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.

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.

What a pitiful sight...

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

__________________
No one ever asks whether the glass is too big!

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%

__________________
WHEN YOU ARE YOUNG, IF YOU ARENT A LIBERAL, YOU HAVE NO HEART, WHEN YOU GROW UP, IF YOU DONT BECOME A CONSERVATIVE, YOU HAVE NO BRAIN.

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

If its something we dont like, just rename it.

__________________
WHEN YOU ARE YOUNG, IF YOU ARENT A LIBERAL, YOU HAVE NO HEART, WHEN YOU GROW UP, IF YOU DONT BECOME A CONSERVATIVE, YOU HAVE NO BRAIN.

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?

__________________
No one ever asks whether the glass is too big!

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

http://www.courant.com/news/nationwo...,3307220.story

__________________
"We are fighting today for our life, for our liberty, for our all, we cannot go on being led as we are. Somehow or other, we must get into the Government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory."~Leo Amery 1940, while staring at Chamberlain

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.

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.

__________________
Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."
-- Thomas Sowell

" I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."
-- Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1776

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.

__________________
No one ever asks whether the glass is too big!

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.

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

__________________
"We are fighting today for our life, for our liberty, for our all, we cannot go on being led as we are. Somehow or other, we must get into the Government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory."~Leo Amery 1940, while staring at Chamberlain

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.

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.

__________________
"We are fighting today for our life, for our liberty, for our all, we cannot go on being led as we are. Somehow or other, we must get into the Government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory."~Leo Amery 1940, while staring at Chamberlain