The Most Important Issue On The Planet

[NO MORE WAITING]

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]

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]

What a pitiful sight...

 

[Dogger]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the 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 I could only have talked to Hitler, all 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.

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you.

...

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

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]

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.

 

[Dogger]

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.

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.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

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


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.

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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]

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."