The Most Important Issue On The Planet

Discussion in 'Iran' started by NO MORE WAITING, May 16, 2008.

  1. NO MORE WAITING
    Offline

    NO MORE WAITING Rookie

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    3
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  2. NO MORE WAITING
    Offline

    NO MORE WAITING Rookie

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    3
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  3. indago
    Offline

    indago VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,050
    Thanks Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +180
    [​IMG]

    What a pitiful sight...
     
  4. Dogger
    Offline

    Dogger Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    979
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Dixie
    Ratings:
    +58
    There's another thread already going. Had you read it, you could learn that negioation is not appeasement and that Bush is a fool.
     
  5. LuvRPgrl
    Offline

    LuvRPgrl Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,163
    Thanks Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +206
    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%:rofl:
     
  6. LuvRPgrl
    Offline

    LuvRPgrl Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,163
    Thanks Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +206
    Negotiation with terrorists is appeasement. Nice try at the usual lefts spin on words.

    If its something we dont like, just rename it.
     
  7. Dogger
    Offline

    Dogger Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    979
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Dixie
    Ratings:
    +58
    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?
     
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    What Bush said, as they say, with some 'context':

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

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. TheGoodShepherd
    Offline

    TheGoodShepherd BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Messages:
    344
    Thanks Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +12
    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.
     
  10. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,678
    Thanks Received:
    10,792
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,384
    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.
     

Share This Page