addressed by lower-level diplomats. Kennedy’s own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year: “Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?”

But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.

Kennedy’s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.

Kennedy’s assessment of his own performance was no less severe. Only a few minutes after parting with Khrushchev, Kennedy, a World War II veteran, told James Reston of The New York Times that the summit meeting had been the “roughest thing in my life.” Kennedy went on: “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him.”

A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.” The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants”: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna — of Kennedy as ineffective — was among them.

Troll....

 

[Nate Peele]

Again we could just negotiate with someone who wants our destruction and calls Israel a stinking corpse. By negotiating with a leader like that you are affirming his legitimacy, which in turn makes that leader more significant than when you begun. For example, see Kennedy and Khrushchev....Kennedy left negotiations feeling like Khrushchev handed him his ass. Also, the Khrushchev negotiations without preconditions undoubtedly led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/o...em&ex=1211601600&en=25d43fe08790b361&ei=5087
IN his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy expressed in two eloquent sentences, often invoked by Barack Obama, a policy that turned out to be one of his presidency’s — indeed one of the cold war’s — most consequential: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Kennedy’s special assistant, called those sentences “the distinctive note” of the inaugural.
They have also been a distinctive note in Senator Obama’s campaign, and were made even more prominent last week when President Bush, in a speech to Israel’s Parliament, disparaged a willingness to negotiate with America’s adversaries as appeasement. Senator Obama defended his position by again enlisting Kennedy’s legacy: “If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that’s what he did with Khrushchev.”
But Kennedy’s one presidential meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, suggests that there are legitimate reasons to fear negotiating with one’s adversaries. Although Kennedy was keenly aware of some of the risks of such meetings — his Harvard thesis was titled “Appeasement at Munich” — he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the cold war, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age.
Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda and that the issues at hand could as well be addressed by lower-level diplomats. Kennedy’s own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year: “Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?”

But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.

Kennedy’s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.

Kennedy’s assessment of his own performance was no less severe. Only a few minutes after parting with Khrushchev, Kennedy, a World War II veteran, told James Reston of The New York Times that the summit meeting had been the “roughest thing in my life.” Kennedy went on: “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him.”

A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.” The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants”: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna — of Kennedy as ineffective — was among them.

Troll....

Again you choose to make personal attacks and then rather than address my own valid and cogent points about why we cannot negotiate with Iran, you cut and paste something from the far left New York Times that frankly had a lot of big words in it that I didn't feel like wading through.

 

[jreeves]

Again you choose to make personal attacks and then rather than address my own valid and cogent points about why we cannot negotiate with Iran, you cut and paste something from the far left New York Times that frankly had a lot of big words in it that I didn't feel like wading through.

Troll...If you can't read I can't waste my time with you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Kennedy FUCKED up by meeting with Kruschev and it lead directly to the Missile Crisis in Cuba. Why? Because the Soviet leader was convinced Kennedy would do nothing but accept the presence of the missiles, as it is he got missiles removed from Turkey so did not lose out completely on the deal.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Nicely stated. You've cut right to the fundamental problem in Obamappeasement. The United States is a democracy. In a democracy the people pick the leaders. (Unless the Supreme Courst steps in.) In Iran, foreign policy is controlled by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and their National Security Council which is headed by Ali Larijani who is also the country's top negotiator on nuclear issues.

I guess Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are democracies too?

Look up what the fucking definition of appeasement is and then look up diplomacy means.

Not talking to Iran like Bush has done really made things better.

Sort of like the the little kids in school. Ha, Ha, I won't talk to you. What a fucking bunch of crap.

More bullshit from the right.

 

[cbi0090]

I guess Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are democracies too?

Look up what the fucking definition of appeasement is and then look up diplomacy means.

Not talking to Iran like Bush has done really made things better.

Sort of like the the little kids in school. Ha, Ha, I won't talk to you. What a fucking bunch of crap.

More bullshit from the right.

No they're not but they aren't out trying to start a war either, they are appeased for the moment. And it's not like we're not trying to bring them around to becoming more democratic either. They are, albeit very slowly. If talking to the President of Iran could make a difference, it might make some sense, but he doesn't hold any real power. All we would do is legitimize him by talking with him. Remember he's the one who said that a glowing light had engulfed him during his speech to the U.N. leaving everyone speechless, enthralled, and in awe???!!??? The guy is a loon!!!

 

[jreeves]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KQ2yJqWguCU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KQ2yJqWguCU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
YouTube - Obama confirms he will meet with Ahmadinejad


U.S. Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama underscored his willingness to talk to leaders of countries like Iran that are considered U.S. adversaries but said on Monday that does not necessarily mean an audience with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Obama, the Democratic Party front-runner vying to face Republican Sen. John McCain in the November race for the White House, has said he was willing to meet with leaders of countries such as Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela without preconditions.

McCain has criticized that view, saying that sitting down with someone like Ahmadinejad would give the Iranian president a spotlight and send the wrong signal to U.S. allies such as Israel.
Advertisement

Iran does not recognize Israel's existence and Ahmadinejad has been repeatedly quoted calling for its descruction. Earlier this month, he called the country a "stinking corpse" and said that its destruction was imminent.

Obama, an Illinois senator, said Iranian presidential elections in 2009 would be a factor in the timing of any meetings, as would considerations of who wields the power.

"There's no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know that he was actually in power. He's not the most powerful person in Iran," Obama told reporters while campaigning in New Mexico.

Barack Obama: I wouldn't promise Ahmadinejad a meeting - Haaretz - Israel News


First he says I will meet with him, then states well not necessarily.

More evidence that Obama is clueless.....

Senator Obama&#8217;s speech on Tuesday in St. Paul, when he finally locked up the Democratic presidential nomination, was typical: rhetorically powerful, well-delivered, with some clever and well-constructed lines. But when you examine the substance of what he said, the speech breaks down. Some of his claims are questionable and misleading; others are ill-informed; and still others border on being intellectually dishonest. Obama&#8217;s statement on Iraq are particularly revealing.

According to Obama:

I won&#8217;t stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq.

In fact, Obama doesn&#8217;t have to &#8220;pretend&#8221; there are many good options left in Iraq. There is one obvious good option: to continue policies that are manifestly succeeding and qualify as one of the most impressive military turnabouts in our history. According to yesterday&#8217;s operational update by Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner,

For the third week in a row security incidents in Iraq are at the lowest levels in four years. These numbers reflect fewer attacks on Iraqi civilians, fewer attacks on Iraqi and Coalition Forces, and fewer attacks on the Government&#8217;s infrastructure. These security gains follow the coordinated offensive operations over the past year, and the recent security operations in Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra.

The security progress we&#8217;ve making is now translating into encouraging progress on the political and economic fronts as well. There is no question, then, that Iraq, which remains in many ways a broken and splintered country, has made enormous strides. It is virtually beyond dispute that the &#8220;surge&#8221; strategy endorsed by President Bush (and opposed by Senator Obama) is working, and working better and faster than anyone could have
imagined just a year ago.

In his speech Obama also stated:

We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in - but start leaving we must.

Keep in mind that in his February 2007 speech announcing his bid for the presidency, Obama declared, &#8220;It&#8217;s time to start bringing our troops home. That&#8217;s why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008.&#8221; In May, Obama voted against funding for combat operations. And in September, a mere three months after the final elements of the 30,000-strong surge forces had landed in Iraq, he declared that the moment had arrived to remove all of our combat troops &#8220;immediately.&#8221; &#8220;Not in six months or one year&#8211;now.&#8221;

Obama&#8217;s position, then, is the embodiment of carelessness in &#8220;getting out of Iraq,&#8221; and if he had his way, the progress we have seen would not have come to pass and Iraq would almost certainly be in a death spiral rather than on the (long and difficult) road to recovery.

As for Obama&#8217;s statement that &#8220;start leaving we must&#8221;: perhaps Obama is unaware that when he testified before the Congress two months ago, General Petraeus announced that he was recommending that we withdraw five brigade combat teams (more than a quarter of our total number of combat troops) from Iraq - or that this week, the fourth of five Brigade Combat Teams are returning home, including two Marine battalions and a Marine Expeditionary Unit which have already returned home.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/9931

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Obama's talking with the whackjob would get us nowhere....defiance is Ahmadinejad's stock in trade...Obama would just embarrass himself and the US...

Shunned in Rome, Ahmadinejad Bullies and Blusters
June 4, 2008

Score one for the Italians. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the thug par-excellence president of the ayatollahs&#8217; regime in Iran, has been shunned by the Pope and the Prime Minister of Italy. In a humiliating rebuff which demonstrates Tehran&#8217;s pariah status abroad, both leaders refused to meet him in Rome, where he arrived on June 3, 2008 to attend the UN&#8217;s annual food summit.

Ahmadinejad tried to grab the headlines with another bombastic attack against the United States. In a bid to shift the public relations firestorm over his visit, he told reporters shortly before his departure for Italy that the &#8220;satanic powers&#8221; of the United States will be &#8220;uprooted&#8221; and that Israel is &#8220;about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene.&#8221;

He renewed his diatribe upon his arrival in Rome on Tuesday, saying that "Europeans have suffered the biggest damage from the Zionists and today the weight of this artificial regime, both political and economic, is on Europe's shoulders.&#8221;

One thing is sure: this Qods Force Commander-turned-president thrives on being the center of attention. Controversy is how he, in a depraved manner, infuses vigor into his increasingly lackluster power base. And that is why he is eager to make these high-profile visits to western countries, such as his annul presence at the UN General Assembly.

FOXNews.com - Shunned in Rome, Ahmadinejad Bullies and Blusters - Opinion

 

[Swamp Fox]

Yep, just the guy we need in office. A clueless socialist who doesn't have the common sense to come in out of the rain. That'll be great for America.

I can see it now. Taxes through the roof, no one can drive without government permission, Mexico seizing part of the southwest, Iran with nuclear weapons, Iraq in shambles after our pullout, and there will be Obama

"Vote for Change."


Sorry, not quite the change I'm looking for.

 

[Foxfyre]

Negotiations with terrorists only provide ammunition used to increase the stature of the terrorists. An American President loses stature and puts himself in the position of looking weak and frightened if he goes to the terrorist to request that he cease and desist in terrorist plans/efforts/preparations. He will be made to look as if he is begging for mercy. Bargaining--if you do that, we'll do this--will be used to make us look like cowering wimps in the terrorist world. There is no honor among terrorists and all terrorists have an excellent track record for breaking their word.

Kennedy, Reagan, et al who have effectively dealt with foreign enemies did so not by 'talking' or 'negotiating' but by stating ultimatums. You WILL do this or we WILL do that. This is a far different approach than what Barack Obama has proposed.

Obama has shown himself to be uneducated, immature, and naive in matters of international relations and this is quite likely to result in gross irresponsibility.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Kennedy, Reagan, et al who have effectively dealt with foreign enemies did so not by 'talking' or 'negotiating' but by stating ultimatums. You WILL do this or we WILL do that. This is a far different approach than what Barack Obama has proposed.

Obama has shown himself to be uneducated, immature, and naive in matters of international relations and this is quite likely to result in gross irresponsibility.

Your lack of history shows that you have no grounds to call someone uneducated, immature, or naive in regards to matters of international relations. Kennedy and Reagan, especially, talked and negotiated with our foreign enemies.

 

[bush lover]

Israel's leaders have told our President that we MUST attack Iran now. Our President has included the Iran terrorists in the Axis of Evil. He must attack now before he is forced to leave office by the term limits. However, our next President, Senator McCain, has advocated dealing decisively with Iran. So there is still hope for an attack. Then on to North Korea to finish them off. Both will be cakewalks, just like Iraq. Congress has to pass the next war funding measure, as our President has demanded. However, the Dems, of course, hate supporting our troops but they love supporting our enemies, Hamas and Al-Kayda. Bin Laden is laughing his head off at the Dem traitors.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your lack of history shows that you have no grounds to call someone uneducated, immature, or naive in regards to matters of international relations. Kennedy and Reagan, especially, talked and negotiated with our foreign enemies.

Okay enlighten me. What did Kennedy officially promise any enemy of the USA in return for what? What did Reagan officially promise any enemy of the USA in return for what?

 

[Annie]

Okay enlighten me. What did Kennedy officially promise any enemy of the USA in return for what? What did Reagan officially promise any enemy of the USA in return for what?

Kennedy: Obsolete missiles out of Turkey, to make the Cuban Missiles go away. Quiet though, no 'quid pro quo', which of course it was, with a 6 month delay.

I'm not sure about Reagan.

 

[Foxfyre]

Kennedy: Obsolete missiles out of Turkey, to make the Cuban Missiles go away. Quiet though, no 'quid pro quo', which of course it was, with a 6 month delay.

I'm not sure about Reagan.

Note that I said official negotiations, not clandestine ones that find their way into obscure histories. (The latter are legion.)

Kenndy's response to the Cuban missile crisis was to blockade Cuba and demand that Kruschev cease and desist supplying armaments to Cuba and building the missile system. For seven long days the world held its breath while Kennedy and Kruschev stared each other down. Our guns were trained on Soviet ships prepared to take them out if we were refused boarding and they attempted to advance. It was Kruschev who blinked. And the missile crisis went away. You are right. No suggestion of appeasing or making a deal with the Soviets. No quid pro quo.

Reagan's approach with Gorbachev was no different. No offer of doing this if you will kindly do that. It was unconditionally "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall". And since the Soviets could not compete with the USA in the arms race and it finally broke them, so they did. What did that do for the stature of the USA? Gorbachev, tears in his eyes, attended President Reagan's funeral. There was deep respect and admiration there.

 

[manu1959]

I'm not sure about Reagan.

iran contra .... drugs for arms.....

 

[Gunny]

Nicely stated. You've cut right to the fundamental problem in Obamappeasement. The United States is a democracy. In a democracy the people pick the leaders. In Iran, foreign policy is controlled by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and their National Security Council which is headed by Ali Larijani who is also the country's top negotiator on nuclear issues.

The problem is as John McCain points out, "I mean, the fact is [Ahmadinejad’s] the acknowledged leader of that country and you may disagree, but that’s a uh, that’s your right to do so, but I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they’d know."

As a democracy we have chosen Ahmadinejad as their country's leader. Our strength as McCain has pointed out is in not negotiating with him. We cannot allow Obama to take away one of our fundamental rights as a country--the ability to pick national leaders. We must refust to speak to Ahmadinejad as a show of strength regardless of who may have actual power in Iran.

The United States is a representative republic and the people in fact have no right to choose their leaders insofar as the executive branch is concerned.

The electoral college chooses the President and does not always represent the majority of voters. In a true democracy, the people would choose the leaders by popular vote.

People and nations are entitled to disagree with WHO is chosen leader of another country every bit as much as you are entitled to spin arguments ass-backward to suit your agenda. That in no way is denying ANYONE their right to choose. It is holding them accountable for their choices.

An Islamic fundamentalist state that advocates suicide attacks against noncombatants as a means of forcing their will on others being allowed to posess nuclear weapons is akin to my handing the alcoholic next door the keys to my truck about 9 PM on a Sat night, only on a larger scale.

Anyone that's willing to take the rest of the world if it does not bend to its beliefs does NOT have the right to posess the power to destroy that world, and it is irresponsible to allow them to do so.