Return to Website

The Ivy Division Forum

THIS website is a private SUPPORT SITE for 4th ID veterans, active duty soldiers, family members, friends and everyone who supports our troops no matter how you feel about our leaders. Troublemakers, gossips. trolls, liars, etc are NOT welcome here. Posts that defame,, humiliate and/or intimidate other posters or the webmaster will be deleted without notice or comment. Please read the rules on the Main Page, thank you!
This forum has a long history, by interent standards anyway-unfortunately it has been abandoned for far too long due to real life circumstances knocking the heck out of what had been my very real desire to keep this board alive and well forever so that all of us could meet here and communicate with each other everyday.

I'm not sure that a forum like this is even needed nowadays since the advent of facebook, etc...but I hope that this once thriving BB does bring some of us back together again and that maybe some new folks will join us as well!   
Webmaster: Bob Poff, C-1-8, 1968-1969
Thank You for Visiting The Ivy!
Open 24 Hours a Day, 365 Days a Year
Friends of The Ivy Division
jinks' messageboard
Jim Bury's Ivy Dragoons website
Redleg's 4ID Forum

The IVY Division is back, the love of my life
Julie and I are married and we welcome
you Back to the IVY Division Forum!!!

The Ivy Division Forum
Start a New Topic 
Having talks with Iran not an act of appeasement

posted in todays opinion section of my local paper the Staten Island Advance and re-typed word for word.
Seems like Obama has a point don't you agree?
Should the United States have discussions with Iran ? If so, is this "appeasement" ? According to Webster's New World College Dictioonary, 4th Edition. Its definition of "appeasement" is as follows:

"The policy of giving in to the demands of a hostile or aggressive power in an attempt to keep peace"

Having a discussion with Iran is, according to Webster's, not appeasement. The United States has, during the past 200-plus years, had relations with nations that were autocratic and barbaric. Some examples:

1- Our countryhad diplomatic relations for over 100 years with Czarist Russia, and history has shown that the czars were extremem autocrats.

2- The United States had diplomatic relations with Hitler's Nazi Germany. There's no need to comment about the over 12 million deaths caused by the Nazis.

3- The United States had relations with the USSR [ 1933-1991] an autocratic country responsible for the deaths of over 50 million people.

4- Our country has had relations with Communist china under mao, was responsible for the deaths of nearly 100 million people.

Thomas Jefferson believed the United States should have diplomatic relations with every nation--no matter what type of government controlled a nation. Jefferson was right because ignoring a nation is fruitless. Our country has had diplomatic relations with the czars of Russia, Hitler, Stalin, and mao, who murdered millions. If we dealt with these murderers, then we can talk to the Iranians.

Finally, if the Iranians use nuclear weapons on Israel, the United States can rspond in a manner that would make the Iranians take notice.

john F. Kennedy summed it up this way: 'We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate" Any questions ?

Louis A. Carrubba
Staten Island.

Re: Having talks with Iran not an act of appeasement

You are right Kennedy wasn't around to negotiate to get us out of the war he started.

We were sold out then and we will be sold out again.

good post.

But i must add how do you appease the religon who caused more death in your home state since Pearl Harbor?