Obama an Appeaser? How Dare You!?

[Evilmav2]

Obama an appeaser? How dare you

By MARK STEYN
Syndicated columnist
Comments | Recommend

"That's enough. That – that's a show of disrespect to me."

That was Barack Obama, a couple of weeks back, explaining why he was casting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright into outer darkness. It's one thing to wallow in "adolescent grandiosity" (as Scott Johnson of the Powerline Web site called it) when it's a family dispute between you and your pastor of 20 years. It's quite another to do so when it's the 60th anniversary celebrations of one of America's closest allies.

President Bush was in Israel the other day and gave a speech to the Knesset. Its perspective was summed up by his closing anecdote – a departing British officer in May 1948 handing the iron bar to the Zion Gate to a trembling rabbi and telling him it was the first time in 18 centuries that a key to the gates of the Jerusalem was in the hands of a Jew. In other words, it was a big-picture speech, referencing the Holocaust, the pogroms, Masada – and the challenges that lie ahead. Sen. Obama was not mentioned in the text. No Democrat was mentioned, save for President Truman, in the context of his recognition of the new state of Israel when it was a mere 11 minutes old.

Nonetheless, Barack Obama decided that the president's speech was really about him, and he didn't care for it. He didn't put it quite as bluntly as he did with the Rev. Wright, but the message was the same: "That's enough. That's a show of disrespect to me." And, taking their cue from the soon-to-be nominee's weirdly petty narcissism, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden and Co. piled on to deplore Bush's outrageous, unacceptable, unpresidential, outrageously unacceptable and unacceptably unpresidential behavior.

Honestly. What a bunch of self-absorbed ninnies. Here's what the president said:

"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."

It says something for Democrat touchiness that the minute a guy makes a generalized observation about folks who appease terrorists and dictators the Dems assume: Hey, they're talking about me. Actually, he wasn't – or, to be more precise, he wasn't talking only about you.

Yes, there are plenty of Democrats who are in favor of negotiating with our enemies, and a few Republicans, too – President Bush's pal James Baker, whose Iraq Study Group was full of proposals to barter with Iran and Syria and everybody else. But that general line is also taken by at least three of Tony Blair's former Cabinet ministers and his senior policy adviser, and by the leader of Canada's New Democratic Party and by a whole bunch of bigshot Europeans. It's not a Democrat election policy, it's an entire worldview. Even Barack Obama can't be so vain as to think his fly-me-to-[insert name of enemy here]concept is an original idea.

Increasingly, the Western world has attitudes rather than policies. It's one thing to talk as a means to an end. But these days, for most midlevel powers, talks are the end, talks without end. Because that's what civilized nations like doing – chit-chatting, shooting the breeze, having tea and crumpets, talking talking talking. Uncivilized nations like torturing dissidents, killing civilians, bombing villages, doing doing doing. It's easier to get the doers to pass themselves off as talkers then to get the talkers to rouse themselves to do anything.

And, as the Iranians understand, talks provide a splendid cover for getting on with anything you want to do. If, say, you want to get on with your nuclear program relatively undisturbed, the easiest way to do it is to enter years of endless talks with the Europeans over said nuclear program. That's why that Hamas honcho endorsed Obama: They know he's their best shot at getting a European foreign minister installed as president of the United States.

Mo Mowlam was Britain's Northern Ireland secretary and oversaw the process by which the IRA's Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness became ministers of a Crown they decline to recognize. By 2004, she was calling for Osama bin Laden to be invited to "the negotiating table," having concluded he was no different from Adams: Stern fellow, lots of blood on his hands, but no sense getting on your high horse about all that; let's find out what he wants and give him part of it.

In his 2002 letter to the United States, bin Laden has a lot of grievances, from America's refusal to implement Sharia law to Jew-controlled usury to the lack of punishment for "President Clinton's immoral acts." Like Barack Obama's pastor, bin Laden shares the view that AIDS is a "Satanic American invention." Obviously, there are items on the agenda that the free world can never concede on – "President Clinton's immoral acts" – but who's to say most of the rest isn't worth chewing over?

This will be the fault line in the post-Bush war debate over the next few years. Are the political ambitions of the broader jihad totalitarian, genocidal, millenarian – in a word, nuts? Or are they negotiable? President Bush knows where he stands. Just before the words that Barack Obama took umbrage at, he said:

"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."

Here are some words of Hussein Massawi, the former leader of Hezbollah:

"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

Are his actions consistent with those words? Amazingly so. So, too, are those of Hezbollah's patrons in Tehran.

President Reagan talked with the Soviets while pushing ahead with the deployment of Cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe. He spoke softly – after getting himself a bigger stick. Sen. Obama is proposing to reward a man who pledges to wipe Israel off the map with a presidential photo-op to which he will bring not even a twig. No wonder he's so twitchy about it.

©MARK STEYN

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/p...3-bush-talking

[wmbwinn]

Great article. It also applies to Ron Paul.

I don't like Hillary or McCain but at least those two understand this.

[GuerillaBlack]

Bunch of crap.


Obama and his campaign have learned the lessons of 2004, and for that matter the standard Republican play-book since 9-11. Those lessons are:

1. Respond immediately.
2. Respond with force.
3. Call the attacks out for what they are.

He's doing this, and it is succeeding. The Kentucky GOP goes after Michelle, and what does Barack do? He calls it out as a cowardly attack on his family, stating that the GOP should have the backbone to come after him directly.

Bush tries to compare him to a Nazi-appeaser to a Jewish audience no less, and what was the response? A goddamn tidal wave of criticism with Obama's campaign leading the charge. Now they are claiming it wasn't about Obama, and trying to make it go away.

They are running away with their tail between their legs because they have become accustomed to their Democratic opponents simply absorbing the attacks like John Kerry did.

They simply aren't prepared for a candidate who refuses to take their s***. They aren't prepared for Obama. The bully in the schoolyard just got punched in the nose by the new kid, and the bully is standing there confounded and dazed, wondering what the hell just happened.

[jefelump]

Why would Bush be running with his tail between his legs? Why would he care what Obama thinks? Bush isn't up for re-election.

If Obama didn't know deep down that what Bush said is exactly right, then he wouldn't be so offended by it. If it didn't apply to Obama (and all the other appeasers), then he wouldn't make mention of it. Reminds me of a phrase I heard... "the guilty take the truth to be hard."

Sounds to me like Obama has learned the tactic of "attack thine attacker on grounds of character, and not on content" (ie., calling him "unpresidential")

[GuerillaBlack]

I didn't specifically say Bush now did I? I was meaning the Republican Party.

[chumdawg]

You know, for all the talk on the Republican side about how we have to "do, not talk," they haven't done much doing. Talk about Reagan's big stick? Bush's was even bigger. Now, if somebody nuts up and erases Palestine from the earth, then you've got something. Until then, it's just blowhards firing spitwads and pounding their chests about it.

[jefelump]

from GuerillaBlack:
I didn't specifically say Bush now did I? I was meaning the Republican Party.

This thread is based on the article discussing Bush's speech. So if anyone is running with their tail between their legs, then it makes sense that you were referring to Bush.

So again, if Bush isn't up for re-election, why would the Republican Party care what he said? Why do the Democrats care what Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter say? They are has beens, and Bush will be when the next president takes the oath of office next January.

[GuerillaBlack]

Why would they care? Well, the man is backing McCain. Anything he says could hurt McCain. I am sure McCain is thrilled to have the United States' President with the lowest approval ratings in history backing him up.

[jefelump]

Who do you expect Bush to back? Do you expect him to be like McCain and attack his own party by supporting someone else? McCain is the nominee, so Bush has no choice. It doesn't matter if Bush truly likes him or not.

[GuerillaBlack]

Exactly. And if Bush keeps pulling stupid stunts, it will only hurt McCain. See here:

McCain Can Run, but Bush Won’t Hide

The New York Times
By FRANK RICH, Op/Ed Columnist
Published: May 18, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/op...a928ef&ei=5087

THE biggest gift President Bush has given his party this year was to keep his daughter’s wedding nearly as private as Connie Corleone’s. Now that his disapproval rating has reached the Nixon nadir of negativity, even a joyous familial ritual isn’t enough to make the country glad to see him. The G.O.P.’s best hope would be for both the president and Dick Cheney to lock themselves in a closet until the morning after Election Day.

Republicans finally recognized the gravity of their situation three days after Jenna Bush took her vows in Crawford. As Hillary Clinton romped in West Virginia, voters in Mississippi elected a Democrat in a Congressional district that went for Bush-Cheney by 25 percentage points just four years ago. It’s the third “safe” Republican House seat to fall in a special election since March.

Party leaders have been haplessly trying to identify possible remedies ever since. It didn’t help that their recent stab at an Obamaesque national Congressional campaign slogan, “The Change You Deserve,” was humiliatingly identified as the advertising pitch for the anti-depressant Effexor. (If they’re going to go the pharmaceutical route, “Viva Viagra” might be more to the point.) Yet for all the Republican self-flagellation, it’s still not clear that the party even understands the particular dimensions of its latest defeat and its full implications for both Congressional races and John McCain in November.

The Mississippi election was actually a runoff, required by law after a preliminary vote left neither candidate with the required 50 percent. In the last round, on April 22, the Democrat, Travis Childers, beat the Republican, Greg Davis, 49 percent to 46 percent. (The rest went to minor candidates.) On Tuesday, that margin increased dramatically: the Republican remained at 46 percent while the Democrat jumped to 54 percent.

What happened in the intervening three weeks helps explain why. The G.O.P. didn’t merely step up its expensive negative campaign, attempting to take down Mr. Childers (who is a white, conservative Democrat) by linking him with Mr. Obama, a ranting Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Nancy Pelosi. It also brought in the party’s big guns. Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain recorded mass phone pitches for Mr. Davis. Karl Rove and Mr. Cheney campaigned for him.

The vice president’s visit was last Monday, the centerpiece of a get-out-the-vote rally in DeSoto County, a G.O.P. stronghold. “We’ll put our shoulders to the wheel for John McCain,” the vice president promised as he bestowed his benediction on Mr. Davis. Well, he got out the vote all right. In the election results the next day, the Childers total in DeSoto County increased 142 percent, while the Davis count went up only 47 percent.

The district as a whole is the second whitest in Mississippi. (Its black population is 27.2 percent.) It’s the sole district Mr. Obama lost to Mrs. Clinton in the state’s Democratic primary in March. Yet even in this unlikely political terrain the combination of a race-based Republican campaign and the personal intervention of Mr. Cheney energized enough white moderates and black voters to flip the district to the Democrats. Keep in mind, it’s the Deep South we’re talking about here. Imagine how the lethal combination of the Bush-Cheney brand and backlash-inducing G.O.P. race-baiting could whip up a torrential turnout by young voters, black voters and independents in true swing states farther north and west.

Just 36 hours after the Mississippi debacle, Mr. McCain tried to distance himself from the administration by flip-flopping on his signature issue, Iraq, suddenly endorsing just the kind of timetable for withdrawal he has characterized as “surrender” when proposed by Democrats or Mitt Romney. (When Mr. McCain proposes it, he labels it “victory.”) But hardly had Mr. McCain spoken than his message was upstaged by Mr. Bush’s partisan political speech in Israel. The president implied that Mr. Obama would have enabled the Nazis even more foolishly than his own grandfather, Prescott Bush, did in the 1930s when he maintained “investment relationships with Hitler’s Germany,” as Kevin Phillips delicately describes it in “American Dynasty.”

Mr. McCain’s Iraq stunt was his second effort in a week to flee Mr. Bush, following a speech bemoaning administration inaction on climate change. These gambits were in turn preceded by Mr. McCain’s attack on the White House response to Hurricane Katrina. Too bad he took this strong stand nearly three years after it might have sped relief to those suffering in New Orleans.

The McCain campaign is hoping that such showy, if tardy, departures from Bush-Cheney doctrine will constitute a galaxy of Sister Souljah moments, each with headlines reading “McCain Breaks With Bush on...” and the usual knee-jerk press references to Mr. McCain as a “maverick.” Enough of these, you see, and those much-needed independent voters might be flimflammed into believing that the G.O.P. candidate bears no responsibility for the administration’s toxically unpopular policies.

You can’t blame him for trying. Independents favor Democrats over Republicans on most issues, according to the April New York Times/CBS News poll, including the economy (by 30 points), Iraq (by 13 points) and health care (48 points).

But are independents suckers? They’d have to be to fall for the pitch that Mr. McCain is an apostate in his own party in 2008. He has been an outspoken Bush defender since helping him sell the Iraq war in 2002 and barnstorming for him in 2004. Despite Mr. McCain’s campaign claims to the contrary, he never publicly called for the firing of Donald Rumsfeld. He is still one of the president’s most stalwart supporters in Congress, even signing on to the president’s wildly unpopular veto of an expansion of children’s health insurance.

Mr. McCain’s one major domestic policy rebellion, over the Bush tax cuts, has long since been ditched. Last Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” his economic surrogate, Carly Fiorina, implied that Mr. McCain would make budgetary ends meet by cutting earmarks — federal pork that, in her inflated estimate, amounted to $42 billion over the past two years. But even if he cut all $42 billion, total federal spending would still be reduced by only 0.78 percent.

Hard as it is for Mr. McCain to run from the Bush policies he supports, it will be far harder to escape from Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney themselves. When Mr. McCain accepted Mr. Bush’s endorsement at the White House in March, he referred three times to the president’s “busy schedule,” as if wishing aloud that the lame-duck incumbent would have no time to appear at, say, get-out-the-vote rallies. Alas, Mr. Bush and company are not going gently into retirement.

More at the link.

[jefelump]

Call Bush's speech a "stupid stunt" if you want... but that doesn't change the fact that what he said is true.

And if you want to quote a NY Slime's Op/Ed author, then I'll quote Rush Limbaugh...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...108.guest.html

If that many Democrats are freaking out over this, then you know the President hit a home run.

[GuerillaBlack]

Repubs freaking out with the backlash afterwards...

Can't wait until this thing really gets started. Obama is really going to expose McCain and friends. Hell, it has already started:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

[Robillion]

This quote right here divides the two different sides and how they think..

"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."

I, personally, side with the belief that we should never go into any type of war or altercation without taking every single possible effort to solve the issue diplomatically. Any caring, humane person should follow through this process.

The world hates us because "we" have been acting on the other thought process of... if the "enemy" takes action against us then we must retaliate immediately. No questions asked... no hesitations. And in order to avoid any attack again, we should just attack attack and attack some more until any possible group or person interested in attacking us is destroyed.

The problem with that second thought process is... the amount of people wanting to attack us and kill us will never, ever decline. The more we attack without understanding, without diplomacy, or humane reasoning... the more the entire world will hate us. The more enemies we will raise.

It will be a scary, scary world sooner than later if those with the second line of thought continue to stay in office.

[jefelump]

There isn't much to expose McCain on, if you're Obama... because they only issue they really differ on is the war.

[Robillion]

Originally Posted by GuerillaBlack

Repubs freaking out with the backlash afterwards...

Can't wait until this thing really gets started. Obama is really going to expose McCain and friends. Hell, it has already started:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

hahaha.. wow. i just cannot understand anyone at all that want anything along the lines of the past 8 years again, especially John McCain. There is nooo getting past that video alone. That is enough clips to sum a person up right there. No out of contexts there.

[jefelump]

I won't even try to defend McCain. I don't like him either...

So here is my characterization of a McCain vs Obama election:
McCain: Experience!
Obama: Change!

Have I missed anything?

[Arne]

Originally Posted by jefelump

There isn't much to expose McCain on, if you're Obama... because they only issue they really differ on is the war.

Haha, thank you for this line, it just made me laugh out loud... hahaha






Anyways, here is Chris Mathews schooling some Neo-Con loud mouth on history...:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=99BY4IBZGT4

[Usually Lurkin]

appeasment. It's not just for war and terrorism anymore.

We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.

Like Yuval Levin asks, "We can’t? So at what temperature would other countries like me to keep my home, then, and how much should I eat?"http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmU1YzAyODEwMjEyYmI3Y2FhOWVlYmVhMzc2ZTJhNmM=

[jefelump]

I drive TWO SUV's, and I keep my house between 70 and 72 degrees. I pay my bills, so why should I care if Obama likes that or not?

This whole thing about global warming is a crock. We're in a cooling period now. If these @$$hole politicians really cared about the price of a gallon of gas, they would let us drill for oil domestically. Bush just went to Saudi Arabia and asked them to increase production, yet for some reason we're not willing to do the same over here... D@mn tree huggers piss me off....

My two cents worth...

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by jefelump

I drive TWO SUV's, and I keep my house between 70 and 72 degrees. I pay my bills, so why should I care if Obama likes that or not?

This whole thing about global warming is a crock.

but what's great about Obama's perspective is that what's OK to eat, what's OK to drive, and what temperature is OK for living is not up to global warming theories, but people in other countries. That's change we can believe in.

[GuerillaBlack]

Originally Posted by jefelump

I drive TWO SUV's, and I keep my house between 70 and 72 degrees. I pay my bills, so why should I care if Obama likes that or not?

This whole thing about global warming is a crock. We're in a cooling period now. If these @$$hole politicians really cared about the price of a gallon of gas, they would let us drill for oil domestically. Bush just went to Saudi Arabia and asked them to increase production, yet for some reason we're not willing to do the same over here... D@mn tree huggers piss me off....

My two cents worth...

How much do you pay for gas a month?

[jefelump]

from Usually Lurkin:
but what's great about Obama's perspective is that what's OK to eat, what's OK to drive, and what temperature is OK for living is not up to global warming theories, but people in other countries. That's change we can believe in.

Sounds like Obama is living in an alternate universe... kinda like in 2004 when the Johns tried to convince us there were two Americas. That is certainly Change, but it's not change I have heard any of these other countries ask for.

from GuerillaBlack:
How much do you pay for gas a month?

A lot more than I would have to, if you hippie tree hugging freaks would let us drill for oil domestically.

I work from home, so I don't have to drive that much... But even if I did, it wouldn't matter. My car payments are a lot less than your parent's prius, so my total cost of ownership (car payments + gas + insurance) is lower than most...

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Arne

Anyways, here is Chris Mathews schooling some Neo-Con loud mouth on history...:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=99BY4IBZGT4

That was a beating of epic proportions. And Mathews didn't even have to do anything. He just let the guy get hoist on his own petard.

It's so typical of the rhetoric I am hearing from the right this election season. They like to throw out broad, sweeping generalizations, but when they are pressed to deliver on the details they have nothing.

It's like the dagger they used to throw--though, I have noticed, not so much anymore--that Obama hasn't done anything of substance. I respond with, "Oh, really? How many bills has he sponsored? Co-sponsored?" They never have even the slightest clue.

[wmbwinn]

back to the issue of appeasement...

If you want to talk about fuel, go the thread titled "Newt for President". If you liberal tree huggers want some content to debate, you will find it there.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled broadcast...

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_128227.asp

"Appeasement Won't Work
posted May 19, 2008

We all received another lesson in what we cannot talk about when discussing Sen. Obama. First we could not talk about his ears, then his church, then his pastor, then his middle name (Hussein), his color, his wife (who is not proud of this country until just recently), and now we can't talk about the history of appeasement.

The President pointed out his speech about past appeasement and how it led to millions of deaths was concerning Pres. Carter and not Obama. All national Democrat leaders including Obama have said that we should talk to our enemies because they will respect their words and lay down their weapons.

The President correctly pointed out that a liberal, who thought he could talk Hitler out of killing millions, was wrong. He did not just make a simple mistake though, he told everyone they had peace and so millions would die because they did not prepare for war. Obama is in the same mold. He has said he would meet with Iran's nut leader without preconditions. There is no reason to meet with him since he supports terrorists all over the world. Also his words will not change the minds of these killers.

History has proven over and over that force is necessary at times. Obama tried to use Kennedy as an example of talking to Khrushchev as a time that led to peace in 1961. But he left out that in 1962 we had the Cuban missile crisis 16 months after they talked. This is why national Democrat leaders cannot be trusted with the security of this country. They will wait to be attacked again before they do anything and then they probably launch missiles like Clinton did so he would not have any military deaths on his record.

I know many believe peace can be achieved by talking but they have nothing in history to back it up. Sometimes wars don't lead to peace either because the war is stopped at a stalemate rather than finishing the war. The greatest example though is WWII and without total surrender we would not have had the safety that most of us enjoyed for 50 years. I know my family is safer because of the stories that most of you have not read which point out we are still taking the battle to the terrorists. There have two recent missile hits on terrorist leaders in past few weeks around the world and this could not have been done if we were not engaging the enemy everywhere. There was also a story that Al Qaeda has even put out a statement that their attacks are down by 94%. This didn't happen by talking to them. This is the only way to deal with type of enemy and Iran's leadership, Hezbollah, and Hamas are they the same.

Obama is just dangerously wrong."

_______________________________

The above is about Obama. It also applies to Ron Paul.

[jefelump]

from chumdawg:
It's like the dagger they used to throw--though, I have noticed, not so much anymore--that Obama hasn't done anything of substance. I respond with, "Oh, really? How many bills has he sponsored? Co-sponsored?" They never have even the slightest clue.

Do you have any clue? Do you know how many bills McCain has authored or co-sponsored? I don't, because I don't care. The number doesn't mean anything. The content of the bill(s) is what matters. When I look at McCain's bills, I'm worried for the Republican party. His bills are crap.

[jefelump]

from the article posted by wmbwinn:
I know many believe peace can be achieved by talking but they have nothing in history to back it up

That's an excellent point, and one I hadn't thought of before. So I would love to hear any of you Democrats who support Obama refute it. Please name one instance where talk alone led to peace.

[chumdawg]

Where did this idea come from that "talking" means "no military force"? I don't get it. When you are talking, can't you say that you are going to erase their ass from the face of the earth if they don't cooperate with your demands? I mean, what do you suppose they are "talking" about? The price of tea in China?

And...I've said it before, and I'll say it again...this idea that we should act, not talk, is simply not borne out in recent history. We "act" when we have easy targets like Iraq and Afghanistan, but I don't see much action on an Iran or North Korea or Palestine. If we really wanted to act, we would obliterate any or all of those countries, and be done with it. But, I daresay that for all of our bluster, that's not quite yet going to happen.

So, to the "we must act, not talk" crowd, I ask you...what is it exactly that you propose? And do you have the resolve to go through with it?

I'm quite certain you don't. You are like the schoolyard bully. All bark and no bite.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Do you have any clue? Do you know how many bills McCain has authored or co-sponsored? I don't, because I don't care. The number doesn't mean anything. The content of the bill(s) is what matters. When I look at McCain's bills, I'm worried for the Republican party. His bills are crap.

I certainly do have a clue, and I know that the idea that Obama has done nothing is naively uninformed. Yes, McCain has done plenty, too. But no one ever argued that McCain was all speeches and rhetoric.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

That's an excellent point, and one I hadn't thought of before. So I would love to hear any of you Democrats who support Obama refute it. Please name one instance where talk alone led to peace.

What does "talk alone" mean? Why would you believe that such a construct even exists? It is inherently ridiculous.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

That was a beating of epic proportions. And Mathews didn't even have to do anything. He just let the guy get hoist on his own petard.

It's so typical of the rhetoric I am hearing from the right this election season. They like to throw out broad, sweeping generalizations, but when they are pressed to deliver on the details they have nothing.

It's like the dagger they used to throw--though, I have noticed, not so much anymore--that Obama hasn't done anything of substance. I respond with, "Oh, really? How many bills has he sponsored? Co-sponsored?" They never have even the slightest clue.

I watched the video. It is unfortunate that Kevin James is so stupid. It is unfortunate that his stupidity is now being used as a flag to wave to say that all Republicans are as stupid as he is.

If we ignore Kevin James, then the issue is this:
1)Chamberlin (forgive me if I spelled his name wrong) appeased Hitler by giving him half of Czechoslovakia
2)Chamberlin spent a lot of time talking with Hitler (attempts at diplomacy).

Mathews made a point: Diplomacy is not bad at face value and may serve a purpose and "we should talk to our enemies and not just our friends". Fine. I have no problem with that point.

But... Chamberlin got nowhere talking to Hitler. And, talking to the leader of Iran will be just as useless. The IAEA (international nukes) has been involved in diplomacy for years and that has born no fruit. Iran's leadership has spurned all significant diplomacy. But, Iran is interested in further diplomacy as a method to give them time to finish their goal of nuclear development. Diplomacy is a way to buy time. Iran has surrendered nothing with all this European/World diplomacy. Heck, even the diplomacy of Russia (the prime ally of Iran) has not swayed Iran to yield anything. So, Chamberlin got no where with Hitler and Hitler talked him out of half of Czechoslovakia. Visiting with Iran's leadership will yield no better result.

The only "touchdown" Mathews scored is demonstrating that Kevin is an idiot. Who cares??? The merits of the conversation between thinking people did not change.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

What does "talk alone" mean? Why would you believe that such a construct even exists? It is inherently ridiculous.

This is not a lesson in grammar and semantics. His meaning is clear. He is saying that diplomacy alone often fails.

[chumdawg]

Then I ask you, wmbwinn, what the hell are we waiting for? If we have tried time and time again to deal with Iran and they are obviously not willing to play ball...what are we waiting for? Do we think they are going to experience a change of heart? Obviously not. So what are we waiting for?

How do the Republicans get to claim the mantle of hard-hitting mo-fo's who aren't naive enough to sit down at the negotiating table with unrelenting villains, yet at the same time they have done nothing at all in the way of action?

Where is the rubber supposed to meet the road? What, we are supposed to support the guys who say they WILL go to blows with the enemy--I promise!--yet who have had every opportunity until now but haven't?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

This is not a lesson in grammar and semantics. His meaning is clear. He is saying that diplomacy alone often fails.

What does "diplomacy" mean to you? Tea and crumpets?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Where did this idea come from that "talking" means "no military force"? I don't get it. When you are talking, can't you say that you are going to erase their ass from the face of the earth if they don't cooperate with your demands? I mean, what do you suppose they are "talking" about? The price of tea in China?

And...I've said it before, and I'll say it again...this idea that we should act, not talk, is simply not borne out in recent history. We "act" when we have easy targets like Iraq and Afghanistan, but I don't see much action on an Iran or North Korea or Palestine. If we really wanted to act, we would obliterate any or all of those countries, and be done with it. But, I daresay that for all of our bluster, that's not quite yet going to happen.

So, to the "we must act, not talk" crowd, I ask you...what is it exactly that you propose? And do you have the resolve to go through with it?

I'm quite certain you don't. You are like the schoolyard bully. All bark and no bite.

Do you really believe that we don't have the resolve to attack Iran or N. Korea???

No matter our military strength, that strength is not all we have. We have repeatedly bent the action of N. Korea by using the forces of economy to bring them to their knees. N. Korea repeatedly agrees to shutting down the nukes and allowing investigation to make sure they stay shut down. Now, Clinton did not push hard enough on the investigation/confirmaton of nuke shutdown. Clinton is an example of too much talk and gift giving and not enough force and demands. Sacking N. Korea is something we can do if we have to. It is something we can do. But, it will cost a lot of S. Korean lives. It won't cost much in American life (by percentage compared to the losses of S. Korea and by the American kill to loss ratio). Military action is something that is planned (we have plans to attack just about everybody as far as preparation goes) but we're not going to that option if we don't have to.

Now, the issue of Iran is different. We can (and will) sack the nuclear capability of Iran. It is not yet necessary because Iran is not yet capable. We have no reason to hit them right now. But, that does not mean we lack the fortitude. It just means we are using our brains.

After all the noise about how we should use diplomacy before force, why are you now turning the arguement to say we should "put our money where our mouth is" and sack Iran and N. Korea??

I fully expect that we will have to eventually hit Iran. I expect that will happen in less than ten years. I fully expect we will have to sack N. Korea. I don't think that will become necessary within ten years.

[wmbwinn]

You also mentioned Palestine. I skipped that. What in the heck would the role of a Western military be in Palestine??? An army's job is to kill people. Who would we target??
Weak, starving Palestinians??? Israel doesn't need our help to squash them. Are we going to kill the people of Israel??? Our military has no role in Palestine.

Armies do not do well as policemen. Our military in Iraq is refusing policeman duty. We send a few men out as leaders/trainers with Iraqi policemen. But, we are allowing Iraqis to be their own policemen.

[chumdawg]

Let me get this straight. You are saying that Iran and N Korea are not presently threats to us? North Korea by dint of diplomacy and Iran by dint of lack of wherewithal?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

What does "diplomacy" mean to you? Tea and crumpets?

That is what Clinton thought it meant. See my notes about Clinton's failure with N. Korea.

I agree with your ealier remark that diplomacy includes the real threat of military action. It includes force and forcible demands. It includes demanding real investigation into the nuke facilities of Iran and N. Korea. It includes demanding that the Iraqi forces become their own effective policemen. It includes demanding that the Iraqi groups share their oil reserves and monies. It includes demanding results for our help and offerings.

[jefelump]

And to add to wmbwinn's comments... I think Israel will hit Iran before we do, just like they did to Saddam when he was trying to build nukes.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

You also mentioned Palestine. I skipped that. What in the heck would the role of a Western military be in Palestine??? An army's job is to kill people. Who would we target??
Weak, starving Palestinians??? Israel doesn't need our help to squash them. Are we going to kill the people of Israel??? Our military has no role in Palestine.

Armies do not do well as policemen. Our military in Iraq is refusing policeman duty. We send a few men out as leaders/trainers with Iraqi policemen. But, we are allowing Iraqis to be their own policemen.

Israel is our ally, and Palestine is threatening our ally. Why would we invade Palestine? That's not the question. Why shouldn't we bomb Palestine into the Dark Ages? I mean, if we have a big stick and we don't see much good in talking to people, let's put that bravado into action, right? We could get rid of Palestine TONIGHT if we wanted to, and it wouldn't cost us anything in the way of lost American lives (not to mention money). Why not kill the gnat?

Israel won't do it, because Israeli Jews value life, even if it's filthy Palestinian life. So why not be their bagman, so to speak?

What I'm saying is, where is the bite behind all the bark of the "no talk" crowd?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Let me get this straight. You are saying that Iran and N Korea are not presently threats to us? North Korea by dint of diplomacy and Iran by dint of lack of wherewithal?

Yes. We are not yet at a point where it is imperative that we act with the military.

But, if things change and the only solution appears to be a military solution, then it will happen.