the appeasement issue

[JcP]

anyone agree with Bush's comments able to answer better? Truly curious, as it seems a completely absurd argument to me.

[Human-yo]

i saw that last night! awesome!

[higherthanamile]

Agreed. To appease, in the way that Bush implies regarding Obama is to buy off through concession or compromise of one's principles.

Obama, in my opinion is talking about opening lines of communication with those seen as the enemy. Could be me, but that is likely the most successful way to exterminate a conflict that is the sole catalyst of loss of life on both sides.

What I find funny about this whole implication is the fact that Nixon did what Obama is inferring with China, Reagan with the USSR, and Bush (I should of pulled out) SR. with Libya.

HTAM

[Human-yo]

i'd like it explained further what repubs want. are they really suggesting that diplomacy should be skipped all together?

[kamikazi89]

man, how much earth is bush gonna scorch before he's through(talk about setting an extremely nasty tone)

and what's worse he seems impervious to failure, the congress, and most shocking of all:

television pundits

[Terry]

What you liberals fail to understand is that our talking to the enemy emboldens them, in some unspecified way.

[Patrick Rue]

This is painful.

[Patrick Rue]

"without talking through strength"

....

then that attack attack attack attack

its scary that this james guy is a radio host.

Where he's automatically got the upper hand, and it's all voice.

[Waves]

Originally Posted by Terry

What you liberals fail to understand is that our talking to the enemy emboldens them, in some unspecified way.

that first guy is a real douche, his voice is soooo annoying

"barack obama is the one with....questionable isreal policies"

hahaha

[Human-yo]

his whole argument is fucked when he declares that it wasn't his historical reference. it was bush's! maybe don't defend bush then?

[LetsPlayYourWay]

Bush talking about appeasement? Did he forget he is the biggest appeaser of the state that deserves the lease appeasing? The state that the international community has sanctioned for everything from state terrorism to the ethnic cleansing through the building of settlements.

Calling the revenge killings of civilians defending a nation is appeasement. Ignoring the fact that one has the most advanced weapons that can be pin pointed to hit a football, yet uses them to crush entire city blocks is appeasement. Ignoring the fact that Israel has killed 10x as many Palestinains as they have Israelis is appeasement. Calling the aggressor the victim is appeasement.

So who is guilty of it?

[DubStyle311]

Here is the deal:

I don't think that the issue of appeasement is fully understood by the left - luckily, I feel like most independents and moderates do. Its not that the President talking directly with some of the leaders of these rouge states emboldens them. They are quite bold as it is. I don't worry about Obama making some appeasement deal that rewards their actions. My chief concern is that by Obama talking with certain people, he trusts them to a certain extent that they will deal fairly and honorably. Much like Chamberlain trusted Hitler not to invade.

The fact of the matter is that these megalomaniac leaders if rouge states are not honorable people. Theyre not to be trusted. It has been shown countless times that they will say one thing and do another.

This is one of my chief concerns about Obama. I feel like he has been drinking his own kool-aid. He has stormed through the primaries with his quick wit and charm. It may very well work on fickle Americans, but on the world stage...I have serious doubts. He seems naive. That he will go and meet with all of these people who hate the United States, he will talk to them, they will see the light, and they deal fairly to achieve peace. It's really a bit absurd. When dealing with these rouge states, particularly those in the middle east, this will be seen as weakness. Strength is the only thing that people like Saddam Hussain, Hugo Chavez and some cultures respect. This mentality and approach that he is taking is weak and I fear that it will be taken advantage of. Like Kennedy and Carter, I see Obama as being a disastrously weak President.

The fact that most ppl here can not even comprehend this just shows how out of touch the Democrats are on this issue and is exemplary of why Republicans have always been seen as the stronger party on national defense.

[Man in Black]

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

The fact that most ppl here can not even comprehend this just shows how out of touch the Democrats are on this issue and is exemplary of why Republicans have always been seen as the stronger party on national defense.

Is this "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality what the Republicans have brought us?

I understand a government's need for national defense. What I don't understand is why this administration has chosen the path of going out of their way to make enemies instead of going out of their way to make allies. What I mean by that is, it takes compromising to make allies. This administration has no desire to compromise. Not in it's policies here at home and not in it's foreign policies. Why does this president and vice president have so much unchecked power? Dick Cheney says that the vice president's office is not part of the executive branch. Well which branch is it then? It certainly isn't the legistlative branch, the Vice President does not makes the laws. It certainly isn't the judicial branch, he does not administer justice.

You know, one argument I always hear conservatives make is that presidents should not be judged in the now, that they should let the history books judge them. I agree. Let's let history judge him. The man who has led us into the most national debt since Ronald Reagan and the man who has had the most irresponsible foreign policy since L.B.J.

[LetsPlayYourWay]

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

Here is the deal:

I don't think that the issue of appeasement is fully understood by me.

Sig worthy.

[clive]

^ everyone should put that in their sig just to piss him off.

[higherthanamile]

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

Here is the deal:

I don't think that the issue of appeasement is fully understood by the left - luckily, I feel like most independents and moderates do. Its not that the President talking directly with some of the leaders of these rouge states emboldens them. They are quite bold as it is. I don't worry about Obama making some appeasement deal that rewards their actions. My chief concern is that by Obama talking with certain people, he trusts them to a certain extent that they will deal fairly and honorably. Much like Chamberlain trusted Hitler not to invade.

The fact of the matter is that these megalomaniac leaders if rouge states are not honorable people. Theyre not to be trusted. It has been shown countless times that they will say one thing and do another.

This is one of my chief concerns about Obama. I feel like he has been drinking his own kool-aid. He has stormed through the primaries with his quick wit and charm. It may very well work on fickle Americans, but on the world stage...I have serious doubts. He seems naive. That he will go and meet with all of these people who hate the United States, he will talk to them, they will see the light, and they deal fairly to achieve peace. It's really a bit absurd. When dealing with these rouge states, particularly those in the middle east, this will be seen as weakness. Strength is the only thing that people like Saddam Hussain, Hugo Chavez and some cultures respect. This mentality and approach that he is taking is weak and I fear that it will be taken advantage of. Like Kennedy and Carter, I see Obama as being a disastrously weak President.

The fact that most ppl here can not even comprehend this just shows how out of touch the Democrats are on this issue and is exemplary of why Republicans have always been seen as the stronger party on national defense.

Dub, Chamberlian handed over Czechoslovakia to Hitler by relinquishing any support Britain previously offered in saying the Czechs could face Germany alone or submit to annexation.

The Foreign Policy that has been executed by the US for many years is largely responsible, or at the least a primary catalyst contributing to the POV you are suggesting these foreign leaders have toward the US. Historically, the US Govt has buddied up with powers in the Middle East until it gets what it wants and than that's it.

The US Govt gave Hussien weapons to stifle Iran. They supported what eventually became Al-Queda by backing the Afghan resistance in the 80's against Russian Invasion. For decades, this has been going on in countries all over the world.

Obama, I believe is interested in 'damage control' because let's face it.....things are pretty fucked up right now. Obama's cabinet and administration couldn't possibly fuck things up any worse, or be any more deceptive.

'There is no doubt that Iraq does indeed have WMD's'
-Cheney
'Any country with an intelligence agency knows Iraq has WMD's'
-Rumsfeld
'You are lied to all the time'
-Rumsfeld
'Major combat operations in Iraq have now been completed' (sic)
-W

Bush could arrive with olive branches and white doves and it wouldn't matter. He has known financial conflicts of interest as does his VP that are directly related and in some cases sewn into the conflict we are in the middle of in Iran.

HTAM

[JcP]

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

Here is the deal:

I don't think that the issue of appeasement is fully understood by the left - luckily, I feel like most independents and moderates do. Its not that the President talking directly with some of the leaders of these rouge states emboldens them. They are quite bold as it is. I don't worry about Obama making some appeasement deal that rewards their actions. My chief concern is that by Obama talking with certain people, he trusts them to a certain extent that they will deal fairly and honorably. Much like Chamberlain trusted Hitler not to invade.

The fact of the matter is that these megalomaniac leaders if rouge states are not honorable people. Theyre not to be trusted. It has been shown countless times that they will say one thing and do another.

This is one of my chief concerns about Obama. I feel like he has been drinking his own kool-aid. He has stormed through the primaries with his quick wit and charm. It may very well work on fickle Americans, but on the world stage...I have serious doubts. He seems naive. That he will go and meet with all of these people who hate the United States, he will talk to them, they will see the light, and they deal fairly to achieve peace. It's really a bit absurd. When dealing with these rouge states, particularly those in the middle east, this will be seen as weakness. Strength is the only thing that people like Saddam Hussain, Hugo Chavez and some cultures respect. This mentality and approach that he is taking is weak and I fear that it will be taken advantage of. Like Kennedy and Carter, I see Obama as being a disastrously weak President.

The fact that most ppl here can not even comprehend this just shows how out of touch the Democrats are on this issue and is exemplary of why Republicans have always been seen as the stronger party on national defense.

seems to me the issue of appeasement is understood quite clearly by the left, hence the backlash at Bush trying to link up Obama and those who would talk to their enemies with appeasement.

If you're in agreement that talking to our enemies is not a mistake and certainly not appeasement, then I have no issue. Your personal views of Obama as somehow weak are not what this is about. And believe me when I say that the irony of using "not to be trusted" when describing our enemies is not lost on me.

[stoneric]

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran. Now that's a foreign policy us "fickle" Americans can sink our teeth into.