BARACK OBAMA, THE NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN OR OUR TIME

Throughout the election Barack Obama regularly brought up the issue of Iran. Depending on which crowd he was speaking to Iran was either a small insignificant country who did not compare to the former Soviet Union and posed no threat. Or a country whose nuclear ambition and funding, training and support of terrorism posed a threat to the entire world. Two polar different views expressed by the same candidate who wanted everything both ways.

The one constant that Obama spoke throughout the campaign when the subject of Iran came up was that if elected he would begin one on one talks with Iran at the Presidential level setting no conditions for the talks as a gesture of sending an ," olive branch," to show a change in policy from the past. In other words arrogantly believing that just because he would be President this rogue and terrorist regime would change several decades of anti-American sentiment and terrorist activity against neighbors and the region as well as drop their nuclear ambition.

Experts from across the spectrum viewed this idea as dangerous and a way of legitimizing a regime that has been isolated from the world community because of past activity and the push to gain a nuclear weapon. The IAEA warned that Iran would have the capability of acquiring a nuclear weapon in three to five years.

So then candidate Obama claimed that his idea of direct talks was supported by past Secretaries of State like Henry Kissinger. Kissinger upon hearing Obama's claim quickly denied that he called for direct talks but rather using diplomacy at a much lower level in the State Department then possibly eventually the Secretary of State but never the President until certain conditions were met. Namely abandoning Iran's nuclear ambition, recognizing Israel and ending their terrorist support in Iraq whose direct action was attacking and killing American troops.

Obama's response was to quote the ultimate appeaser Jimmy Carter and continue his rhetoric about direct talks at the Presidential level even with continued admission by Iran's President of their nuclear program and the overwhelming evidence of Iranian soldiers and weaponry in the field supporting the Iraqi insurgency and killing American troops.

During the campaign this was nothing more than harmless rhetoric that posed no threat, made no policy and had little meaning except the ramblings of a Presidential, "wanna be," which made good fodder for the talking heads. Then Obama was elected and actually became President.

Since November Obama has received daily Presidential briefings from National Security personnel which have shown him actual intelligence about Iran. Reports that are also received by other Nations which have brought each of these countries to the conclusion that top level Presidential talks without conditions are a dangerous precedence and would only give Iran a opportunity to continue its nuclear development and legitimize a rogue regime.

But does this matter to Barack Obama ? No, even as President seeing the intelligence about just how dangerous Iran actually is, Obama still takes the Neville Chamberlain approach and wants to personally sit at the table with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thinking that only he, (Obama), could convince this tyrant that nuclear is bad, Israel is good and because Ahmadinejad has talked with the messiah he will see the light and understand how to be peaceful and abandon his terrorist ways.

Obama has instructed the State Department to compose a letter from him to the Grand Ayatollah which will be the gateway for Obama's talks. This despite the new report from International Institute For Strategic Studies which states that Iran will have a enough enriched uranium to produce a medium yield nuclear weapon, not in five years, not in three years but THIS YEAR. And that Iran is actively seeking a delivery system for that weapon.

Adding to this is the response by Iran and especially Ahmadinejad. Increased threats against Israel, setting conditions for talks that can never be accepted by The United States including an apology when we have NOTHING to apologize for and stating that Obama's move for Presidential talks is a sign of US failure and US weakness.

Even with Iran's response to Obama's appeasement overtures to this rogue regime, he still arrogantly believes that Presidential talks are the answer and that once started Iran will become a willing participant in the world community and sing Kum Bi Yah, getting along with everyone even The United States all because the liberal messiah talked with Iran.

In September of 1938 Neville Chamberlain, then British Prime Minister returned from Munich, Germany waving a peace of paper signed by Adolph Hitler which promised that he would end his aggressive ways and thus save Europe from the Nazi threat. Chamberlain claimed, "peace in our time." Of course certain concession were made including the annexation by Hitler of the Sudetenland which consisted of most of western Czechoslovakia. But in Chamberlains mind this was a small price to pay for peace.

Of course history shows this, "peace," was nothing more than appeasement which bought Hitler the time he needed to finish his plans for conquest which soon resulted in Germany quickly occupying Poland and France the final catalyst to World War II. Many have referred to Achmadinejad as the modern day equivalent of Hitler and those comparisons are justified.

Like Hitler, Achmadinejad has a hatred of Jews and uses them as an excuse for every world problem. Iran like Nazi Germany have ambitions for expansion threatening neighbors with conquest. Hitler claimed it for the repatriation of pre - WWI Germany while Achmadinejad claims it as a means of creating a total Islamic Middle East with Iran in control.

Hitler used the weakness of appeasement by Chamberlain as his curtain to allow his military build up and eventual conquest of Europe. Achmadinejad will in like manner use Obama's appeasement for a similar purpose only this time the conquered territory will be the Middle East, the nuclear destruction of Israel and the establishment of the type of radical Islamic region that will give groups like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and others a home and theatre of operations to begin the world domination wished for by Achmadinejad and radical Islam.

Neville Chamberlain was an absolute fool who thought appeasement and concession could bring peace and the entire world paid a terrible price for his nieve and dangerous approach to Hitler. President Ronald Reagan had a policy of, "peace through strength." This policy ended the Cold War, brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of communist aggression and conquest without a shot fired.

Radical Islam only understands strength. They see any type of appeasement as weakness and as such use that appeasement as a means of furthering their domination agenda and murderous activities. Obama obviously does not see this nor does his policy reflect this. So the obvious question to ask, " is Barack Obama the Neville Chamberlain of our time ?"

Ken Taylor