Negotiating with Disaster

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Nate Peele, Jun 4, 2008.

  1. Nate Peele
    Offline

    Nate Peele Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2008
    Messages:
    101
    Thanks Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +12
    Now that Obama is the Democrat nominee it seems like the ideal time to discuss his appeasement plan and contrast it with the level headed diplomacy that we’ve had for the past 8 years and that McCain wisely wants to continue.

    To begin with, let’s look at North Korea. An inexperienced President like Obama would probably have tried negotiating with them a few years ago when they were building up a nuclear program believing that we had more leverage. Bush wisely waited until the bombs were already built. By doing so North Korea knew we were serious because they already had the weapons.

    When it comes to Iran, Bush may himself have been tempted to negotiate in 2003 when Karl Rove received a secret Iranian proposal for negotiations from Iranian Ambassador in Paris Sadeq Kharrazi Kharrazi and the three top figures in Iranian foreign policy: Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, then President Mohammad Khatami and his Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi.

    In the proposal which was negotiated with Swiss ambassador Tim Guldimann the Iranians stated Iran was willing to consider far-reaching compromises on its nuclear program, relations with Hezbollah and Hamas and support for a Palestinian peace agreement with Israel as part of a larger peace agreement with the United States.

    Of course that was before the Iraq war and before Ahmadinajed came to power. The new hardline government in Iran is unlikely to offer us the same terms. On the other hand, Bush has played a very clever waiting game and it should be long with continued pressure before Iran caves.

    Bush was probably not so anti-negotiation, but became that way after some less than stellar negotiations. Maybe he rebought part of Alaska from Putin or gave assurances to Chavez for some magical coffee beans. However, I am sure that Bush didn’t come to his position lightly. As a 21st century Bush has discovered a way of negotiating through the media that is responsible for much of this administration’s foreign policy success.

    The Bush strategy involves not talking to our enemies, but in making public indirect threats about them either to the media or through third-parties. By doing this publicly, they not only get their way, but have the added bonus of humiliating the foreign leader and making him lose face when he inevitably acquiesces. I’m not denying that Obama can learn these techniques, but do we really want a leader who is learning on the job? I don’t.
     
  2. jreeves
    Offline

    jreeves Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,588
    Thanks Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +315
    Low level diplomacy is something that Mccain and Bush both call for. It's the heads of state meeting that is the problem. See Kennedy and Khrushchev....
     
  3. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,509
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,920
    You may think you are funny but you are not. Clinton through Carter gave North Korea the Bomb. Carter sold Clinton on giving them free materials and NO inspections for almost 8 years. The Liberals howled like stuck pigs when Bush agreed to "discuss" anything with North Korea, they demanded we DO SOMETHING, of course they would not actually admit what it was they were demanding we DO. Just condemning Bush and his including China, Japan and South Korea in the talks was good enough for them. All the while bemoaning an "illegal" invasion in Iraq for "weapons of mass destruction".

    The rest of your satire ignorant pap and this thread belongs in the Flame Zone.

    Funny my ass, your a retard. You do not even know your facts.
     
  4. Nate Peele
    Offline

    Nate Peele Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2008
    Messages:
    101
    Thanks Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +12

    Thank you for your well thought out and eloquently stated counterpoint. I have no doubt you are right and as we go further into Iraq we will yet find those WMD. I notice you are retired military and you have a bit of a hair trigger temper. That seems to be very popular these days. Thanks for contributing to the thread.
     
  5. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,509
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,920
    Fuck you and your LYING ass. Clinton VIA Carter is why North Korea has nukes. Bush had nothing to do with it. CLINTON stopped inspections and agreed to give North Korea the Fuel they used to make the bombs and the money they used to create the site.

    Iraq was about protecting the US, you and your liberal nimrod dumbshits can try and spin it anyway you want, doesn't make it true. I guess you believe Clinton, his Cabinent and his advisors all were lying to the American people too, even in 2002? As well as the entire Western world? Give me a break.

    Saddam Hussein's OWN Generals believed he had weapons. But hey ignore those inconvenient facts cause they don't mesh with your other lies.

    You want to make Satire, guess what shit for brains? It has to actually be based on fact. You have no facts as evidenced by what you started this thread with. Just more twisted lies by Liberal Pin heads that think they are smarter then every one else.
     
  6. Swamp Fox
    Offline

    Swamp Fox Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    807
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +59
    Another wonderful post from the liberal left, trying to place the blame on republicans while ignoring the contributations from their party to the mess that government has become.

    Thanks for contributing nothing to the board. Have a nice big glass of lefty koolaid and go fuck yourself.
     
  7. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    I think they noticed you're not a rabid rightie... lol...

    :eusa_clap:
     
  8. ReillyT
    Offline

    ReillyT Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ratings:
    +164
    Come on... whatever you want to say about Nate, I don't think there is much use in denying he is funny. It took people a while to even figure out his angle, which was funny in itself.
     
  9. Nate Peele
    Offline

    Nate Peele Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2008
    Messages:
    101
    Thanks Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +12
    Before this post I wasn't 100% sure what your board name meant, but I figure as long as you don't try to get married it really isn't my business. You know don't ask don't tell.

    I figured when Clinton bombed Iraq it was merely a political move to take the press's coverage off of the whole Lewinsky thing. And I'll be the first to admit that attacking the Iraqis in Iraq has stopped us from having to fight the Iraqis in this country.

    Anyway, again thanks for contributing to the thread. As always, you give me a lot to think about.
     
  10. busara
    Offline

    busara wanasiasa wapumbava

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,501
    Thanks Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    PA
    Ratings:
    +87
    why do people always resort to swearing and name-calling? seems immature to me. but anyways, you really think we went into iraq to protect our home country? whether the administration truly believed they had weapons or not doesnt matter, as it seems extremely unlikely that it was truly their motive. it was about securing influence in the middle east and attempting to start the economy again through large defense spending.
     

Share This Page