The Most Important Issue On The Planet

[Annie]

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."

Never said appeasement, read my posts.

 

[Swamp Fox]

negioation is not appeasement

It is when the people you talk to are faking it. Hitler negotiated to buy time to build his Army up more, besides, why fight for things when you can get them for free. Soon as the Brits told Adolph, "No", that's when the war started.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

President Bush did nothing of the kind. He quite accurately, based on long experience as recorded in history, explained how negotiating with terrorist and tyrants provides them with time and maneuverability along with prestige and sometimes major goodies while they do not reciprocate by changing their ways in any way. The endless 'negotiations' with despotic leadership of the Palestinians, reaching agreements and accommodations, etc. etc. with Israel making most of the concessions has not changed the Palestinian leadership's intentions of obliterating Israel one whit. Nor has Israel been free of terrorist attacks originating with the Palestinians in all this time.

In the 1990's, the Clinton administration, using Jimmy Carter as its diplomatic envoy, negotiated a nuclear freeze with North Korea in exchange for us imposing no sanctions or other requirements on North Korea and, in addition, gave them five full years to come into compliance. North Korea of course agreed. Result? North Korea has field tested its nuclear missiles--it never even slowed down its nuclear proliferation program.

Bush used Hitler as an example of the worst results that can ensue by appeasing and accommodating a dangerous tyrant rather than opposing him.

That Obama and his Democrat defenders took offense at an example that did not allude to him or name him served to appears to have struck a nerve don't you think?

 

[Foxfyre]

Never said appeasement, read my posts.

Actually I wish President Bush had phrased it differently so that the numbnuts would deal with what he was actually saying instead of focusing on the semantics of one word. But sometimes it appears that expecting intellectual honesty from some quarters is as likely to be as futle as expecting good results through negotiations with terrorists.

 

[Annie]

Actually I wish President Bush had phrased it differently so that the numbnuts would deal with what he was actually saying instead of focusing on the semantics of one word.

Actually for one of the few times, I think he said it right.

 

[Gunny]

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

Wow. That's just so brilliant. Allowing someone to stall for time while calling it "negotiation" when you know they're doing exactly what you are trying to prevent is most definitely appeasement.

So is pretending they aren't doing EXACTLY that because being a partisan hack is more important than the issue itself.

 

[Gunny]

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?

Shit, we can play this baby little game ... wtf would you call Carter? A hardline stance guy, or what? That bowl of Jell-O couldn't take a stand if his back was aganst a wall.

The fact is, your boy wants to call turning his back on Iran and pretending they aren't there because he can't see them "negotiation" and you're right there backing the stupid play and hurling partsian insults as if ANYTHING anyone else in the universe does wil somehow change the basic fact.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

In the 1990's, the Clinton administration, using Jimmy Carter as its diplomatic envoy, negotiated a nuclear freeze with North Korea in exchange for us imposing no sanctions or other requirements on North Korea and, in addition, gave them five full years to come into compliance. North Korea of course agreed. Result? North Korea has field tested its nuclear missiles--it never even slowed down its nuclear proliferation program.

You should really research history as written by those who are most qualified to form authoratative conclusions. The reason North Korea continued on its quest to test it's weapons capability was precisely because the U.S. via the Sunshine agreement reneged on its promise to deliver nuclear materials, fuel and other promises. Instead they chose a more aggressive provocative stance with North Korea.

Everything the U.S. promised North Korea failed to materialize. On top of that, North Korea faced an even more malevolent U.S. attitude towards the region.

Comparing Hitler and Chamberlain to anything remotely put forward by the Obama camp remains an exercise in lunacy contrived by the most incapable U.S. administration to date.

 

[Foxfyre]

You should really research history as written by those who are most qualified to form authoratative conclusions. The reason North Korea continued on its quest to test it's weapons capability was precisely because the U.S. via the Sunshine agreement reneged on its promise to deliver nuclear materials, fuel and other promises. Instead they chose a more aggressive provocative stance with North Korea.

Sorry but your version simply doesn't wash with the actual history. North Korea broke the initial agreement by refusing the agreed to inspections of their nuclear program which was to be for peaceful purposes only. That was in 1993.

And finally after several other diplomatic events. . .

Pyongyang is cooperating with Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, whose leading members are South Korea, the United States and Japan. KEDO has reached an agreement on the provision of the light-water nuclear reactors by 2003, and, in return, North Korea has frozen its nuclear program. South Korea, which has promised to bear the lion's share of the reactor project cost estimated at US$4.5 billion, is asking the United States to put up at least a symbolic amount. The US administration, however, has said it can make no contribution to the construction cost as Congress has not appropriated the necessary budget. An official in Seoul, however, said that South Korea cannot drop its demand simply because of domestic problems in the United States. The US Congress has been delaying approval of the cost for the reactor project. South Korean officials said the U.S. refusal to share the reactor cost would make it difficult for them to obtain approval from the National Assembly for the South Korean share.

Since the conclusion of the Supply Agreement in December 1995, six related protocols have come into effect and three rounds of expert-level negotiations have produced solid results. The ROK power company, Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), is the prime contractor for this project and has as its responsibility the design, manufacture, procurement, construction and management of the reactors. On 19 August 1997 KEDO and North Korea held a groundbreaking ceremony to begin construction of two light-water reactors.

In October 2002, North Korean officials acknowledged the existence of a clandestine program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons that is in violation of the Agreed Framework and other agreements.

On October 9, 2006, North Korea announced it had conducted a nuclear test.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html

Carter's agreement with North Korea was in 1994--I think I previously misstated that as 1993--and it did agree to give North Korea all kinds of goodies in exchange for them being 'nice'. But purchased diplomacy is the appeasement to which we are addressing, don't you think? I believe we did deliver on our end, but it didn't even slow North Korea down.

Now tell me why we should expect better results with negotiations and accommodations with Iran? According to Obama's website--Kathianne posted an excerpt from that earlier--he proposes making the same kind of deal with Iran that Clinton/Carter made with north Korea. But he expects different results. And he has zero basis on which to assume the same old approach will be any more successful.

 

[Paulie]

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

Don't oversimplify that though, Kath.

Obviously that negotiation would have to involve Iran giving full transparency, and allowing 100% unrestricted access to Natanz, and anywhere else deemed suspicious so far.

Why rush to another Trillion Dollar war, this time possibly leading to mass international involvement (with a few key states AGAINST us), before all avenues have been exhausted?

It's not like they have thousands of US-reachable ICBM's on alert pointing down our throats. They're a country easily containable at any moment, with no real threatening military power besides the Rev. Guard. If anything, the general citizens of the country pose more of a threat than anything else, should we commit to a ground invasion...Which, let's be reasonable, would be required to completely take care of the "job".

Are you really willing to take yet another shot in the dark chance similar to Iraq, considering the possible negative blowback effects to say the LEAST?

 

[Annie]

Don't oversimplify that though, Kath.

Obviously that negotiation would have to involve Iran giving full transparency, and allowing 100% unrestricted access to Natanz, and anywhere else deemed suspicious so far.

Why rush to another Trillion Dollar war, this time possibly leading to mass international involvement (with a few key states AGAINST us), before all avenues have been exhausted?

It's not like they have thousands of US-reachable ICBM's on alert pointing down our throats. They're a country easily containable at any moment, with no real threatening military power besides the Rev. Guard. If anything, the general citizens of the country pose more of a threat than anything else, should we commit to a ground invasion...Which, let's be reasonable, would be required to completely take care of the "job".

Are you really willing to take yet another shot in the dark chance similar to Iraq, considering the possible negative blowback effects to say the LEAST?

For some reason, I can't see myself clarifying Barack's visions.

 

[Paulie]

For some reason, I can't see myself clarifying Barack's visions.

Neither can I, but the basic premise of what I'M saying is that we haven't, AT ALL, exhausted all options.

There isn't nearly enough evidence yet to suspect they are currently building a bomb. If that can be provided, and it is CREDIBLE with international advocacy, then I would say we give them an ultimatum. They know full well, especially with Bush/Cheney, that it wouldn't be a bluff.

I just don't think we're anywhere NEAR that point yet. I'm not pleased that Bush just flat out refuses to speak with Iran, giving what amounts to his OPINION on how it will turn out if he does. That's being extremely obtuse, and doesn't help anyone or anything.

We stood up to the Soviets, who actually COULD have annihilated us, and diplomacy worked in the end.

The tired old argument that because they're "all nutcase muslims", they can't be reasoned with, is ridiculous, and it only serves to further damage our standing in the world. To not even make an ATTEMPT, and instead skip right over to war, is really sad.

 

[Dogger]

Shit, we can play this baby little game ... wtf would you call Carter? A hardline stance guy, or what? That bowl of Jell-O couldn't take a stand if his back was aganst a wall.

Despite his problems in the region, Carter's work on the Camp David accords neutralized the threat to Israel from Egypt, which continues to pay dividends today. He did that with diplomacy, not bluster.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Dogger
Despite his problems in the region, Carter's work on the Camp David accords neutralized the threat to Israel from Egypt, which continues to pay dividends today. He did that with diplomacy, not bluster.

HAHAHA!!

The only "dividend" the continued existence of the jewish racial dictatorship has ever paid is a giant hole in Lower Manhattan, buddy.

 

[Dogger]

It is when the people you talk to are faking it. Hitler negotiated to buy time to build his Army up more, besides, why fight for things when you can get them for free. Soon as the Brits told Adolph, "No", that's when the war started.

Once again: negioation is not appeasement. Every country in Europe negotiated with Hitler before war broke out. Hitler was faking it with all of them. Only Chamberlain is regarded as an appeaser because he gave up the Sudetenland for nothing but empty promises. That bought time for both sides to build up their armies, but it gave Hitler access to the manufacturing capabilities of the Sudetenland.

 

[José]

This debate reminds me of a bunch of soviet bureaucrats debating the communist prospect for the XXI century while Gorbachev was busy dismantling the iron curtain in a process that would lead to the desintegration of the Soviet Union itself.

The NPT is nothing but a distant memory in the Middle East since Egypt announced the beginning of its nuclear program.

People have a hard time understanding that 9/11 created a whole new geopolitical situation in the Middle East in which nuclear weapons are a matter of national survival for arab countries.

The reality in the post 9/11 world is that in the event of another mega attack agains any western nation, arab countries can become the targets of military invasions/aerial bombardment "at best" and nuclear retaliation at worst.

Without nuclear capabilities arab countries are held hostage by the actions of organisations they have no control.

This is an unbearable geopolitical situation.

Economic sanctions and even threats of invasion are ineffective because countries do not negotiate national survival.

Toro is absolutely right and not only with regard to Iran.

Egypt and Syria are also developing nuclear programs.

The idea that Israel can prevent all arab countries from developing a nuclear deterrent against the West indefinitely is the most cherished pipe dream in Europe and the US, but still a pipe dream.

 

[Shogun]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sMMklhX74_w&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sMMklhX74_w&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


dammit.

Kevin James and Chris Matthews on Appeasement

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMMklhX74_w[/ame]

 

[indago]

Dogger wrote:

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

Doesn't change a thing: it's still a pitiful sight...


-

 

[Foxfyre]

There is a literal difference between negotiation and appeasement.

If I want better pay or a promotion at work, I show the boss how I merit that and how it benefits him. He in turn explains what he can and cannot offer and we arrive at a compromise beneficial to both. That's negotiation.

If I threaten to strike or sue my boss if he doesn't do this or allow that, and he capitulates just to keep the peace or avoid a problem, that is not negotiation. That is appeasement.

Coming to an agreement in which both parties agree to a solution beneficial to both is negotiation.

Buying peace (bribes) or looking the other way to avoid confrontation or giving in to demands to avoid conflict (extortion) is not negotiation but is appeasement.

President Bush (and John McCain) are of the opinion that attempts to negotiate with terrorists will almost always produce advantage to the terrorists (appeasement) and is unlikely to produce anything of value for the negotiator.

It is important to know the difference in these things.

 

[Toro]

Bush struck a deal with North Korea and Libya.

Appeasement? Or good geopolitics?