The Most Important Issue On The Planet

[LuvRPgrl]

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?

OH, anyone who disagrees with you is a fool eh? Sounds like a Hitlarian dictatorship to me.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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.

Everything you said is true. My point is that if certain parties (US, AMERICANS) "TRY" to negotiate with terrorists, its the same as appeasement, just as it is with Hammas and Israel. No matter what negotiations we come to with those groups, they will once again start the violence because ultimately, their bottom line goal is our destruction.

When Chamberlain attempted negotiations with Hitler, it became appeasement, because everytime England kept its end of the bargain, Hitler used some obviously phoney excuse to continue to absorb more and more land into his third reich, because that was his ultimate goal. It became apparent to many, but not to Chamberlein.

Its the same with al quiada, and hammas today. Certain parties simply cannot negotiate with them, hence, any attempts at it, actually is appeasement. WHich never works

As for you ending comments, its totally true, but at every level, virtually all people do that, it is inevitable.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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.

I see personal insults is something you simply cannot refrain from.

How about this, some of us will stop responding to your posts with actual thoughts, facts and intelligent opinions, if you stop badgering us with personal insults?


OH, AND PLEASE DONT START IN WITH SOME 2ND GRADE COMMENT ABOUT HOW WE ARENT CAPABLE OF SUCH THINGS....PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE, I HAVE 7 KIDS AND YOUR USUAL JUVENILLE INSULTS ARE VERY OLD AND TIRING.

 

[Larkinn]

OH, anyone who disagrees with you is a fool eh? Sounds like a Hitlarian dictatorship to me.

Because the real problem with Hitler was that he called the Jews fools, right?

 

[Paulie]

Bush struck a deal with North Korea and Libya.

Appeasement? Or good geopolitics?

Reagan struck a deal with Gorbachev and the Soviet Union.

Appeasement? Or good geopolitics?

 

[Shogun]

Luvpr has SEVEN kids?!?!


holy SHIT.



say, anyone catch that Mike Judge flick Idiocracy?

 

[Dogger]

OH, anyone who disagrees with you is a fool eh? Sounds like a Hitlarian dictatorship to me.

Fool. I've never called gunny a fool and we disagree constantly. Your straw man distortion of my statement only proves it to be correct. Fool.

 

[Shogun]

you sure do have the "blah blah blah" scene covered though!

j/k!

Have a great evening, dogg!

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

My point is that if certain parties (US, AMERICANS) "TRY" to negotiate with terrorists, its the same as appeasement, just as it is with Hammas and Israel.

No matter what negotiations we come to with those groups, they will once again start the violence because ultimately, their bottom line goal is our destruction.

No it is not. Negotiating and appeasement are not the same. They are two different words, they mean two different things. And the climate today is not - I repeat - not anything like pre-World War 2 Europe.

Hamas and Israel are a completely different animal. I don't see the point in bringing that up.

As for the last sentence, "they" are not one cohesive unit. In fact, the onus of labeling an armed group, organization or state "terrorist" should be objective, but remains very subjective. Naturally, I reject your characterization completely.

Furthermore, "their" bottom line is not "our" destruction for the reasons listed above.

 

[AllieBaba]

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%

Dead on.
Bush has disappointed me on quite a few fronts, but his inability or unwillingness to tackle issues head on is one of them.

 

[Shogun]

I really hope you people keep thinking that bush will go down in history as anything other than the complete failure that he is. Hell, feel free to bask in the same warm fuzzy glow that the movie Birth of a Nation gives to klansmen..

 

[AllieBaba]

No it is not. Negotiating and appeasement are not the same. They are two different words, they mean two different things. And the climate today is not - I repeat - not anything like pre-World War 2 Europe.

Hamas and Israel are a completely different animal. I don't see the point in bringing that up.

As for the last sentence, "they" are not one cohesive unit. In fact, the onus of labeling an armed group, organization or state "terrorist" should be objective, but remains very subjective. Naturally, I reject your characterization completely.

Furthermore, "their" bottom line is not "our" destruction for the reasons listed above.

Negotiation is appeasement. It's what you do when you know you can't get exactly what you want.

 

[Shogun]

Negotiation is appeasement. It's what you do when you know you can't get exactly what you want.

oh.. you mean like how REAGAN Appeased the Evil Empire then?

 

[Ravi]

Or when Bush appeased bin laden by invading Iraq?

 

[AllieBaba]

oh.. you mean like how REAGAN Appeased the Evil Empire then?

Ok, fine then.

 

[José]

You're OK in my book, Dogger...

It was a pleasure to read your defence of racial equality in the US.

And your posts in general are a pleasure to read.

I was a bit blunt in my reply and now I'm feeling bad.

But I want you to know I don't blame you for supporting Israel.

The pro Israel social pressure people in America have to endure is just to great.

It's not fair to expect them to think otherwise.

Keep posting great stuff for us to read, buddy.

 

[namvet]

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.

you seem to have a fear of the word 'appeasement'

 

[Dogger]

you seem to have a fear of the word 'appeasement'

No, just contempt for those who misuse the word, or try to rewrite history. Unfortunately, too many right wingers just toss out the latest GOP talking point without thinking it through, and then waste time on matters which are inarguably stupid.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Because the real problem with Hitler was that he called the Jews fools, right?

No, if you notice, I said "anyone" who disagrees, so Hitlers problem was that anyone, not GERMAN, was a fool. Simple analogies are difficult for you eh? Maybe thats YOUR real problem.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

THE IRAN SAGA CONTINUES.

Refresh my memory, guys, what are the options here? Bomb Iran? Invade it? "Liberate" it?