Bush denounces appeasement...Obama pissed!

[Wndrtch]

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President said to the country's legislative body, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."


Obama's wining:

In a statement, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shot across the bow: "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obama-takes-iss.html

Why so defensive, Obama? Truth hurt?

[PostmodernProphet]

Instead of tough talk and no action

???...so now he's saying the Afghan and Iraq wars are tough talk and no action?

[suedanim]

George Bush has been a total fuckup his whole damn life. WTF! He is the most dangerous man alive at the moment, utterly irresponsible, without ANY moral compass whatsoever. Why the hell is he campaigning against Obama at this point? imo... this sorry excuse for a human being, manure scraped off the bottom of a pig's hoof, has the NERVE to denounce ANYONE after HE has been the DIRECT cause of many tens of thousands ofdeaths of innocent human beings... INCLUDING... nearly 10,000 AMERCANS??? Murderer is too good a word to describe him and his lowlife band of thugs...

He can claim NO PROGESS in the war on terror. In eight years he has managed to make the world a much less safe place...singlehandedly. NOW.... he seeks to protect his goddamn base... the wealthy, the war fuckn machine... THAT is why he must come out against Obama.

This is UNPRECEDENTED in politics. No President does this. But, then this guy is a rogue criminal anyway. And btw, those who defend him... well.. you already know...............

:grrrr:

.

[potter]

I'm not sure I understand the concept of not talking to your enemies, and just killing them instead. Maybe they attacked you instead of talking because they didn't want to appease the enemy either.

Maybe it would turn out to be a big mis-understanding?

Those who call talking to your eneimies "appeasement" I have a question.

How do you ever find out what the problem is if all you're willing to do is hurl bombs?

[Phyxius]

I'm not sure I understand the concept of not talking to your enemies, and just killing them instead. Maybe they attacked you instead of talking because they didn't want to appease the enemy either.

Maybe it would turn out to be a big mis-understanding?

Those who call talking to your eneimies "appeasement" I have a question.

How do you ever find out what the problem is if all you're willing to do is hurl bombs?


The same way that you solve an energy crisis by driving SUV's. Same stupidity, different symptom... :grrrr:

[tecoyah]

Why so defensive, Obama? Truth hurt?

I don't know...maybe because he was attacked by the President of the United States?

I wonder...if he did not respond....would you then call him a wimp?


Just as a matter of perspective, perhaps you might step back and take a close look at the results of our "Shock and Awe" policy....

*Hint*, it didn't work quite the way we hoped.

[lily]

Bush's failed policy has got him running scared......Obama is going to come in and do what Bush couldn't do.........hell, no wonder he's talking smack.

[preservanation]

What exactly is Obama pissed about?
The theory of appeasement was around long before he came upon the scene.
What does he think, that he invented it, thus Bush had to be talking about Him???
What an ego!

[Buck Laser]

Can someone explain to me the difference between Bush's negotiation with Col. Qaddafi of Libya and Obama's willingness to negotiate? Hmmmm?

[lily]

Well, Buck........as I said in the other thread, maybe he's talking about Gates......either that or he doesn't know what's going on under his own nose. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/14/ST2008051404020.html):lmao:


Gates: U.S. Should Engage Iran With Incentives, Pressure

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 15, 2008; Page A04

The United States should construct a combination of incentives and pressure
to engage Iran, and may have missed earlier opportunities to begin a useful
dialogue with Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday.


"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit
down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion,
then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely
the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."

[NortheastCynic]

Appeasement:
to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

Communication:
to give or interchange thoughts, feelings, information, or the like, by writing, speaking, etc.

Communicating is not appeasing. Giving into 'belligerent demands' is appeasing, talking is not appeasing.

This is a common strawman. A strawman that the President of the United States of America utilized while giving a speech before the Israeli parliament. Annnnd he included a Hitler reference.
:clapper: Nicely done Mr. President, I salute you.:thumbsup:

-NC

[Trish]

Appeasement:


Communication:


Communicating is not appeasing. Giving into 'belligerent demands' is appeasing, talking is not appeasing.

This is a common strawman. A strawman that the President of the United States of America utilized while giving a speech before the Israeli parliament. Annnnd he included a Hitler reference.
:clapper: Nicely done Mr. President, I salute you.:thumbsup:

-NC

The President wasn't comparing anyone to Hitler though. He was comparing talking with Syria, Iran, Hezbelloh, Hamas etc. to the appeasement of Hitler. That's very much a different kettle of fish of comparing someone to Hitler!

[AlanC]

Actually, I figured he was talking about Carter since hes the only so far that has tried to talk to terrorists. :thumbsup:

[Drocket]

Actually, I figured he was talking about Carter since hes the only so far that has tried to talk to terrorists. :thumbsup:

Nah, it was definitely an attack on Obama, as Obama has said that his policy is going to involve sitting down and talking to Iran and other countries instead of simply threatening them. 'cause chest-thumping has work SO well for Bush...

[Trish]

I think this is what is bringing about the "appeasment" comparison.

"Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." It's that "without preconditions" that is worrisome. Does that mean we're going to cave on the Iran nuclear issue in order to gain some concessions elsewhere? If we do - that's appeasement. I understand the carrot and stick approach, but from what follows the quoted statement, there doesn't appear to be anything but the carrot end of things presented. I'm not quite sure what Senator Obama thinks should be done if the Iran gobbles all the carrots and then bites the hand. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iran

[preservanation]

By doing this the POTUS would legitimize tyrants and consolidate their power in the region and domestically.
This was Carter's philosophy, and see what that got us.
Again, even though Obama supports this Chamberlain type diplomacy he sure didn't invent it.
What hubris!

[BoogyMan]

Well, Buck........as I said in the other thread, maybe he's talking about Gates......either that or he doesn't know what's going on under his own nose. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/14/ST2008051404020.html):lmao:

I thought you guys were claiming that Iran was not a terrorist nation? If that is the case, this cannot be the US sitting down with terrorists. You cannot have it both ways. LOL

[NortheastCynic]

Trish, I never claimed that he compared anyone to Hitler, I said he referenced Hitler, which he did. Speaking to Iran without preconditions is NOT appeasement because it does not give in to any 'belligerent demands'.

-NC

[Buck Laser]

Actually, I figured he was talking about Carter since hes the only so far that has tried to talk to terrorists. :thumbsup:
You mean Bush didn't talk with Qaddafi of Libya? Tell me how that's different.

[Trish]

Trish, I never claimed that he compared anyone to Hitler, I said he referenced Hitler, which he did. Speaking to Iran without preconditions is NOT appeasement because it does not give in to any 'belligerent demands'.

-NC


But that speaks to the whole issue doesn't it? Exactly WHAT would be on the table during those talks? Since they haven't happened yet, no one knows what would be on the table and what wouldn't. Exactly what carrots are going to be dangled in front of Iran to entice that country to fall into line with international demands? Does anyone seriously think that something is not going to be traded to entice Iran into the international compliance? Isn't that the whole point of negotiation? Party A offers this concession if Party B agrees to make that concession. Depending on what those concessions are will determine whether or not there is appeasement, right?

[NortheastCynic]

So we don't know what will be said at the table...so we shouldn't talk?

If they ask for something we don't want to give them, we say NO. That's the worst case scenario. Worst case scenario if we don't talk? War due to lack of information/communication.

I'm not an IA expert, I don't know WHAT we'll say to Iran, but I know that no harm can come from talking, harm can come from not talking.

If we don't talk, all we can do is sit and wait for Iran to do something unspeakable which would result in war. There is no excuse for that kind of inaction.

And no, communication does not mean making concessions. Establishing diplomatic relations does not mean giving someone anything, it simply means the channels of communication are open.

-NC

[Trish]

So we don't know what will be said at the table...so we shouldn't talk?

If they ask for something we don't want to give them, we say NO. That's the worst case scenario. Worst case scenario if we don't talk? War due to lack of information/communication.

I'm not an IA expert, I don't know WHAT we'll say to Iran, but I know that no harm can come from talking, harm can come from not talking.

If we don't talk, all we can do is sit and wait for Iran to do something unspeakable which would result in war. There is no excuse for that kind of inaction.

And no, communication does not mean making concessions. Establishing diplomatic relations does not mean giving someone anything, it simply means the channels of communication are open.

-NC

True - communicating does not mean concession. But what is the good of just talking to be talking? I mean if you and I have a problem and we meet to talk, we can just shoot the breeze and discuss the weather or whatever, but that does nothing to resolve the problem between us. In order to address the problem, we have to talk about the problem. Same thing here...simply talking to Iran isn't going to be much good in resolving any issues with Iran. There's going to have to be some sort of quid pro quo in place or the communicating is going to be pointless in resolving anything.

Maybe I'm over reaching here, but to me it seems that there is going to have to be preconditions in place to keep that quid pro quo from becoming appeasement. It's not that I think appeasement would be an automatic result of any negotiations, just that I think there has to be some real clear and concrete boundaries in place before any such talks or negotiations take place.

[potter]

Yea...what good is talking when you can more easily just kill them. That way you don't have to think about it.

I wish more Americans would use this philosophy at home and reduce the population. Cashier shorts you? Kill her. Neighbors trash blows in your yard? Kill him...and his family for good measure. Get cut off on the highway? Kill them. So many opportunities to exhibit intolerance and just pure hated isn't there?

So typically American. Punish first, ask question later...if they're still alive....

[suedanim]

True - communicating does not mean concession. But what is the good of just talking to be talking? I mean if you and I have a problem and we meet to talk, we can just shoot the breeze and discuss the weather or whatever, but that does nothing to resolve the problem between us. In order to address the problem, we have to talk about the problem. Same thing here...simply talking to Iran isn't going to be much good in resolving any issues with Iran. There's going to have to be some sort of quid pro quo in place or the communicating is going to be pointless in resolving anything.

Maybe I'm over reaching here, but to me it seems that there is going to have to be preconditions in place to keep that quid pro quo from becoming appeasement. It's not that I think appeasement would be an automatic result of any negotiations, just that I think there has to be some real clear and concrete boundaries in place before any such talks or negotiations take place.

:madlaugh: Talking to be talking?


Oh wow.. How shallow and seriously uninformed do you have to be to imagine the POTUS speaking to any nation, in and of itself is not a condition, a boundary of strength. Get the hell outta town! We are THE superpower. STRENGTH is our first name for crying out loud. When our CIC speaks.. other countries sit straight and say yessir or maam... quick damn in a hurry. How fuckn clueless would Iran be to imagine.. that the wrong answer to the CIC, could result in Iran being made a wasteland? They aren't. Obama knows this.

The truth is... most of you sycophants don't even know what the word ...appeasement means... AND I doubt seriously your glorious leaders for THE CAUSE (whatever the hell that is) do either.

good grief...

Here... maybe this will explain it to you.

d1wSZBTAXRs

[Trish]

:madlaugh: Talking to be talking?


Oh wow.. How shallow and seriously uninformed do you have to be to imagine the POTUS speaking to any nation, in and of itself is not a condition, a boundary of strength. Get the hell outta town! We are THE superpower. STRENGTH is our first name for crying out loud. When our CIC speaks.. other countries sit straight and say yessir or maam... quick damn in a hurry. How fuckn clueless would Iran be to imagine.. that the wrong answer to the CIC, could result in Iran being made a wasteland? They aren't. Obama knows this.

The truth is... most of you sycophants don't even know what the word ...appeasement means... AND I doubt seriously your glorious leaders for THE CAUSE (whatever the hell that is) do either.

good grief...

Here... maybe this will explain it to you.

d1wSZBTAXRs

What is the point of this post? NEC and I are having a perfectly civil discussion without any hateful sidesniping, barbed comments and insults and you feel the need to interject comments meant to deflect rather than further the discussion one way or another? Jeez.

[NortheastCynic]

Indeed, suedanim, chill.

Trish, there are parts of suedanim's post which are pertinent, thought. When the President of the United States talks, countries listen. By opening up communication channels to Iran we establish influence with them, and influence is key. Influence leads to the normalization of trade which leads to the end of hostilities. I'm not saying we'll be best friends with Iran simply by talking, but communication has historically been and will always be a great way to avoid conflict, which we should try to do.

-NC

[suedanim]

:thumbsup::clapper::worship::thumbsup:

Biden Rips Bush (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/15/1027733.aspx)

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee absolutely tore into President George W. Bush for his comments from Israel (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/15/1025062.aspx), which appeared to take a swipe at Obama.

Bush said this morning, “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement."

An exasperated Biden skewered Bush over that in a conference call with reporters, calling the comments “pure politics,” “blatant,” “beneath the presidency,” “truly disgraceful,” “outrageous,” “disturbing,” “ridiculous hypocrisy” and “long-distance Swiftboating.” He even said Bush “oughta get a life.”

“For this president to go on the attack against Barack Obama,” Biden said. “It cannot go unanswered.”

Coupling Bush’s comments with McCain’s assertion that it’s clear who Hamas wants to be president, Biden said he sees “an ugly pattern emerging.”
He said the president should “get in touch with his administration.”
“I assume he’s going to fire his Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense,” Biden said. “They want engagement of Iran.”

He went on. “This is the kind of political rhetoric which continues to masquerade as policy,” Biden said. “All they have is masquerades.”
And… “This is why we’re in the situation we’re in,” he said, as he criticized Bush for “demonizing” Democrats.

Bush “should try to figure out how to dig us out of the God awful hole this president has gotten us into.” He added that when he travels abroad, “I don’t criticize the president” --no matter how much they might disagree on various facets of foreign policy. In fact, he said he has defended the president when abroad.

Biden also sharply criticized Bush’s -- and John McCain’s, for that matter -- Mideast policy, or in McCain’s case lack thereof, Biden said. He called Bush’s policy an “abject failure,” “truly delusional” and “backwards.”

“The president’s saber rattling has been the most self-defeating policy imaginable … spurs instability in the Middle East … increase in price of oil … plays into the hands of those Iranian leaders he rails against.

“Since when, since when has talking removed no from the American vocabulary.

More: “This is the same president, who talks about appeasement, the same one who asks me to get on a plane and talk to Qaddafi,” Biden said. “The same president who made a deal with Qaddafi. He writes letters, ‘Dear Mr. Chairman’ to Kim Jong Il.

“He oughta get a life here … Under George W. Bush’s watch, Iran, not freedom has been on the march … They’re a lot closer to the bomb… He calls Maliki our guy … Whose policy produced that? Whose watch was that? … Iran’s proxy Hezbollah is on the ascendancy. Don’t take my word for it, look at NIE … Afghanistan, Pakistan, Al Qaeda is stronger now.

“We should take zero backseat to this pres, talking about appeasement. … Under him, Israel is less safe.”

Biden also admitted to initially calling Bush’s comments “bull----.”
“I reacted viscerally,” he said. “But the essence of what I said was accurate. I should have said malarkey.”

[Trish]

Yea...what good is talking when you can more easily just kill them. That way you don't have to think about it.

I wish more Americans would use this philosophy at home and reduce the population. Cashier shorts you? Kill her. Neighbors trash blows in your yard? Kill him...and his family for good measure. Get cut off on the highway? Kill them. So many opportunities to exhibit intolerance and just pure hated isn't there?

So typically American. Punish first, ask question later...if they're still alive....

Oh yeah - let's just interject an entirely irrelevant, not to mention baseless, tangent into the discussion just for the hell of it.

Heck, if we can't even have a civil and productive discussion of different ideas and viewpoints on this forum without utter nonsense being thrown into the mix, what in the hell makes anyone think there can be civil and productive discussions with the leaders of countries? Jeez.

[potter]

Oh yeah - let's just interject an entirely irrelevant, not to mention baseless, tangent into the discussion just for the hell of it.

Heck, if we can't even have a civil and productive discussion of different ideas and viewpoints on this forum without utter nonsense being thrown into the mix, what in the hell makes anyone think there can be civil and productive discussions with the leaders of countries? Jeez.


Point taken Trish...this is just frustration

I've about had it with those that would bomb and kill innocent people, would rather ignore the causes of terrorism and kill everyone, rather than talk only because they don't have the capacity for intelligent compromise.

[suedanim]

What is the point of this post? NEC and I are having a perfectly civil discussion without any hateful sidesniping, barbed comments and insults and you feel the need to interject comments meant to deflect rather than further the discussion one way or another? Jeez.

I am a member of this board and will offer my pov as I see fit unless a mod tells me otherwise. I have already posted to this thread on the first page and will continue to post my pov. Should I receive an admonishment from a mod privately, which, btw, is not you, I will continue to post my povs.

We are THE one and only superpower. We lose nothing by engaging in conversation with any entity of the face of this earth. In fact.... John McCain advocated it and both current secretaries of defense and state have advocated it and recently.

What is wrong with this picture? George Bush... and all the blind followers (that would be you) who take his and every conservative talking point and running with it as if it was handed down by God.

Stop, think, look at the big picture AND the opinions and wisdom of many experts, domestic and foreign.

[NortheastCynic]

I'm sorry, Trish, I didn't realize you were a 'blind follower' of George Bush. :rolleyes:

No one is admonishing you, Suedanim, we're asking you, nicely, not to ruin a civil conversation.

-NC

[Wndrtch]

George Bush has been a total fuckup his whole damn life. WTF! He is the most dangerous man alive at the moment, utterly irresponsible, without ANY moral compass whatsoever. Why the hell is he campaigning against Obama at this point? imo... this sorry excuse for a human being, manure scraped off the bottom of a pig's hoof, has the NERVE to denounce ANYONE after HE has been the DIRECT cause of many tens of thousands ofdeaths of innocent human beings... INCLUDING... nearly 10,000 AMERCANS??? Murderer is too good a word to describe him and his lowlife band of thugs...

He can claim NO PROGESS in the war on terror. In eight years he has managed to make the world a much less safe place...singlehandedly. NOW.... he seeks to protect his goddamn base... the wealthy, the war fuckn machine... THAT is why he must come out against Obama.

This is UNPRECEDENTED in politics. No President does this. But, then this guy is a rogue criminal anyway. And btw, those who defend him... well.. you already know...............

:grrrr:

.

Funny, I don't seem to see where Bush referred to Obama at all. But I guess if you're an elitist, you would assume those comments to be directed at you, especially if you are an appeaser at heart.

Frankly, I think Bush was actually referring to Jimmy Carter's visit with Hamas.

[Wndrtch]

I'm not sure I understand the concept of not talking to your enemies, and just killing them instead. Maybe they attacked you instead of talking because they didn't want to appease the enemy either.

Maybe it would turn out to be a big mis-understanding?

Those who call talking to your eneimies "appeasement" I have a question.

How do you ever find out what the problem is if all you're willing to do is hurl bombs?

What are you talking about? We know exactly what they want. They tell us after every bombing.

Get out of the ME entirely (all business too), and abandon Israel, or we'll keep killing Western civilians.

We have a word for that. It's called "Extortion". It's only Left-wing moral relativity that sees it any different.

[NortheastCynic]

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," There is one Presidential candidate who believes we should sit down with Iran and negotiate without pre-conditions. But, let's say he was talking about Jimmy Carter.

A current President of the United States launched an attack, referencing Hitler/Nazism, on a former President of the United States, while in the Israeli parliament.

Either way, the act was classless.

-NC

[Wndrtch]

I don't know...maybe because he was attacked by the President of the United States?

I wonder...if he did not respond....would you then call him a wimp?


Just as a matter of perspective, perhaps you might step back and take a close look at the results of our "Shock and Awe" policy....

*Hint*, it didn't work quite the way we hoped.

Bush never mentioned Obama, yet Obama assumed he was talking about him.

Why?

[Wndrtch]

But that speaks to the whole issue doesn't it? Exactly WHAT would be on the table during those talks? Since they haven't happened yet, no one knows what would be on the table and what wouldn't. Exactly what carrots are going to be dangled in front of Iran to entice that country to fall into line with international demands? Does anyone seriously think that something is not going to be traded to entice Iran into the international compliance? Isn't that the whole point of negotiation? Party A offers this concession if Party B agrees to make that concession. Depending on what those concessions are will determine whether or not there is appeasement, right?

That only works if both sides have honorable intensions, or at least selfish intensions. But if one side has ideological intensions, then your only choice is to capitulate to their demands, which in this case means abandoning Israel and pulling ALL Western interest out of the ME and let the Caliphate take over the entire region.

How many assurances did Chamberian recieve from Hitler during his "talks"?

What did it amount too?

http://thesportshernia.typepad.com/blog/images/2007/06/27/kincks_crap_4.gif

[Drocket]

Bush never mentioned Obama, yet Obama assumed he was talking about him.

Why?

Because he's not an idiot? That's unlike some people, who continuously post mindless drivel on message boards, little more than RNC talking points except less coherent.

Note that this isn't a personal attack, as I mentioned no names... :P

[NortheastCynic]

The only choice is to capitulate? No, not at all. Chamberlain wasn't an appeaser because he 'talked' with Hitler. He was an appeaser because he gave him Czechoslovakia for God's sake. He let the man take a country. When you talk with someone, and they demand something belligerently you more than one choice [capitulation], you can say, "No".

-NC

[Buck Laser]

You mean Bush didn't talk with Qaddafi of Libya? Tell me how that's different.

bump

[Drocket]

Hey, it looks like I was wrong: it turns out that MCCAIN is the 'some people', for his 2006 opinion that we should have talks with Hamas:

icooZ4PTM60

RUBIN: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCAIN: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

[Wndrtch]

The only choice is to capitulate? No, not at all. Chamberlain wasn't an appeaser because he 'talked' with Hitler. He was an appeaser because he gave him Czechoslovakia for God's sake. He let the man take a country. When you talk with someone, and they demand something belligerently you more than one choice [capitulation], you can say, "No".

-NC

Ok, so "they" say they want us unilaterally out of the ME (business and all), and to not assist/support Israel again (Hmm, I wonder why), or they will continue killing Westerners.

NO!

Now what?

Well?

[NortheastCynic]

Ok, so "they" say they want us unilaterally out of the ME (business and all), and to not assist/support Israel again (Hmm, I wonder why), or they will continue killing Westerners.

NO!

Now what? And who says they get to initiate anything? We tell them what we expect them to do. Something small, if they don't do it, nothing has been lost and nothing gained. If they do do something, well, now we're communicating.

Again this is the situation:

We don't communicate with them: We're forced to wait for them to act, then we have to react. This makes our action dependent on their action.

We communicate with them: We set the tone, make them react to us, we are in the position of power. Nothing can be lost by doing this.

-NC

[NortheastCynic]

You mean Bush didn't talk with Qaddafi of Libya? Tell me how that's different.Bump.

-NC

[Trish]

Indeed, suedanim, chill.

Trish, there are parts of suedanim's post which are pertinent, thought. When the President of the United States talks, countries listen. By opening up communication channels to Iran we establish influence with them, and influence is key. Influence leads to the normalization of trade which leads to the end of hostilities. I'm not saying we'll be best friends with Iran simply by talking, but communication has historically been and will always be a great way to avoid conflict, which we should try to do.

-NC

That may indeed be true, NC. But when anything is presented in such a hostile and offputting manner, people tend to just dismiss the entire content out of hand!

All I'm saying is that it would be foolish for ANYONE to think they are going to just "talk" Iran, Syria et al into changing their ways. The President of the United States is indeed a powerful person, but not omnipotent. And just because the President speaks doesn't mean people are going to listen to what is being said, much less agree. The proof of that statement can be seen in this thread!



Obama's website outlines any number of carrots that he would consider using to entice Iran to change its ways - those are concessions. If there is going to be ANY change in the status quo there are going to be concessions made. What is at stake is the scope of those concessions and who makes them for what return. Also we have to consider what's going to be done if one party decides to be less than honest with their side of the give and take!

[Buck Laser]

Bump.

-NC
Okay then, if no one wants to address the appeasement of Qaddafi, then how about the appeasement of N. Korea? Or aren't your sources telling you what to say? It's really funny how if someone departs from the script the wingers are speechless, isn't it?

[Trish]

I'm sorry, Trish, I didn't realize you were a 'blind follower' of George Bush. :rolleyes:

No one is admonishing you, Suedanim, we're asking you, nicely, not to ruin a civil conversation.

-NC

Yeah, I know. It's a burden I'm charged with bearing whether I want to or not! To borrow a line from C3PO - some of us seem to be made to suffer - It's our lot in life! (And yes, that was a joke!)

[Easy90]

I'm not sure I understand the concept of not talking to your enemies, and just killing them instead. Maybe they attacked you instead of talking because they didn't want to appease the enemy either.

Maybe it would turn out to be a big mis-understanding?

Those who call talking to your eneimies "appeasement" I have a question.

How do you ever find out what the problem is if all you're willing to do is hurl bombs?

We could have tried to open a dialog with Japan after they attacked us at Pearl Harbor I guess...and tried to be more understanding of their hostility...but I think killing as many as possible and grinding them into submission was a far better and more effective tactic. Don't you? No, I suppose you don't.

[Trish]

Point taken Trish...this is just frustration

I've about had it with those that would bomb and kill innocent people, would rather ignore the causes of terrorism and kill everyone, rather than talk only because they don't have the capacity for intelligent compromise.

Thank you for that, potter!

I understand your frustration believe me! Sometimes it can indeed feel as if one is the only person speaking in one language while everyone else is speaking another. It is indeed a teeth grinding experience!

[Trish]

There is one Presidential candidate who believes we should sit down with Iran and negotiate without pre-conditions. But, let's say he was talking about Jimmy Carter.

A current President of the United States launched an attack, referencing Hitler/Nazism, on a former President of the United States, while in the Israeli parliament.

Either way, the act was classless.

-NC

Well that's certainly a point that can be made. I don't think the President's comments were exactly well-timed or well-placed. Obviously he has views here that are controversial. I still don't know that I consider the comments an "attack" but I will concede that they weren't exactly non-political in nature.

I wonder what would have happened had Senator Obama not responded defensively as he did? Somehow I think that the whole broohaha could have been instantly deflated with a simple agreement that "appeasement" would never be an acceptable solution. What do you think? Do you think that handled differently, the Democrats could have been left in a position of being solidly in possession of the moral high ground here and President Bush would have been left in sole possession of egg-on-the-face political doldrums?

[NortheastCynic]

I think Obama took the bait. I think he should have said that appeasement is never a solution, and then carefully and articulately laid out his foreign policy solutions in a way to contrast it with appeasement. He didn't handle it well.

That may indeed be true, NC. But when anything is presented in such a hostile and offputting manner, people tend to just dismiss the entire content out of hand!I agree completely, Trish. I asking Suedamin to relax but also highlighting some of the important parts of her post without the overly aggressive hostility.

-NC

[Trish]

Okay then, if no one wants to address the appeasement of Qaddafi, then how about the appeasement of N. Korea? Or aren't your sources telling you what to say? It's really funny how if someone departs from the script the wingers are speechless, isn't it?

I think those examples are perfect illustrators of quid pro quo, Buck. They want certain things from us and we want certain things from them. And that's precisely the point I was making concerning "talking" with Iran, Syria, etc. WHAT are going to be the negotiating points of these talks? What is going to have to be given up to realize a productive response?

[Phyxius]

Because he's not an idiot? That's unlike some people, who continuously post mindless drivel on message boards, little more than RNC talking points except less coherent.

Note that this isn't a personal attack, as I mentioned no names... :P

+1 :clapper:

[Wndrtch]

And who says they get to initiate anything? We tell them what we expect them to do. Something small, if they don't do it, nothing has been lost and nothing gained. If they do do something, well, now we're communicating.

Assuming Iran for a moment...

Didn't we already tell Iran to stop their development of nuclear technology?
Didn't we already ask them to not interfere with rebuilding Iraq?

Have they?

As far as sitting down with terrorist groups, who do we sit down with? There's like 100-200 groups out there.

Again this is the situation:

We don't communicate with them: We're forced to wait for them to act, then we have to react. This makes our action dependent on their action.

Our action is already dependant on their actions. "They" killed 3,000 civilians.

We communicate with them: We set the tone, make them react to us, we are in the position of power.

That only holds true if both sides are honest in wanting to deal with each other and resolve differences. Both sides have to be willing to compromise.

How do we compromise with "push Israel into the Ocean", or "wipe them from the map"? Only partially push them into the Oceans?

Nothing can be lost by doing this.

-NC[/QUOTE]

Except time.

Time to develop nukes...

Time to plot terror attacks abroad...

Time to give the Cut & Run Congress to hand victory to terrorists...

[Wndrtch]

I think Obama took the bait. I think he should have said that appeasement is never a solution, and then carefully and articulately laid out his foreign policy solutions in a way to contrast it with appeasement. He didn't handle it well.

That would assume he actually has one to discuss.

[Wndrtch]

Well that's certainly a point that can be made. I don't think the President's comments were exactly well-timed or well-placed. Obviously he has views here that are controversial. I still don't know that I consider the comments an "attack" but I will concede that they weren't exactly non-political in nature.

What's wrong with pointing out that appeasement has never worked? That's history.

The fact that Obama got his panties in a twist, is indicative of someone who knows he's exposed on some level, as Bush never named him at all. Bush was most likely refereing to Jimmy Carter's visit with Hamas, but Obama took offense.

By the way, has Jimmy Carter made any comments on this?


I wonder what would have happened had Senator Obama not responded defensively as he did? Somehow I think that the whole broohaha could have been instantly deflated with a simple agreement that "appeasement" would never be an acceptable solution. What do you think? Do you think that handled differently, the Democrats could have been left in a position of being solidly in possession of the moral high ground here and President Bush would have been left in sole possession of egg-on-the-face political doldrums?

I agree that Obama missplayed this, but what do you expect from a novice?

The terrorist are going to have fun with him, if he gets in there!

[NortheastCynic]

Assuming Iran for a moment...

Didn't we already tell Iran to stop their development of nuclear technology?
Didn't we already ask them to not interfere with rebuilding Iraq?
We've made threats and rattled sabers through television, that is not diplomacy.

As far as sitting down with terrorist groups, who do we sit down with? There's like 100-200 groups out there.
I've never said we should negotiate with terrorist groups...ever.

Our action is already dependant on their actions. "They" killed 3,000 civilians. Iran did not kill 3,000 of our civilians, Al Qaeda did...No one is saying we should negotiate with Al Qaeda or terrorist groups, especially not me.

That only holds true if both sides are honest in wanting to deal with each other and resolve differences. Both sides have to be willing to compromise.

How do we compromise with "push Israel into the Ocean", or "wipe them from the map"? Only partially push them into the Oceans?Set guidelines. Have them understand before we speak with them that we will not abandon Israel nor will we undermine Israel.

Except time.

Time to develop nukes...

Time to plot terror attacks abroad...

Time to give the Cut & Run Congress to hand victory to terrorists...Explain to me how what we are doing now is actively stopping Iran from developing nukes and plotting terror abroad? What do you suggest, an invasion of Iran?

Obama does, in fact have foreign policy proposals, look them up.

-NC

[Buck Laser]

I think those examples are perfect illustrators of quid pro quo, Buck. They want certain things from us and we want certain things from them. And that's precisely the point I was making concerning "talking" with Iran, Syria, etc. WHAT are going to be the negotiating points of these talks? What is going to have to be given up to realize a productive response?
Are you actually saying that because the Bush guys haven't negotiated with Iran and Syria that there's nothing to negotiate? That sounds a whole lot more like a partisan talking point than a rational statement. My beef with this administration is its constant tendency to make its moves for partisan US political effect rather than real improvement in foreign relations, and I'm truly sick and tired of it. Does Bush think we're all a bunch of idiots, or is that the best he can do? Either way, the outlook is exceedingly bleak if he or someone like him takes office in January. I fear for my country's future if we get another Bush.

[PostmodernProphet]

You mean Bush didn't talk with Qaddafi of Libya? Tell me how that's different.

you mean the guy who abandoned his antagonistic attitude decades ago because of the economic sanctions put in place on his country and the cruise missiles that were dropped on his summer palace killing his child?.......I would think he would be the poster child for the success you can achieve by NOT negotiating.....

[Phyxius]

What exactly is Obama pissed about?
The theory of appeasement was around long before he came upon the scene.
What does he think, that he invented it, thus Bush had to be talking about Him???
What an ego!

That's just it. Obama's NOT pissed. President Hilton just handed Obama the election on a silver platter.

Gotta love our Dumbass-in-Chief... :madlaugh:

Proper names only, as per the rules.

[suedanim]

Are you actually saying that because the Bush guys haven't negotiated with Iran and Syria that there's nothing to negotiate? That sounds a whole lot more like a partisan talking point than a rational statement. My beef with this administration is its constant tendency to make its moves for partisan US political effect rather than real improvement in foreign relations, and I'm truly sick and tired of it. Does Bush think we're all a bunch of idiots, or is that the best he can do? Either way, the outlook is exceedingly bleak if he or someone like him takes office in January. I fear for my country's future if we get another Bush.

Indeed.

I've been in fear for years now for the world, for the US committing suicide, for the thousands of innocent dead, US and foreign, for family, friends and community. Please do not tell me a draft won't happen if we attack Iran.

The message I hear from conservatives.. is since they think negotiation or talking with Iran or other entities either shouldn't or cannot adequately be done, war is the only answer. War, aggression appears to be the next best logical move when .. conservatives.. discuss Middle East foreign policy...which btw, has nothing currently to do with 9/11, but is more about Israeli security.

Wndrtch.. and others as see fit.. if not active diplomacy with Iran, Syria and other entities... what solution do you feel is the right approach?

[Pookie]

Well, if he's going to try to talk to them, maybe it won't hurt. Maybe something good will come of it.
I don't know, but I have always been in favor of at least trying to talk.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Buck Laser]

you mean the guy who abandoned his antagonistic attitude decades ago because of the economic sanctions put in place on his country and the cruise missiles that were dropped on his summer palace killing his child?.......I would think he would be the poster child for the success you can achieve by NOT negotiating.....
Yeah, but Bush's "people" finally negotiated with him. It's just a goddamned lie that this administration doesn't negotiate with enemies. That statement is only for show and to pacify the dumbasses in the republican party who are afraid of their own shadows. SHEESH!!!

[apdst]

Bush did a fine job of nailing Obama's ass to the wall.

[Buck Laser]

Bush did a fine job of nailing Obama's ass to the wall.
You just hide and watch, boy.

[PostmodernProphet]

Yeah, but Bush's "people" finally negotiated with him. It's just a goddamned lie that this administration doesn't negotiate with enemies. That statement is only for show and to pacify the dumbasses in the republican party who are afraid of their own shadows. SHEESH!!!

???....they "negotiated" with him?.....after a dozen years of being subject to sanctions.....and a dozen years without evidence he had engaged in any support of terrorism?.....as I said, he is evidence of the success of not negotiating....

[Phyxius]

Bush did a fine job of nailing Obama's ass to the wall.

Bush just gave Obama the biggest gift you could possibly imagine. Wright's off the table, and the focus is back on the war. My god, this is the DNC's wettest dreams come true... :madlaugh:

[Trish]

Are you actually saying that because the Bush guys haven't negotiated with Iran and Syria that there's nothing to negotiate? That sounds a whole lot more like a partisan talking point than a rational statement. My beef with this administration is its constant tendency to make its moves for partisan US political effect rather than real improvement in foreign relations, and I'm truly sick and tired of it. Does Bush think we're all a bunch of idiots, or is that the best he can do? Either way, the outlook is exceedingly bleak if he or someone like him takes office in January. I fear for my country's future if we get another Bush.

No, I'm saying that before anyone talks with Iran and Syria there would need to be some very clear boundaries set as what can be negotiated and what can't.

But as for partisan political effect - the Democrats have done a real good job of grandstanding over this. I honestly think NeC had it right - Obama should have agreed that appeasement was never an acceptable solution and then gone on to take advantage of the chance to outline his own foreign policy strategy in a positive fashion. I think it would have served both the Senator and the Democratic Party much better than all this knee-jerk reaction speechifying that's been going on. Obama could have reacted to this much better.

[Tessy]

Quote:
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President said to the country's legislative body, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Obama's wining:

Quote:
In a statement, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shot across the bow: "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...takes-iss.html

Why so defensive, Obama? Truth hurt?

The Nazis were assisted and set up by the Bush's and by the same people
running the USA today for the most part. So that little pseudo quote doesn't
make a whole lot of sense.

Obama and Bush and Clinton work for the same bosses. They have the same
end-game goals and policies so this whole thread is non-sense as I see it.
If you're fooled by the show these actors put on that's on you. Don't expect
free-thinkers or self-thinkers to swallow even a little bit of it.

The agenda is set. We WILL be attacking Iran no matter who wins the election.
And there WILL be war with China eventually as well - which is what much or
most of this is all about. The only way we can stop it is clean out our own mafia
government and get as serious about "America" as we once were in the late 1700's.
My money is on - "It ain't gonna happen!"

So if Obama takes it with all his peace and diplomacy rhetoric I wonder what the
next "9-11" type event will have to be for him to justify it? Or I guess it could play
out that he'll be assassinated. Ha maybe by islamic homosexual racist martians
from Iran. The American people would believe that - they believe everything their
government tells them - and that would make a great excuse to invade Iran.

Hey, it's not any more far fetched than having a presidential candidate get up in
front of the nation and sing "Bomb-bomb-bomb Bomb-bomb Iran". And to an
applauding audience no less.

[Buck Laser]

No, I'm saying that before anyone talks with Iran and Syria there would need to be some very clear boundaries set as what can be negotiated and what can't.

But as for partisan political effect - the Democrats have done a real good job of grandstanding over this. I honestly think NeC had it right - Obama should have agreed that appeasement was never an acceptable solution and then gone on to take advantage of the chance to outline his own foreign policy strategy in a positive fashion. I think it would have served both the Senator and the Democratic Party much better than all this knee-jerk reaction speechifying that's been going on. Obama could have reacted to this much better.
But Bush has totally screwed the pooch on this one. I don't blame the democrats for going after Bush, because he's done so much damage to our country that we may never be able to dig out. Meanwhile, you and the republicans run around like headless chickens trying to find a way of avoiding the blame for Paris Hilton Bush's stupidity. What is it gonna take for you guys to realize that the president is a fucking idiot?

[ViolaLee]

Bush and McCain don't know what appeasement or negotiate mean. It's obvious too. McCain recently said he'd rather bomb people than talk to them.


ap·pease (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-phttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gifzhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif)
tr.v. ap·peased, ap·peas·ing, ap·peas·es
To pacify or attempt to pacify (an enemy) by granting concessions, often at the expense of principle.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/appease

Obama never said anything about appeasing anyone. This is just another right wing lie. Obama believes in diplomacy, negotiation, exactly what a US President is meant to do.


ne·go·ti·ate (nhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-ghttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/omacr.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifshhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif-http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifthttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gif) v. ne·go·ti·at·ed, ne·go·ti·at·ing, ne·go·ti·ates
v.intr. To confer with another or others in order to come to terms or reach an agreement

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/negotiate

[Easy90]

Yeah, you're right BL...No way will Bush get re-elected now....LOL! You nimrods apparently aren't even aware that he's not running. Man! Your hate has you blinded, and has any remaining brain cells fried....

[lily]

Assuming Iran for a moment...

Didn't we already tell Iran to stop their development of nuclear technology?

Only problem with this argument is they are allowed to develop nuclear technology, they are signers of the NPT.




Didn't we already ask them to not interfere with rebuilding Iraq?

Tell me, what is the problem with them helping to rebuild Iraq, other than some company here in the US won't get a nobid contract to do some shoddy work?


As far as sitting down with terrorist groups, who do we sit down with? There's like 100-200 groups out there.
Iran is not a terrorist group........it is a country.


Our action is already dependant on their actions. "They" killed 3,000 civilians.

First Bush wants to link Iraq with 911, now you want to link Iran?



That only holds true if both sides are honest in wanting to deal with each other and resolve differences. Both sides have to be willing to compromise.

How do we compromise with "push Israel into the Ocean", or "wipe them from the map"? Only partially push them into the Oceans?

We have plenty to bargain with, from lifting sanctions to letting Iran back into the "community".

[lily]

Yeah, you're right BL...No way will Bush get re-elected now....LOL! You nimrods apparently aren't even aware that he's not running. Man! Your hate has you blinded, and has any remaining brain cells fried....


No McCain is running on Bush's platform........same thing.

[ViolaLee]

I remember when Nancy Pelosi said something about America while she was in another country. The right wingers were outraged and bashed her for weeks for doing that.

Bush was in Israel when he made this statement about Democrats being appeasers.

Where's the outrage? Is this another case of outright Republican hypocrisy?

[lily]

No one is admonishing you, Suedanim, we're asking you, nicely, not to ruin a civil conversation.

-NC

NC........I'm "picking on you", because I know you can take it......this is a public forum, everyone is allowed to debate......if you want a private conversation, that is what PM is for.;)

[Phyxius]

Yeah, you're right BL...No way will Bush get re-elected now....LOL! You nimrods apparently aren't even aware that he's not running. Man! Your hate has you blinded, and has any remaining brain cells fried....

That's the problem though. Numbnuts just threw himself into the election with that little stunt. Let's see how many congressional seats he can cost you as well... :madlaugh:

[Tessy]

Obama believes in diplomacy, negotiation, exactly what a US President is meant to do.

Ha ha!

Obama believes in his CFR bosses... peroid. The BS line he feeds us is just that... BS!

[apdst]

Iran is not a terrorist group........it is a country.

Germany wasn't the Nazi party, either. But, it was the country that hosted the Nazi party. Iran hosts the terrorists.

[NortheastCynic]

NC........I'm "picking on you", because I know you can take it......this is a public forum, everyone is allowed to debate......if you want a private conversation, that is what PM is for.;)
Thank you, lily, I can take it. That said, I'm not telling anyone to shut up, or not post on the thread [who the hell am I to do that?]...I literally just asked Suedanim to chill, I've seen many a thread ruined by one overzealous post. The conversation was civil, and one hostile post was injected; I simply asked if we couldn't all just get along. Fair enough?

-NC

[ViolaLee]

Germany wasn't the Nazi party, either. But, it was the country that hosted the Nazi party. Iran hosts the terrorists.

Interesting. Iran is Shia. Al Qaeda is Sunni. Did McCain confuse you when he told that lie about Iran training Al Qaeda?

Most of the terrorists that attacked us were from Saudi Arabia. There wasn't one from Iran (or Iraq for that matter).

So how is Iran hosting the terrorists (who are based in Afghanistan)?

[apdst]

Iran is Shia.

Hamas is Shia. al Sadr is Shia. Hezbollah is Shia. At the end of the day, they are all Muslim terrorists.

[Trish]

But Bush has totally screwed the pooch on this one. I don't blame the democrats for going after Bush, because he's done so much damage to our country that we may never be able to dig out. Meanwhile, you and the republicans run around like headless chickens trying to find a way of avoiding the blame for Paris Hilton Bush's stupidity. What is it gonna take for you guys to realize that the president is a fucking idiot?

Buck you need to read all the posts before getting your blood pressure skyrocketing like this. I've already commented that I thought President Bush's comments were ill-timed and out of place. I still do not see his comments as an "attack" and I think Senator Obama and the Democrats in general have handled this very poorly. Senator Obama lost a golden opportunity by reacting emotionally as if the President had mentioned him and only him by name. He could have really polished his halo with this incident if he'd handled it better!

Even if I thought the President was a "fucking idiot" (which I don't by the way), I would never say so publicly because he is the President. I wouldn't even call people on this forum fucking idiots publicly, even if one or two have given me more than sufficient ammunition to do so.

[Tessy]

Hamas is Shia. al Sadr is Shia. Hezbollah is Shia. At the end of the day, they are all Muslim terrorists.

There's no such thing. You have been fooled by nazi rhetoric!

[Trish]

NC........I'm "picking on you", because I know you can take it......this is a public forum, everyone is allowed to debate......if you want a private conversation, that is what PM is for.;)

No one was asking sue not to express her opinions or to refrain from debating, lily. We were just asking her to not be so blasted nasty and hateful in doing so. I assume that it's not out of place to ask for a bit of decorum when engaging in debate on a public forum?

[ViolaLee]

Hey, it looks like I was wrong: it turns out that MCCAIN is the 'some people', for his 2006 opinion that we should have talks with Hamas:

icooZ4PTM60

Funny isn't it? McCain changes his policies, statements, mindset, opinions on EVERYTHING now that he's running for President. He's becoming a neocon. It's great to see. No one will want a Bush clone in November, and that's exactly what McCain has become.

He's not the same McCain as he was 2 years ago. He's McCain now.

Viola......you know the rule on this!

[Trish]

That only works if both sides have honorable intensions, or at least selfish intensions. But if one side has ideological intensions, then your only choice is to capitulate to their demands, which in this case means abandoning Israel and pulling ALL Western interest out of the ME and let the Caliphate take over the entire region.

How many assurances did Chamberian recieve from Hitler during his "talks"?

What did it amount too?

http://thesportshernia.typepad.com/blog/images/2007/06/27/kincks_crap_4.gif

My apologies! I somehow missed your direct post to me!

Clearly before entering into negotiations, one needs to be aware of the other party's tendencies and history. That's why I mentioned the lack of any real "sticks" on Senator Obama's website. Of course, it wouldn't do to mention anything too specifically, but surely something more than the bland toast generalities could have been drafted. The "carrots" were certainly more specific and more numerous. The sticks sounded pretty much like the situation we have now.

[ViolaLee]

No one was asking sue not to express her opinions or to refrain from debating, lily. We were just asking her to not be so blasted nasty and hateful in doing so. I assume that it's not out of place to ask for a bit of decorum when engaging in debate on a public forum?

I'm sorry Trish, but I didn't see anything more blasted nasty and hateful in suedamin's post than in your post in the same area of the thread.

Oh yeah - let's just interject an entirely irrelevant, not to mention baseless, tangent into the discussion just for the hell of it.

Heck, if we can't even have a civil and productive discussion of different ideas and viewpoints on this forum without utter nonsense being thrown into the mix, what in the hell makes anyone think there can be civil and productive discussions with the leaders of countries? Jeez.

Glass houses and stones and all.....

[NortheastCynic]

You must have missed this, Viola:

Oh wow.. How shallow and seriously uninformed do you have to be to imagine the POTUS speaking to any nation, in and of itself is not a condition, a boundary of strength. Get the hell outta town! We are THE superpower. STRENGTH is our first name for crying out loud. When our CIC speaks.. other countries sit straight and say yessir or maam... quick damn in a hurry. How fuckn clueless would Iran be to imagine.. that the wrong answer to the CIC, could result in Iran being made a wasteland? They aren't. Obama knows this.

The truth is... most of you sycophants don't even know what the word ...appeasement means... AND I doubt seriously your glorious leaders for THE CAUSE (whatever the hell that is) do either.

-NC

[ViolaLee]

I read it NC. She's right, these Republicans don't even know what the word appeasement means, as I've shown on page 6 I think....

By the way NC, you better be careful about stating that Trish is a Bush follower. I got snapped with a 25 point infraction for "harrassement" when I laughed at her claim of being a Democrat.

[Trish]

I'm sorry Trish, but I didn't see anything more blasted nasty and hateful in suedamin's post than in your post in the same area of the thread.



Glass houses and stones and all.....

I'm not surprised by your take on the situation, VL. Fortunately, Potter, the poster to whom that particular post was addressed, understood why I said what I did and actually agreed with my point after which he and I managed to actually continue with the discussion with dignity.

I do on occasion nudge the line of acceptability with my posts and have even stepped accross that line more than once. I'm no saint and react in anger and frustration just like anyone else - but the post you quoted wasn't one of those instances. And since Potter obviously understood me, I'm satisfied.

[ViolaLee]

It's just funny to me that someone can whine about a post being nasty and in the same thread make a nasty post themselves.

[Phyxius]

Published on The Smirking Chimp (http://www.smirkingchimp.com)

Congratulations Monkeyboy...you may have just united the Dem party !!
By vetwife
Created May 15 2008 - 7:37pm


That speech in Israel will go down in history as the most idiotic political pandering and fear mongering that any leader, if you want to call him that, has ever made.

The man did not know what the word appeasement meant, first of all. We knew he knew nothing of American History and the only European history he probably knows is that his GRANDFATHER, Prescott, another senator, did fund the HITLER regime. He certainly did not bring that little tidbit up today did he?

I think someone should though.

Congratulations Monkeyboy, you may have unified the democratic base, because all dems with the exception of the turncoat Lieberman were out in full force foaming at the mouth, including the other would be nominee, Hillary.

It made me wonder if those camps sitting somewhere near anyone of us could be getting their floors waxed, getting ready for the real Brownshirt Fascist who wants anyone who does not stay the course to be deemed an enemy combatant. This I hope was a wakeup call to every democratic person registered to vote, why they have to vote in the general election. The republicans are even calling themselves bad dog food which if they were dog food would be removed from the shelves.

Where are the Dixie Chicks when you need them?

We need them to go to Israel and say the truth about George W Bush. He doesn't speak for America. Tell the Israeli people that all but 28 percent is ashamed of him now and had we known this kind of comment would make them even less safe than they are now, someone would have kept the key hidden to his straightjacket and muzzle.

Chalk another one up to Monkeyboy. He is one dangerous monkey...

[suedanim]

You must have missed this, Viola:

Quote:
Oh wow.. How shallow and seriously uninformed do you have to be to imagine the POTUS speaking to any nation, in and of itself is not a condition, a boundary of strength. Get the hell outta town! We are THE superpower. STRENGTH is our first name for crying out loud. When our CIC speaks.. other countries sit straight and say yessir or maam... quick damn in a hurry. How fuckn clueless would Iran be to imagine.. that the wrong answer to the CIC, could result in Iran being made a wasteland? They aren't. Obama knows this.

The truth is... most of you sycophants don't even know what the word ...appeasement means... AND I doubt seriously your glorious leaders for THE CAUSE (whatever the hell that is) do either.
-NC


Let me... elaborate further. with less incindiary hyperbole. Believe me when I say... I am very angry about this CIC's irresponsible, dishonest, politically driven remarks before the Knesset. It was a cheap shot on a world stage and IS beneath the Presidency. I will not apologize for being livid over this sorry excuse for a man called President, playing politics in Israel, after he has caused the deaths of many thousands of innocent babies, children, women and men.

In my view... those who justify or defend this utterly incompetant imbecile..deserve ..seriously, after 6 years of domestic, but mostly foreign DEATH, stern admonishment. Can they, after all that has been done, all the HORROR we have caused, the trillions debt, the scandals, the stomping on the Constitution, be operating with a full deck? I marvel at the complete disconnect between the reality of the last 8 years and the utterances coming out of the mouths of SOME on the right. Its as if they are ready for an instant replay, but Iran is ready for us. Iraq wasn't.

All I can say is thank goodness there are many on the right who do NOT leap to defend this CIC or use his comments as political ammunition.

Thats my opinion and I am sticking to it.

Further... Secretary of Defense Gates... if you read the article I submitted in a seperate thread, suggests/advocates a similar course, as do other experts, that Barrack Obama proposes. This is only elementary common sense.

Political games and debating is one thing. Fine. But, when the POTUS goes abroad and plays politics and... yes, blind followers aka sycophants continue to cosign and USE his comments as a springboard to launch an attack on a Presidential candidate or an former POTUS, who propose exactly the same kind of negotiations with the Iranians as Bush's own damn Defense Secretary, then I think its time for an ice-cold wakeup call. If you cannot bear the reality check I offer... fine. Reject it. But, until such time as a mod writes me to tell me to back off.. I'm in this for the long haul.

btw... I have a heavy stake in what has become America, the warmongering nation. I already know war, with Uncles and brothers-in-law having served in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. But, not just that... I have 7.... thats SEVEN..... sons, ages 36, 33, 27, 23, 15... with 2 adopted, 4 1/2 and 2 1/2 yo. I have every intention of using whatever influence I have to keep them away from war. I have great fear of war, of the anguish and death we have already caused and some are prepared, even eager to do more.

As for trish.. She like apdst reveals herself better than I ever could. It is what it is.

Potter... ? :lmao:... I call an old friend. I guess we've posted on the same board for at least five years. Never had a disagreeable word with him, usually agree. If he found something I said ... off... or too intense, I have no problems being called on it..... BY HIM, lilly or any other mod. But, I doubt seriously he would ever ask me to change my style or to remove myself from the conversation. In fact... in 10 years of posting to message boards, I have never been told I couldn't post in a thread or banned. Even people I have had LONG, HOT arguments with... using all sorts of... ahem.. colorful language, I consider friends... CockySOB would be one of them. He's a good guy, just wrong about a lot of stuff... :lmao:

In short... get used to my style, passion and humor. If you don't like it... a short, private note is fine. Don't expect too much of a change in me though.

[NortheastCynic]

Oy.

All this after a simple 'chill'.

I've got no problem with your style as a whole, Sue.

No problem with you at all, just didn't want the civility of the conversation between myself an Trish compromised.

:)

-NC

[Buck Laser]

Oy.

All this after a simple 'chill'.

I've got no problem with your style as a whole, Sue.

No problem with you at all, just didn't want the civility of the conversation between myself an Trish compromised.

:)

-NC

I think Sue is one of the very BEST posters here, because she backs up her statements with facts that she can verify. Further, I appreciate her fire and spirit, and her willingness to stay engaged. I really grow tired of the posters who just keep repeating the same statement ad nauseam

NC, I know nothing of your dialogue with Trish, so I'm not commenting on that.

[preservanation]

I listened to the speech.
AGAIN...how does Obama come to the conclusion that Bush was talking directly about him?
I don't see it.

If anything, he could have been refering more directly to Carter or members of the EU, but more likely he was just recounting the undeniable failure of appeasement and how it led to the extermination of over 6 million Jews by Nazi Germany.
This whole outrageous overreaction by the Dems is either a canard, stems from a guilty conscience (are you all hearing the beating heart under the floor boards?) or more likely Obama is such an elitist egomaniac that everything must be about him.

[Easy90]

No McCain is running on Bush's platform........same thing.

And Barack Husein Obama is running on Jimmy Carter's platform.....same thing.

[Easy90]

I listened to the speech.
AGAIN...how does Obama come to the conclusion that Bush was talking directly about him?
I don't see it.

If anything, he could have been refering more directly to Carter or members of the EU, but more likely he was just recounting the undeniable failure of appeasement and how it led to the extermination of over 6 million Jews by Nazi Germany.
This whole outrageous overreaction by the Dems is either a canard, stems from a guilty conscience (are you all hearing the beating heart under the floor boards?) or more likely Obama is such an elitist egomaniac that everything must be about him.

He was actually referring to the peanut farmer's recent stupid overtures to the terrorists...but these numb-nuts aren't aware of it...LOL! Carter still wants to think he was successful bringing an end to the ME conflict. But, of course, in reality....his "diplomacy" with Iran actually gave us the crisis we have with them now... Thanks Jim!

[suedanim]

I listened to the speech.
AGAIN...how does Obama come to the conclusion that Bush was talking directly about him?
I don't see it.

If anything, he could have been refering more directly to Carter or members of the EU, but more likely he was just recounting the undeniable failure of appeasement and how it led to the extermination of over 6 million Jews by Nazi Germany.
This whole outrageous overreaction by the Dems is either a canard, stems from a guilty conscience (are you all hearing the beating heart under the floor boards?) or more likely Obama is such an elitist egomaniac that everything must be about him.

He could have been referring to Carter. But, he could have been referring to both. In which case, for either... its unprecedented. I stated that on the first page of this thread and Pat Buchanan stated exactly that this AM on MSNBC. Its clear Bush's remarks are not just beneath the Presidency, but neocon agenda driven.

You conservatives should be condemning this shit. Its destroying your party.

[Wndrtch]

He could have been referring to Carter. But, he could have been referring to both. In which case, for either... its unprecedented, lowclass, neocon agenda driven. I stated that on the first page of this thread and Pat Buchanan stated exactly that this AM on MSNBC.

Oh, please! A DEMOCRAT complaining about "unprecedented", given the Clinton Administration?

Give me a break!

[suedanim]

Oh, please! A DEMOCRAT complaining about "unprecedented", given the Clinton Administration?

Give me a break!

pssst... Buchanan is a Republican.. served under Nixon? Ran for office as CIC? VERY well known.

wow...

[PostmodernProphet]

well, he isn't a Democrat, but I don't think he considers himself a Republican any more either....

[suedanim]

..with good cause.. hehe..

Whatever, he never totally divorced himself from the GOP. Some of the things he says piss me off no end and other times, he's right on the money.

I don't mind calling it either way.

[Buck Laser]

..with good cause.. hehe..

Whatever, he never totally divorced himself from the GOP. Some of the things he says piss me off no end and other times, he's right on the money.

I don't mind calling it either way.
While I sometimes get surprised by Buchanan, I trust him about as much as I trust Karl Rove. He is a person of no integrity and no character.

[4Reaganomics]

Now Obama, Wright, and Ayers

they are people of character

[Phyxius]

Could be worse. Could be Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld... :madlaugh:

[CharlesMartel]

Obama gets pissed everytime you discuss one of his foreign policies. Bush had it exactly right. His references I thought were targeted at Carter, Obama, and McCain along with those supporting their positions.

Let's focus on what was said, Bush was correct. There is no ingenious argument that exists that will alter the Jihadist mentality. None. It's amazing forums like this see very little change in people's perceptions, we somehow think this puff the magic dragon diplomacy that Obama supports will actually work.

I ain't huge on McCain, however, this Obama is a joke.

[preservanation]

Ok, we can't talk about Obama's middle name.

We can't talk about his wife, can't talk about his preacher, can't talk about his terrorist friends, can't talk about his voting record, can't talk about his religion.
We can't talk about race.
We can't talk about Ayers
We can't talk about his flag pin.
We can't call him a liberal.
Now we can't talk about WWII, foreign policy or the whole historical concept of appeasement.
What's next?
This is effin ridiculous.

[preservanation]

pssst... Buchanan is a Republican.. served under Nixon? Ran for office as CIC? VERY well known.

wow...HeeHee...
I can see how one might make this egregious error, he is on MSNBC after all...

[BoogyMan]

Ok, we can't talk about Obama's middle name.

We can't talk about his wife, can't talk about his preacher, can't talk about his terrorist friends, can't talk about his voting record, can't talk about his religion.
We can't talk about race.
We can't talk about Ayers
We can't talk about his flag pin.
We can't call him a liberal.
Now we can't talk about WWII, foreign policy or the whole historical concept of appeasement.
What's next?
This is effin ridiculous.

It is ridiculous isn't it? But we CAN talk about Obama and we should do it despite the demand of the left that we consider him with their view rather than our own.

[bishop]

interesting that republicans get all pissy when a liberal/leftist goes abroad to talk trash, but it's okay that bush is doing it himself..

[Buck Laser]

Ok, we can't talk about Obama's middle name.

We can't talk about his wife, can't talk about his preacher, can't talk about his terrorist friends, can't talk about his voting record, can't talk about his religion.
We can't talk about race.
We can't talk about Ayers
We can't talk about his flag pin.
We can't call him a liberal.
Now we can't talk about WWII, foreign policy or the whole historical concept of appeasement.
What's next?
This is effin ridiculous.
You're right, Preserv. It's fuckin' ridiculous, because about every single one of the issues, you wingers act as if you alone are the ones that know diddly shit. And even your list is full of lies. We can and do talk about race, Ayers, flag pins, liberals (yes, I am proud that Obama is reasonably liberal), and it's a flat lie that we can't talk about WW2. This kind of statement is exactly why I maintain that it's the conservatives who are the whiners, here, and at practically everywhere else I've been on the net.

You guys need to learn that you aren't the big frogs in the puddle any more. And I'd like to offer my sincerest condolences on your unaccustomed status as victims. :madlaugh: But I'd be lying if I said I was sorry.

[PostmodernProphet]

You guys need to learn that you aren't the big frogs in the puddle any more.

lol, please don't tell me you think you have slipped into that role......

[Phyxius]

lol, please don't tell me you think you have slipped into that role......


Hmmmm...

GOP funding is on the ropes. The RNC is predicting a MAJOR loss of congressional seats in November (further widening that Democrat majority), and McCain's odds of winning against either Obama or Hillary are slim at best.

But I can see how you might think that the GOP would still be in charge...

Denial - it's not just a river in Egypt... :madlaugh:

[suedanim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by preservanation http://www.democracyforums.com/images/democracy/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?p=181069#post181069)
Quote:
Originally Posted by preservanation http://www.democracyforums.com/images/democracy/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?p=181069#post181069)
Ok, we can't talk about Obama's middle name.

We can't talk about his wife, can't talk about his preacher, can't talk about his terrorist friends, can't talk about his voting record, can't talk about his religion.
We can't talk about race.
We can't talk about Ayers
We can't talk about his flag pin.
We can't call him a liberal.
Now we can't talk about WWII, foreign policy or the whole historical concept of appeasement.
What's next?
This is effin ridiculous.

You're right, Preserv. It's fuckin' ridiculous, because about every single one of the issues, you wingers act as if you alone are the ones that know diddly shit. And even your list is full of lies. We can and do talk about race, Ayers, flag pins, liberals (yes, I am proud that Obama is reasonably liberal), and it's a flat lie that we can't talk about WW2. This kind of statement is exactly why I maintain that it's the conservatives who are the whiners, here, and at practically everywhere else I've been on the net.





Republicans aren't accustomed to listening to anyone but George Bush, Dick Cheney, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and others. They plug into the host.. Foxnews, received their programming and appear unable to not only not be able to think or speak outside that box, but access to input is denied...

imo.. there appears to be something perverted about the conservative or Republican DNA that compels them to parrot and to resist change, unless its aggression upon the weakest, denigrate and eliminate, if possible other human beings that are different. Independant thought, logical extrapolation seem to elude so many of them, since they doggedly, boringly continue to parrot party politics to the exclusion of, in their face evidence, that the partyline is not working. And what is just as disappointing, the party they parrot and remain loyal to, no longer even represents them.

But, just for shits and grins...

Ok, we can't talk about Obama's middle name.

Why is this important to you? Why isn't McCain's or Clintons middle names important to talk about?

I'll tell you.

Its important to talk about Obama's middle name because you must focus on and be part of xenophobic jingoism since you have nothing of real substance to discuss negatively about him. You are compelled to oppose him on the face of partisan affiliation alone and NEED a superficial, assinine, racist excuse to malign the man, instead of his politics.

We can't talk about his wife, can't talk about his preacher, can't talk about his terrorist friends, can't talk about his voting record, can't talk about his religion.

His wife? I have no problem with any GOPer talking about Michelle Obama. Cindy McCain has enough baggage to throw back, if you can handle it. She makes Michelle Obama look saintly in comparison. But, go ahead... Make my day. :thumbsup:

You've beat the preacher thing in the ground.. But, go ahead. Hagee and Falwell suckups to McCain with his proud to have them, asskissing, about-face gratitude, provide enough fodder to counter anything you people have on Wright's association with Obama.

Terrorist friends? :madlaugh:

Oh.. you mean the Bush family friendship with the bin laden family and the CIA under Bush Sr. raising up within it the leader of al qaida? We can and should go there.

We can't talk about race.

Yes. You do. You let the apdst's among you do your dirtiest work though with nary an admonishment. Beyond that, silence is your most golden rule, even when your party members where T-shirts with monkeys on them as an opposition statement to Obama. To your disgrace, should a Democrat or liberal complain of this or other overt acts of racism... we are playing the ... race card. :dizzy:

We can't talk about Ayers

What else is there to say about Ayers? It is what it is and NOT as Sean Hannity has told you it is. Their paths crossed a few times and big whoop $200 contribution to Obama state senate campaign.

But, lets look briefly at McCain's support of Oliver North during the Iran-Contra scandal...REAL U.S. sponsored terrorism. How quickly you forgive and forget your own and more, treat them as heros and icons, knowing, but not caring about the death and TERROR those people enabled.

So.. we can talk about Ayers, but we will also talk about McCain and Iran-Contra.

We can't talk about his flag pin.

oh wah...

Must you. I mean really, how petty and trivial must you sink for negative fodder? But, if you must please, do point out McCain and your other hypocritical, holier than thou liars, who don't consistently wear a silly flag pin either.


We can't call him a liberal.

He's not liberal enough. I'm more liberal than he is. Count your blessings. :thumbsup:

Now we can't talk about WWII, foreign policy or the whole historical concept of appeasement.

Oh... DO talk about it. Just try to know what the subject matter is about first AND do try to keep up with current events enough to know that a number of Republicans in high places want the U.S. to engage in aggressive, robust diplomacy ..... too.

What's next?

I'm sure GOPers will think of something. :lmao:

This is effin ridiculous.

I agree. Glad we found some common ground. :thumbsup:

[Tessy]

Hmmmm...

GOP funding is on the ropes. The RNC is predicting a MAJOR loss of congressional seats in November (further widening that Democrat majority), and McCain's odds of winning against either Obama or Hillary are slim at best.

But I can see how you might think that the GOP would still be in charge...

Denial - it's not just a river in Egypt... :madlaugh:

I think that you and others here are fooled into thinking there are any differences
at all between the two fake parties is the real problem. They are identical and
they answer to the same master. You're only propagating fantasy and falsehood
by keeping this going.

Americans are so weak minded! They think they're free, they think voting works
(in the USA) lol!, they think there are two main political parties, they think that
democracy is a good thing, they think the USA is supposed to be a democracy,
and worst of all they think that petty bickering and meaningless discussions like
this one are what they are supposed to be doing in order to fulfill their political
duties as a citizen.

Bovine have more charismatic patriotism!

I wonder if discussions like this will be commonplace around the mess tables in
the FEMA camps or at the coming and no doubt popular, public executions? In
any case not facing the real facts about the system you live in are what is real
in terms of "denial"!

[Trish]

I think someone asked what should be done instead of talking with Iran. Here's one take on answering that question.

OBAMA: WRONG ON IRAN

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on FOXNews.com on May 16, 2008.

Printer-Friendly Version (http://pr1.netatlantic.com/t/6129485/30217872/590898/0/)

President Bush is absolutely right to criticize sharply direct negotiations with Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Barack Obama’s embrace of the idea of direct negotiations is both naïve and dangerous and should be a big issue in the campaign.

The reason not to negotiate with Ahmadinejad is not simply to stand on ceremony or some kind of policy of non-recognition. It is based on the fundamental need to topple his regime by increasing the sense the Iranian people have — that he has isolated Iran from the rest of the world, to its severe and ongoing detriment.

The Iranian regime is almost entirely dependent on oil and gas revenues to pay for the vast program of social subsidies with which the government buys domestic support. Gasoline costs 35 cents a gallon in Teheran. Bread and all other staples are subsidized from public funds. But 85 percent of all government revenues come from oil and gas exports. There lies the regime’s vulnerability.

Iran is sitting atop the second largest oil reserves in the world. Only Saudi Arabia has more. But it can’t get at them. It lacks the foreign investment and technology necessary to increase, or even to sustain, its petroleum output. Under the Shah, Iran pumped upwards of six million barrels of oil a day. Now, Iran generates fewer than four million daily barrels. With domestic consumption of energy increasing at 10 percent a year — due in part to the massive subsidies which hold the price down — Iran is expected to see its oil exports cut in half by 2011 and entirely eliminated by 2014. If Iran cannot export oil, it cannot pay for social peace and the regime could be in dire trouble.

Without subsidies, the Iranian people, half of whom are under 30 and only 40 percent of whom are ethnically Farsi, will become restive and resentful. Already, many complain that Ahmadinejad’s policies have led to global isolation of Iran and stymied economic growth and social upward mobility. While opinion surveys in Iran indicate that the people support the nuclear aspirations of the regime, they are not willing to pay a price of international isolation.

If a President Obama were to meet with President Ahmadinejad, it would send a signal to the Iranian people that they are not isolated but that the rest of the world has come to respect them and to have to deal with them. The leading argument for toppling the current regime will have been fatally undermined.

But if the West sustains a policy of economic sanctions, curbs on foreign investment, and diplomatic isolation, the Iranian regime’s days are numbered.

Official United Nations sanctions are having some effect on Iran but the real power lies in cutting off investment by foreign companies, particularly in the banking and energy sectors. American companies are already prohibited from doing business there, although General Electric may be seeking ways around this prohibition through foreign subsidiaries.

Frank Gaffney, formerly of Reagan’s Pentagon, has pioneered the use of private economic disinvestment in companies that do business with Iran, Syria, North Korea, or Sudan. On his Web site, he has identified almost 500 companies that do business with these terror sponsoring nations. They include such international powerhouses as Sieman’s, Shell, Repsol, BNP Paribus, and Hyundai. He has crafted a terror free mutual fund which can earn good returns while avoiding investment in any of these companies.

Missouri Treasurer Sarah Steelman — now running for governor — pioneered disinvesting pension funds in these companies. Now California, Florida, and Louisiana have followed suit.

We need to let these policies work and global isolation of Iran is the way to do it. Negotiating with Ahmadinejad would simply boost his domestic stature and enhance his political stability, the exact opposite of what we should — and must — be doing.

[Elrathin]

If a President Obama were to meet with President Ahmadinejad, it would send a signal to the Iranian people that they are not isolated but that the rest of the world has come to respect them and to have to deal with them.

Talking with someone does not mean you respect them. If so why were we ever at the tables to ANY North Korean talks?

[preservanation]

People got a little confused about the list of things we can't talk about concerning Obama.
Of course we can talk about them...that is our right. The left seems more amicable to the subjects which are easily misdirected, but not about the subject of appeasement, because Obama has said what he said and history shows that he is wrong and seems to have no historical context.
I'm not sure if he's stupid or just misguided but either way his ideas are very dangerous. This has been shown. As Bush pointed out, to be one of the reasons Hitler was allowed to get as far as he did in his quest for world domination and genocide. Anyone out there who wants to defend h Hitler...stop, and think. He was a bad man and all your moral relativism will not convince me or other rational people otherwise.

OK, now I'm not saying that we can't talk about my list of issues, we are not the Netherlands (yet). What I'm saying is that the Obama campaign such as the 'in the tank' media, his sycophantic supporters Axelrod and Obama himself are the ones saying they are off limits and use deflective terms such as 'misdirection, attack, old politics (whatever that is) and the like.

This is what Bush said...BUSH: "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President said to the country's legislative body, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Here is Obama's nondefense of his stated policy, but a dismissal. Notice he never says that he opposed to appeasement, and that's the problem...he's is for appeasement.OBAMA:
It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. If he was against appeasement, then why is he so convinced Bush is refering directly to him when he never mentioned Obama by name, Hmmmmm????
I agree with Perino, read this carefully, who said this the day after Bush's speech at the Knesset when Obama insisted the preach was 'all about him'...PERINO: It is not. And I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that President Bush thinks we should not talk to. I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you -- that is not always true and it is not true in this case.
This is his way of dismissing the points and thus refusing to discuss the substance.

Here are the sycophantic supporters' comments, notice again all they are doing is addressing the statement in dismissive terms and not addressing the subject of Obama's stated policy of holding meetings with our enemies without preconditions...PELOSI: "beneath the dignity of the office of the president"..."The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water's edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?”DASCHLE: I'm shocked and I'm actually very, very saddened by what the president has done. This is an unprecedented political attack. He doesn't have to use names to know exactly what he's trying to do.KERRY: This is a disgraceful statement by the president. It really is. He ought to apologize to the American people for going to Israel and using the Knesset and the celebration of the 60th anniversary of a state and a people that we all support and that we're all proud of and using it for politics.It goes on like this from everybody on the left...no substance, just infantile whining and an effort to shut down ANY debate.
If we can't debate, how are we going to know what Obama has in mind for our country?
Maybe that is exectly the purpose.

[lily]

People got a little confused about the list of things we can't talk about concerning Obama.
Of course we can talk about them...that is our right. The left seems more amicable to the subjects which are easily misdirected, but not about the subject of appeasement, because Obama has said what he said and history shows that he is wrong and seems to have no historical context.
I'm not sure if he's stupid or just misguided but either way his ideas are very dangerous. This has been shown. As Bush pointed out, to be one of the reasons Hitler was allowed to get as far as he did in his quest for world domination and genocide. Anyone out there who wants to defend h Hitler...stop, and think. He was a bad man and all your moral relativism will not convince me or other rational people otherwise.

No, I'm sorry, but history does not prove this. Just look at N. Korea, Japan, and China just for recent history. You also seem to forget that Bush's own cabinet supports talking to Iran.



This is what Bush said...

........and if I could remember what show Bush was on yesterday.....probably Fox, as he plays it safe, I'd find the quote where he had every chance to say he didn't mean Obama and just laughed.........but let's just for shits and giggles say he didn't mean Obama.......Israels Knesset is NOT the place to be discussing this..........but then Bush isn't the brightest bulb........I'm just glad there wasn't a door he had to go through.......I mean that would be embarrassing..........but him standing there spouting off about a political foe, hey.......:thumbsup:

I agree with Perino, read this carefully, who said this the day after Bush's speech at the Knesset when Obama insisted the preach was 'all about him'...
This is his way of dismissing the points and thus refusing to discuss the substance.

........and you have every right to agree with Perino's spin.......just as I and others don't

[NortheastCynic]

Oh for Christ's sake.

Conservatives:
Good God Almighty, flag pins, the 'L-word' and appeasement? There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Barrack Obama that can and should be brought up. The man's never run anything, he has zero foreign policy experience, he has to raise taxes, he has questionable friends, he is left of the American mainstream, etc. etc. Yes, you can talk about race, but don't over-do it and don't make it a central point at all.

Liberals: Let's please not pretend as though the left is innocent of election year [and all other year] sanctimony, lies, half-truths and slander. This is politics, everyone's guilty of that kind of behavior, it's the nature of the beast. Additionally, yes, the left is frequently guilty of playing the race card regarding Barrack Obama. Case in point, the stupid, poor white West Virginians who voted for Clinton by large margins are racists, meanwhile, none of the 90% of black Americans who vote for Barrack Obama [and against Hillary Clinton] because of race are something other than racists. Please.

Sorry, that was building up.

Actually, I'm not sorry. But that was building up.

-NC

[suedanim]

Oh for Christ's sake.

Conservatives:
Good God Almighty, flag pins, the 'L-word' and appeasement? There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Barrack Obama that can and should be brought up. The man's never run anything, he has zero foreign policy experience, he has to raise taxes, he has questionable friends, he is left of the American mainstream, etc. etc. Yes, you can talk about race, but don't over-do it and don't make it a central point at all.

Liberals: Let's please not pretend as though the left is innocent of election year [and all other year] sanctimony, lies, half-truths and slander. This is politics, everyone's guilty of that kind of behavior, it's the nature of the beast. Additionally, yes, the left is frequently guilty of playing the race card regarding Barrack Obama. Case in point, the stupid, poor white West Virginians who voted for Clinton by large margins are racists, meanwhile, none of the 90% of black Americans who vote for Barrack Obama [and against Hillary Clinton] because of race are something other than racists. Please.

Sorry, that was building up.

Actually, I'm not sorry. But that was building up.

-NC


:dork: Let it all out. Take a deep breath and push that submit reply button and don't apologize for your honest pov. We are all grown people (I think) and should be able to re-assess ourselves now and then. Might surprise you, but I do change my mind sometimes.. and listening to others pov helps.. if it makes sense.

Anyway.. who gives a rats ass what that little Hillary Clinton hating dweeb Dick Morris thinks? He's been played out a looong time. Couldn't stand him in the 90's.... even less now. But, whatever..

I'm coming back to... appeasement... though, in another thread.

[NortheastCynic]

I hear ya, Sue.

I swear to God and all the angels and saints, I'm so beyond sick of this election season...and it's not even June yet.

Oy.

Aside: Dick Morris is an ass.

-NC

[PostmodernProphet]

Hmmmm...

GOP funding is on the ropes. The RNC is predicting a MAJOR loss of congressional seats in November (further widening that Democrat majority), and McCain's odds of winning against either Obama or Hillary are slim at best.

But I can see how you might think that the GOP would still be in charge...

Denial - it's not just a river in Egypt... :madlaugh:

I was talking about Buck.....

[Trish]

Aside: Dick Morris is an ass.

-NC

Okay, ignoring him being an ass - what about his opinion here?

I posted the piece because someone asked a question about what we were supposed to do instead of opening talks. Morris appears to be one of the few people talking about any other option.