# The Most Important Issue On The Planet



## NO MORE WAITING (May 16, 2008)

Bush and Obama had words in the press yesterday over the single most immediate important thing affecting everyone on the planet.  It's not the economy.  It's not global warming.   It's the issue of Iran getting nukes.  

History repeats itself if we are not careful

This is why Obama is unelectable.  And it's not because of the whole Reverend Wright thing.  Although I admit it's weird how he put up with that pastor's rhetoric for 20 years, I believe Obama is still probably a pretty "good guy" in the end.   What I am talking about is much more serious.  Obama believes in "aggressive personal diplomacy" with Iran.  Like it hasn't be tried and tried before.  Just ask Jimmy Carter.  Or Nancy Pelosi when she went to Syria.  Or the people who tried to negotiate with Hitler in the 1930s. . . Diplomacy fails every time, time and time again, with these lunatics.  If we sit around at the round table negotiating with this madman (Ahmedinejad), while he secretly builds nukes the whole world is f-cked.  Starting with Israel.  There will be wide spread terrorism on a never before seen scale as soon as radical Islam gets the bomb.  Just ask Netanyahu.  And this could happen in the next 5 years.  We need to act NOW.  

Here is a recent Bush statement: 

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, which has been repeatedly discredited by history, the president said.



This is absolutely true.  Just check your history books.


----------



## NO MORE WAITING (May 16, 2008)

Bush and Obama had word yesterday over the single most immediate important thing affecting everyone on the planet.  It's not the economy.  It's not global warming.    Or healthcare.  It's the issue of Iran getting nukes.  

History repeats itself if we are not careful

This is why Obama is unelectable.  And it's not because of the whole Reverend Wright thing.  Although I admit it's weird how he put up with that pastor's rhetoric for 20 years, I believe Obama is still probably a pretty "good guy" in the end.   What I am talking about is much more serious.  Obama believes in "aggressive personal diplomacy" with Iran.  Like it hasn't be tried and tried before.  Just ask Jimmy Carter.  Or Nancy Pelosi when she went to Syria.  Or the people who tried to negotiate with Hitler in the 1930s. . . Diplomacy fails every time, time and time again, with these lunatics.  If we sit around at the round table negotiating with this madman (Ahmedinejad), while he secretly builds nukes the whole world is f-cked.  Starting with Israel.  There will be wide spread terrorism on a never before seen scale as soon as radical Islam gets the bomb.  Just ask Netanyahu.  And this could happen in the next 5 years.  We need to act NOW.  

Here is a recent Bush statement: 

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, which has been repeatedly discredited by history, the president said.



This is absolutely true.  Just check your history books.


----------



## indago (May 17, 2008)

*What a pitiful sight...*


----------



## Dogger (May 17, 2008)

There's another thread already going.  Had you read it, you could learn that negioation is not appeasement and that Bush is a fool.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (May 17, 2008)

NO MORE WAITING said:


> Bush and Obama had words in the press yesterday over the single most immediate important thing affecting everyone on the planet.  It's not the economy.  It's not global warming.   It's the issue of Iran getting nukes.
> 
> History repeats itself if we are not careful
> 
> ...



Had Pres Bush spoken this right after 9/11, it would have boosted his public approval, but now that time has passed, and the memory of 9/11 along with it, it is part of the reason his approval rating is so low. BUT, he doesnt care, he still insists on doing the right thing, which is why the HISTORIANS will see Pres Bush much differently than the current public.

Democrat led congress approval ratings are the lowest in history, coming in at a paltry 15%


----------



## LuvRPgrl (May 17, 2008)

Dogger said:


> There's another thread already going.  Had you read it, you could learn that negioation is not appeasement and that Bush is a fool.



Negotiation with terrorists is appeasement. Nice try at the usual lefts spin on words. 

If its something we dont like, just rename it.


----------



## Dogger (May 17, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Negotiation with terrorists is appeasement. Nice try at the usual lefts spin on words.
> 
> If its something we dont like, just rename it.


Let me correct my comment, then: Bush and LuvRPgrl are fools.

Liberals are not the one's who renamed appeasement; Bush League conservatives did. Or do you believe that Reagan was guilty of appeasement with Iran and the former Soviet Union?


----------



## Annie (May 17, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Let me correct my comment, then: Bush and LuvRPgrl are fools.
> 
> Liberals are not the one's who renamed appeasement; Bush League conservatives did. Or do you believe that Reagan was guilty of appeasement with Iran and the former Soviet Union?



What Bush said, as they say, with some 'context':

http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-bush-mideast-text,0,3307220.story



> ...
> 
> And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.
> 
> ...


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 17, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Negotiation with terrorists is appeasement. Nice try at the usual lefts spin on words.
> 
> If its something we dont like, just rename it.



Negotiating is appeasement?

I looked the two words up in the dictionary, and guess what?

They are not the same.

Americans have been negotiating with their perceived "enemies" for a very long time now. Further, the US continues, and will continue to harvest relationships with brutal regimes that don't make the morning headlines.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 17, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Negotiating is appeasement?
> 
> I looked the two words up in the dictionary, and guess what?
> 
> ...



Negotiating is appeasement when we give the other side what it wants in return for them being 'nicer'.  The world thought if we just allow Hitler to take that little country or do that, he will calm down and we won't need to get involved.

Obama is suggesting that we do all kinds of wonderful things for Iran on the theory that if we are just nice to them, they will become wonderful friends.

History is not kind to that kind of thinking.

So 'negotiation' in the way that President Bush and others who understand this phenomena have used it in this context is in fact the same thing as appeasement.


----------



## Dogger (May 17, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> Negotiating is appeasement when we give the other side what it wants in return for them being 'nicer'.  The world thought if we just allow Hitler to take that little country or do that, he will calm down and we won't need to get involved.
> 
> Obama is suggesting that we do all kinds of wonderful things for Iran on the theory that if we are just nice to them, they will become wonderful friends.
> 
> ...



You have distorted Obama's position. You have distorted Bush's position. And you have even distorted Chamberlain&#8217;s position, too.  Call your alma mater and ask for a refund.

Bush has disparaged any negotiations as appeasement, when appeasement is simply the result of poor negotiations, and not the process itself.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 17, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> Negotiating is appeasement when we give the other side what it wants in return for them being 'nicer'.
> 
> Obama is suggesting that we do all kinds of wonderful things for Iran
> 
> ...



I have not read a more stupid, ill conceived post in a while.

First you start off with an authoratative statement claiming "Negotiating is appeasement," when the condition that "we give the other side what it wants in return for them being nicer," is fufilled. 

What exactly is Obama suggesting we do for Iran? Do you have an answer for is this claim or will it remain as hollow as the post written by you above?

If you cannot or will not provide the specifics the Obama camp has allegedly "given the other side," the objective observer has no other course of action but to conclude a liar has the megaphone.

Finally you end the post with a subjective definition of negotiation "in a way" that "President Bush and others who understand this phenomena have used it in this context..."

The absurdity of this final part remains amazing to me and all others with a modicum of reading comprehension.  No need to comment, no need to waste time.


----------



## Annie (May 17, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I have not read a more stupid, ill conceived post in a while.
> 
> First you start off with an authoratative statement claiming "Negotiating is appeasement," when the condition that "we give the other side what it wants in return for them being nicer," is fufilled.
> 
> ...



http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iran



> Iran
> 
> * The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That's why Obama stood up to the Bush administration's warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq.
> * Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama believes that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress  including Kyl-Lieberman  gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.
> * Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. *Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations.* If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 17, 2008)

> Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations




You just proved my point....a "choice" is not appeasement, try as you might to make it sound like it is. A choice is a choice, and the Obama camp has outlined that very clearly.

Appeasment would be _"we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations even if Iran does not give up its nuclear weapons or its alleged terrorist ties."
_

Of course, the Obama camp as you have proved with your link did not, has not and I suspect will never say that.

Give your head a shake.


----------



## Annie (May 17, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> And your point is....
> 
> Do you have one?



Dolt. You asked:



> What exactly is Obama suggesting we do for Iran? Do you have an answer for is this claim or will it remain as hollow as the post written by you above?


 That's what I gave you, even bolded so you couldn't miss it.



> If you cannot or will not provide the specifics the Obama camp has allegedly "given the other side," the objective observer has no other course of action but to conclude a liar has the megaphone.


 Now this is one of the silliest things I've seen in awhile, as it would be impossible at this point in time, for the jr. Senator from Illinois or his minions, to give Iran  anything.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 17, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Dolt. You asked:
> 
> That's what I gave you, even bolded so you couldn't miss it.
> 
> Now this is one of the silliest things I've seen in awhile, as it would be impossible at this point in time, for the jr. Senator from Illinois or his minions, to give Iran  anything.




No, you do not have a point. In fact, what you have done is solidify my claim and have rotted yours.

You just proved my point....a "choice" is not appeasement, try as you might to make it sound like it is. A choice is a choice, and the Obama camp has outlined that very clearly as per the link you provided.

Appeasment would be "we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations even if Iran does not give up its nuclear weapons or its alleged terrorist ties."

Of course, the Obama camp as you have proved with your link, did not, has not and I suspect will never say that.

Give your head a shake.


----------



## Toro (May 17, 2008)

Iran getting nukes is NOT the most important issue on the planet.

Iran is going to getting nuclear weapons - or at least the capacity to produce nuclear weapons - whether the West likes it or not.  Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers - Israel and America in Iraq in the west, Russia to the north, and China, India and Pakistan to the east.  Of course Iran is going to get nukes.

Iran's nuclear capabilities have expanded over the past eight years, which happens to have been the time when - <cough> <cough> Bush was the President.  The administration has done jack squat to stop Iran, unless you consider delaying the inevitable by six months as "doing something."

So this idea that Obama is unqualified because Iran is going to have nuclear capabilities is sheer nonsense.


----------



## Annie (May 17, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> No, you do not have a point. In fact, what you have done is solidify my claim and have rotted yours.
> 
> You just proved my point....a "choice" is not appeasement, try as you might to make it sound like it is. A choice is a choice, and the Obama camp has outlined that very clearly as per the link you provided.
> 
> ...


Seriously, you haven't a clue. Whatever. I can see now why some refuse to talk with you, advice I should have heeded.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (May 17, 2008)

What exactly is there to negotiate?  Their economy is in the tank. The mullahs pull mahmoud's strings.  When a larger corporation buys a smaller company there has to be an advantage for the larger corporation.  The small company does not dictate terms.  If anything, Iran should be begging to negotiate on our terms.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 17, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Seriously, you haven't a clue.



Read your own links before you share them.

Because it was very clear - very clear - the Obama camp offered the Iranians a choice, not an "appeasement."


----------



## Annie (May 17, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Read your own links before you share them.
> 
> Because it was very clear - very clear - the Obama camp offered the Iranians a choice, not an "appeasement."



Never said appeasement, read my posts.


----------



## Swamp Fox (May 17, 2008)

Dogger said:


> negioation is not appeasement



It is when the people you talk to are faking it.  Hitler negotiated to buy time to build his Army up more, besides, why fight for things when you can get them for free.  Soon as the Brits told Adolph, "No", that's when the war started.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 17, 2008)

Dogger said:


> You have distorted Obama's position. You have distorted Bush's position. And you have even distorted Chamberlains position, too.  Call your alma mater and ask for a refund.
> 
> Bush has disparaged any negotiations as appeasement, when appeasement is simply the result of poor negotiations, and not the process itself.



President Bush did nothing of the kind.  He quite accurately, based on long experience as recorded in history, explained how negotiating with terrorist and tyrants provides them with time and maneuverability along with prestige and sometimes major goodies while they do not reciprocate by changing their ways in any way. The endless 'negotiations' with despotic leadership of the Palestinians, reaching agreements and accommodations, etc. etc. with Israel making most of the concessions has not changed the Palestinian leadership's intentions of obliterating Israel one whit.   Nor has Israel been free of terrorist attacks originating with the Palestinians in all this time.

In the 1990's, the Clinton administration, using Jimmy Carter as its diplomatic envoy, negotiated a nuclear freeze with North Korea in exchange for us imposing no sanctions or other requirements on North Korea and, in addition, gave them five full years to come into compliance.  North Korea of course agreed.  Result?  North Korea has field tested its nuclear missiles--it never even slowed down its nuclear proliferation program.

Bush used Hitler as an example of the worst results that can ensue by appeasing and accommodating a dangerous tyrant rather than opposing him.

That Obama and his Democrat defenders took offense at an example that did not allude to him or name him served to appears to have struck a nerve don't you think?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 17, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Never said appeasement, read my posts.



Actually I wish President Bush had phrased it differently so that the numbnuts would deal with what he was actually saying instead of focusing on the semantics of one word.  But sometimes it appears that expecting intellectual honesty from some quarters is as likely to be as futle as expecting good results through negotiations with terrorists.


----------



## Annie (May 17, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> Actually I wish President Bush had phrased it differently so that the numbnuts would deal with what he was actually saying instead of focusing on the semantics of one word.



Actually for one of the few times, I think he said it right.


----------



## Gunny (May 17, 2008)

Dogger said:


> There's another thread already going.  Had you read it, you could learn that negioation is not appeasement and that Bush is a fool.




Wow.  That's just so brilliant.  Allowing someone to stall for time while calling it "negotiation" when you know they're doing exactly what you are trying to prevent is most definitely appeasement.

So is pretending they aren't doing EXACTLY that because being a partisan hack is more important than the issue itself.


----------



## Gunny (May 17, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Let me correct my comment, then: Bush and LuvRPgrl are fools.
> 
> Liberals are not the one's who renamed appeasement; Bush League conservatives did. Or do you believe that Reagan was guilty of appeasement with Iran and the former Soviet Union?



Shit, we can play this baby little game ... wtf would you call Carter?  A hardline stance guy, or what?  That bowl of Jell-O couldn't take a stand if his back was aganst a wall.  

The fact is, your boy wants to call turning his back on Iran and pretending they aren't there because he can't see them "negotiation" and you're right there backing the stupid play and hurling partsian insults as if ANYTHING anyone else in the universe does wil somehow change the basic fact.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 17, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> In the 1990's, the Clinton administration, using Jimmy Carter as its diplomatic envoy, negotiated a nuclear freeze with North Korea in exchange for us imposing no sanctions or other requirements on North Korea and, in addition, gave them five full years to come into compliance.  North Korea of course agreed.  Result?  North Korea has field tested its nuclear missiles--it never even slowed down its nuclear proliferation program.




You should really research history as written by those who are most qualified to form authoratative conclusions. The reason North Korea continued on its quest to test it's weapons capability was precisely because the U.S. via the Sunshine agreement reneged on its promise to deliver nuclear materials, fuel and other promises.  Instead they chose a more aggressive provocative stance with North Korea.

Everything the U.S. promised North Korea failed to materialize. On top of that, North Korea faced an even more malevolent U.S. attitude towards the region.

Comparing Hitler and Chamberlain to anything remotely put forward by the Obama camp remains an exercise in lunacy contrived by the most incapable U.S. administration to date.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 17, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> You should really research history as written by those who are most qualified to form authoratative conclusions. The reason North Korea continued on its quest to test it's weapons capability was precisely because the U.S. via the Sunshine agreement reneged on its promise to deliver nuclear materials, fuel and other promises.  Instead they chose a more aggressive provocative stance with North Korea.



Sorry but your version simply doesn't wash with the actual history.  North Korea broke the initial agreement by refusing the agreed to inspections of their nuclear program which was to be for peaceful purposes only.  That was in 1993.

And finally after several other diplomatic events. . .


> Pyongyang is cooperating with Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, whose leading members are South Korea, the United States and Japan. KEDO has reached an agreement on the provision of the light-water nuclear reactors by 2003, and, in return, North Korea has frozen its nuclear program. South Korea, which has promised to bear the lion's share of the reactor project cost estimated at US$4.5 billion, is asking the United States to put up at least a symbolic amount. The US administration, however, has said it can make no contribution to the construction cost as Congress has not appropriated the necessary budget. An official in Seoul, however, said that South Korea cannot drop its demand simply because of domestic problems in the United States. The US Congress has been delaying approval of the cost for the reactor project. South Korean officials said the U.S. refusal to share the reactor cost would make it difficult for them to obtain approval from the National Assembly for the South Korean share.
> 
> Since the conclusion of the Supply Agreement in December 1995, six related protocols have come into effect and three rounds of expert-level negotiations have produced solid results. The ROK power company, Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), is the prime contractor for this project and has as its responsibility the design, manufacture, procurement, construction and management of the reactors. On 19 August 1997 KEDO and North Korea held a groundbreaking ceremony to begin construction of two light-water reactors.
> 
> ...


http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html

Carter's agreement with North Korea was in 1994--I think I previously misstated that as 1993--and it did agree to give North Korea all kinds of goodies in exchange for them being 'nice'.  But purchased diplomacy is the appeasement to which we are addressing, don't you think?  I believe we did deliver on our end, but it didn't even slow North Korea down.

Now tell me why we should expect better results with negotiations and accommodations with Iran?  According to Obama's website--Kathianne posted an excerpt from that earlier--he proposes making the same kind of deal with Iran that Clinton/Carter made with north Korea.  But he expects different results.  And he has zero basis on which to assume the same old approach will be any more successful.


----------



## Paulie (May 17, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iran



Don't oversimplify that though, Kath.

Obviously that negotiation would have to involve Iran giving full transparency, and allowing 100% unrestricted access to Natanz, and anywhere else deemed suspicious so far.

Why rush to another Trillion Dollar war, this time possibly leading to mass international involvement (with a few key states AGAINST us), before all avenues have been exhausted?

It's not like they have thousands of US-reachable ICBM's on alert pointing down our throats.  They're a country easily containable at any moment, with no real threatening military power besides the Rev. Guard.  If anything, the general citizens of the country pose more of a threat than anything else, should we commit to a ground invasion...Which, let's be reasonable, would be _required_ to completely take care of the "job".

Are you really willing to take _yet another_ shot in the dark chance similar to Iraq, considering the possible negative blowback effects to say the LEAST?


----------



## Annie (May 17, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> Don't oversimplify that though, Kath.
> 
> Obviously that negotiation would have to involve Iran giving full transparency, and allowing 100% unrestricted access to Natanz, and anywhere else deemed suspicious so far.
> 
> ...



For some reason, I can't see myself clarifying Barack's visions.


----------



## Paulie (May 17, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> For some reason, I can't see myself clarifying Barack's visions.



Neither can I, but the basic premise of what _I'M_ saying is that we haven't, AT ALL, exhausted all options.  

There isn't nearly enough evidence yet to suspect they are currently building a bomb.  If that can be provided, and it is CREDIBLE with international advocacy, then I would say we give them an ultimatum.  They know full well, especially with Bush/Cheney, that it wouldn't be a bluff.

I just don't think we're anywhere NEAR that point yet.  I'm not pleased that Bush just flat out refuses to speak with Iran, giving what amounts to his OPINION on how it will turn out if he does.  That's being extremely obtuse, and doesn't help anyone or anything.

We stood up to the Soviets, who actually COULD have annihilated us, and diplomacy worked in the end.  

The tired old argument that because they're "all nutcase muslims", they can't be reasoned with, is ridiculous, and it only serves to further damage our standing in the world.  To not even make an ATTEMPT, and instead skip right over to war, is really sad.


----------



## Dogger (May 17, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Shit, we can play this baby little game ... wtf would you call Carter?  A hardline stance guy, or what?  That bowl of Jell-O couldn't take a stand if his back was aganst a wall.



Despite his problems in the region, Carter's work on the Camp David accords neutralized the threat to Israel from Egypt, which continues to pay dividends today. He did that with diplomacy, not bluster.


----------



## José (May 17, 2008)

> Originally posted by *Dogger*
> Despite his problems in the region, Carter's work on the Camp David accords neutralized the threat to Israel from Egypt, which continues to pay dividends today. He did that with diplomacy, not bluster.



HAHAHA!!

The only "dividend" the continued existence of the jewish racial dictatorship has ever paid is a giant hole in Lower Manhattan, buddy.


----------



## Dogger (May 17, 2008)

Swamp Fox said:


> It is when the people you talk to are faking it.  Hitler negotiated to buy time to build his Army up more, besides, why fight for things when you can get them for free.  Soon as the Brits told Adolph, "No", that's when the war started.


Once again: negioation is not appeasement. Every country in Europe negotiated with Hitler before war broke out. Hitler was faking it with all of them. Only Chamberlain is regarded as an appeaser because he gave up the Sudetenland for nothing but empty promises. That bought time for both sides to build up their armies, but it gave Hitler access to the manufacturing capabilities of the Sudetenland.


----------



## José (May 17, 2008)

This debate reminds me of a bunch of soviet bureaucrats debating the communist prospect for the XXI century while Gorbachev was busy dismantling the iron curtain in a process that would lead to the desintegration of the Soviet Union itself.

The NPT is nothing but a distant memory in the Middle East since Egypt announced the beginning of its nuclear program.

People have a hard time understanding that 9/11 created a whole new geopolitical situation in the Middle East in which nuclear weapons are a matter of *national survival* for arab countries.

The reality in the post 9/11 world is that in the event of another mega attack agains any western nation, arab countries can become the targets of military invasions/aerial bombardment "at best" and nuclear retaliation at worst.

Without nuclear capabilities arab countries are held hostage by the actions of organisations they have no control.

This is an unbearable geopolitical situation.

Economic sanctions and even threats of invasion are ineffective because countries do not negotiate *national survival*.

Toro is absolutely right and not only with regard to Iran.

Egypt and Syria are also developing nuclear programs.

The idea that Israel can prevent all arab countries from developing a nuclear deterrent against the West *indefinitely* is the most cherished pipe dream in Europe and the US, but still a pipe dream.


----------



## Shogun (May 17, 2008)

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sMMklhX74_w&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sMMklhX74_w&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


dammit.

Kevin James and Chris Matthews on Appeasement

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMMklhX74_w[/ame]


----------



## indago (May 18, 2008)

*Dogger wrote:*


> There's another thread already going.  Had you read it, you could learn that negioation is not appeasement and that Bush is a fool.



Doesn't change a thing: it's still a pitiful sight...


-


----------



## Foxfyre (May 18, 2008)

There is a literal difference between negotiation and appeasement.

If I want better pay or a promotion at work, I show the boss how I merit that and how it benefits him.  He in turn explains what he can and cannot offer and we arrive at a compromise beneficial to both.  That's negotiation.

If I threaten to strike or sue my boss if he doesn't do this or allow that, and he capitulates just to keep the peace or avoid a problem, that is not negotiation.  That is appeasement.

Coming to an agreement in which both parties agree to a solution beneficial to both is negotiation.

Buying peace (bribes) or looking the other way to avoid confrontation or giving in to demands to avoid conflict (extortion) is not negotiation but is appeasement.

President Bush (and John McCain) are of the opinion that attempts to negotiate with terrorists will almost always produce advantage to the terrorists (appeasement) and is unlikely to produce anything of value for the negotiator.

It is important to know the difference in these things.


----------



## Toro (May 18, 2008)

Bush struck a deal with North Korea and Libya.

Appeasement?  Or good geopolitics?


----------



## LuvRPgrl (May 18, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Let me correct my comment, then: Bush and LuvRPgrl are fools.
> 
> Liberals are not the one's who renamed appeasement; Bush League conservatives did. Or do you believe that Reagan was guilty of appeasement with Iran and the former Soviet Union?



OH, anyone who disagrees with you is a fool eh? Sounds like a Hitlarian dictatorship to me.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (May 18, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Negotiating is appeasement?
> 
> I looked the two words up in the dictionary, and guess what?
> 
> ...



Everything you said is true. My point is that if certain parties (US, AMERICANS) "TRY" to negotiate with terrorists, its the same as appeasement, just as it is with Hammas and Israel. No matter what negotiations we come to with those groups, they will once again start the violence because ultimately, their bottom line goal is our destruction.

When Chamberlain attempted negotiations with Hitler, it became appeasement, because everytime England kept its end of the bargain, Hitler used some obviously phoney excuse to continue to absorb more and more land into his third reich, because that was his ultimate goal. It became apparent to many, but not to Chamberlein.

Its the same with al quiada, and hammas today. Certain parties simply cannot negotiate with them, hence, any attempts at it, actually is appeasement. WHich never works

As for you ending comments, its totally true, but at every level, virtually all people do that, it is inevitable.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (May 18, 2008)

Dogger said:


> You have distorted Obama's position. You have distorted Bush's position. And you have even distorted Chamberlain&#8217;s position, too.  Call your alma mater and ask for a refund.
> 
> Bush has disparaged any negotiations as appeasement, when appeasement is simply the result of poor negotiations, and not the process itself.




I see personal insults is something you simply cannot refrain from.

How about this, some of us will stop responding to your posts with actual thoughts, facts and intelligent opinions, if you stop badgering us with personal insults?  


*OH, AND PLEASE DONT START IN WITH SOME 2ND GRADE COMMENT ABOUT HOW WE ARENT CAPABLE OF SUCH THINGS....PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE, I HAVE 7 KIDS AND YOUR USUAL JUVENILLE INSULTS ARE VERY OLD AND TIRING.*


----------



## Larkinn (May 18, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> OH, anyone who disagrees with you is a fool eh? Sounds like a Hitlarian dictatorship to me.



Because the real problem with Hitler was that he called the Jews fools, right?


----------



## Paulie (May 18, 2008)

Toro said:


> Bush struck a deal with North Korea and Libya.
> 
> Appeasement?  Or good geopolitics?



Reagan struck a deal with Gorbachev and the Soviet Union.  

Appeasement?  Or good geopolitics?


----------



## Shogun (May 18, 2008)

Luvpr has SEVEN kids?!?!


holy SHIT.



say, anyone catch that Mike Judge flick Idiocracy?


----------



## Dogger (May 18, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> OH, anyone who disagrees with you is a fool eh? Sounds like a Hitlarian dictatorship to me.



Fool. I've never called gunny a fool and we disagree constantly. Your straw man distortion of my statement only proves it to be correct. Fool.


----------



## Shogun (May 18, 2008)

you sure do have the "blah blah blah" scene covered though!

j/k!

Have a great evening, dogg!


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 20, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> My point is that if certain parties (US, AMERICANS) "TRY" to negotiate with terrorists, its the same as appeasement, just as it is with Hammas and Israel.
> 
> No matter what negotiations we come to with those groups, they will once again start the violence because ultimately, their bottom line goal is our destruction.



No it is not. Negotiating and appeasement are not the same. They are two different words, they mean two different things. And the climate today is not - I repeat - not anything like pre-World War 2 Europe. 

Hamas and Israel are a completely different animal. I don't see the point in bringing that up.

As for the last sentence, "they" are not one cohesive unit. In fact, the onus of labeling an armed group, organization or state "terrorist" should be objective, but remains very subjective. Naturally, I reject your characterization completely. 

Furthermore, "their" bottom line is not "our" destruction for the reasons listed above.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 20, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Had Pres Bush spoken this right after 9/11, it would have boosted his public approval, but now that time has passed, and the memory of 9/11 along with it, it is part of the reason his approval rating is so low. BUT, he doesnt care, he still insists on doing the right thing, which is why the HISTORIANS will see Pres Bush much differently than the current public.
> 
> Democrat led congress approval ratings are the lowest in history, coming in at a paltry 15%



Dead on.
Bush has disappointed me on quite a few fronts, but his inability or unwillingness to tackle issues head on is one of them.


----------



## Shogun (May 20, 2008)

I really hope you people keep thinking that bush will go down in history as anything other than the complete failure that he is.  Hell, feel free to bask in the same warm fuzzy glow that the movie Birth of a Nation gives to klansmen..


----------



## AllieBaba (May 20, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> No it is not. Negotiating and appeasement are not the same. They are two different words, they mean two different things. And the climate today is not - I repeat - not anything like pre-World War 2 Europe.
> 
> Hamas and Israel are a completely different animal. I don't see the point in bringing that up.
> 
> ...



Negotiation is appeasement. It's what you do when you know you can't get exactly what you want.


----------



## Shogun (May 20, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Negotiation is appeasement. It's what you do when you know you can't get exactly what you want.



oh.. you mean like how REAGAN Appeased the Evil Empire then?


----------



## Ravi (May 20, 2008)

Or when Bush appeased bin laden by invading Iraq?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 20, 2008)

Shogun said:


> oh.. you mean like how REAGAN Appeased the Evil Empire then?



Ok, fine then.


----------



## José (May 20, 2008)

You're OK in my book, Dogger...

It was a pleasure to read your defence of racial equality in the US.

And your posts in general are a pleasure to read.

I was a bit blunt in my reply and now I'm feeling bad.

But I want you to know I don't blame you for supporting Israel.

The pro Israel social pressure people in America have to endure is just to great.

It's not fair to expect them to think otherwise.

Keep posting great stuff for us to read, buddy.


----------



## namvet (May 21, 2008)

Dogger said:


> You have distorted Obama's position. You have distorted Bush's position. And you have even distorted Chamberlains position, too.  Call your alma mater and ask for a refund.
> 
> Bush has disparaged any negotiations as appeasement, when appeasement is simply the result of poor negotiations, and not the process itself.



you seem to have a fear of the word 'appeasement'


----------



## Dogger (May 21, 2008)

namvet said:


> you seem to have a fear of the word 'appeasement'



No, just contempt for those who misuse the word, or try to rewrite history. Unfortunately, too many right wingers just toss out the latest GOP talking point without thinking it through, and then waste time on matters which are inarguably stupid.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Aug 12, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Because the real problem with Hitler was that he called the Jews fools, right?



No, if you notice, I said "anyone" who disagrees, so Hitlers problem was that anyone, not GERMAN, was a fool. Simple analogies are difficult for you eh? Maybe thats YOUR real problem.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Aug 12, 2008)

THE IRAN SAGA CONTINUES.

Refresh my memory, guys, what are the options here? Bomb Iran? Invade it? "Liberate" it?


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Aug 12, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> No it is not. Negotiating and appeasement are not the same. They are two different words, they mean two different things. And the climate today is not - I repeat - not anything like pre-World War 2 Europe.
> 
> Hamas and Israel are a completely different animal. I don't see the point in bringing that up.
> 
> ...



I stated "THOSE GROUPS" so I dont see how you can think I believe it is a singular block.

And yea, they state it themselves, the various terrorists and their groups, our destruction is their goal.

ITs pretty obvious that the Islamists are a culture of death, and when they dont care who dies, as long as someone dies, its not possible to negotiate with them. They are irrational and caught up in satanic desires and overly emotional.


----------



## Reality (Aug 13, 2008)

So many stupid posts in such a small period of time. 


Kissinger in Paris with the Viet Cong? What was that? 

James Baker to Syria over a dozen times? What was that? 

Talking to people is not appeasement. Anyone who says so really needs to find a library.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 13, 2008)

Reality said:


> Talking to people is not appeasement. Anyone who says so really needs to find a library.




It all depends on what you are saying to them when you talk to them. If you are doing nothing but giving into their demands in the hopes that they will "play nice" from now on. You are appeasing!!


----------



## editec (Aug 13, 2008)

*The editecian school for advanced international relations*​ 
*Chapter I*
_*Bear Baiting 101*_​ 

Lesson 1
*Negotiation* - what you do when war with Russia is still debatable and obviously unwinnable (See: M.A.D.)

Lesson 2
*Appeasement* - what you do when war with Russia in inevitable and obviously unwinnable ( until Star Wars defence actually works, of course).

Lesson 3
*Saber Rattling -* What one does when one knows perfectly well one cannot afford to go to war, but wants to appear strongly in opposition to that which one has absolutely no intention of doing anything about.

Lesson 4
*Consiliatory gestures -* The declaration of entene giving the aggessor permission to do whatever the hell it wants, while you pretend not to notice.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 13, 2008)

Reality said:


> So many stupid posts in such a small period of time.
> 
> 
> Kissinger in Paris with the Viet Cong? What was that?
> ...



Kissinger did not negotiate with the Viet Cong.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Aug 15, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Fool. I've never called gunny a fool and we disagree constantly. Your straw man distortion of my statement only proves it to be correct. Fool.




It was a rhetorical question you idiot. I doubt you even really know what a fool is.

Putting me in the same camp as President Bush, wow! What a compliment!! DANKS !!


----------



## Inferno (Sep 1, 2008)

NO MORE WAITING said:


> Bush and Obama had words in the press yesterday over the single most immediate important thing affecting everyone on the planet.  It's not the economy.  It's not global warming.   It's the issue of Iran getting nukes.
> 
> History repeats itself if we are not careful
> 
> ...



Hey people still talk to Bush after Iraq.


----------



## Reality (Sep 11, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Kissinger did not negotiate with the Viet Cong.



I know this is from a month ago, but: 

Kissinger was in Paris as a special attache to the secret negotiations during the LBJ administrations 1968 negotiations. Kissinger, being the traitor to this country that he is, was reporting developments back to the republican nominee for president, the murderer of no less than 20,000 Americans, Richard Nixon. Nixon promised the Vietnamese a better deal from the republican administration and urged them to resist a deal until after he took office. 

Kissinger was also in Paris in '73 and negotiated directly with Le Duc Tho


----------



## editec (Sep 11, 2008)

Gummysargent was pointing out that Kissinger negtiated North Vietnamese.

The Viet Cong were of course working for N. Vietnam, but technically, at least,  he was correct.


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 11, 2008)

So you negotiate; but there comes a time when negotiations are little more than an enemy stalling for time.


----------



## Shogun (Sep 12, 2008)

Did Luvrpgrl REALLY say that islamic people are "caught up in *satanic desires* and overly emotional"?


----------

