Obama's decision to talk to Iran is NOT appeasement!

[grandpa]

Quote by: Technosoul Irans nuclear energy program would be on the table, what other reason would they hold talks?

What about America's nuclear program? Would that be on the table as well?

Grandpa h.

[linda_mary_13]

Quote by: grandpa What about America's nuclear program? Would that be on the table as well? Grandpa h.

I don't think so but Israel would definitely be on the table. Obama's decision to talk is what JUST talk.? The definition of appeasement is to give in,or satisfy the other for the sake of peace. So your saying Obama's words alone will satisfy Iran. OR ... we'll do what? Leave things as they are? Change the current policy with no regard to Iran's concerns. If Iran's concerns do cause us to adjust our policy wouldn't that adjustment be an appeasement of Iran?

The line has been drawn by the world. No nukes for Iran. Iran is making them anyway. They have stated with words their hatred and intentions for Israel. Obama has the magic formula to melt the hearts of the Iranians and provide a better life as outlined recently in a speech in Montana. Job fares, welfare programs for those in the Middle Eastern countries with total disregard to the corruption that exists in this world. These people are willing to sacrifice their lives by blowing themselves up to annoy the western world, what do you think they'll be willing to do to destroy what they believe to be the source of all their agony, Israel. Their claim to Jerusalem may not be realized right away, but we know the land will heal itself after nuclear destruction but the Jews will be gone and the land surrounded by Arabs will be theirs again or for the first time which ever the case may be. No polished words of Obama can change that goal.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: GHook93 Obama's decision to talk to Iran is NOT appeasement ! Talking to Alamnutjob, Assssad or Hugo Fata$$ (sorry I couldn't resist on a slow day at the office) is not the same as Chamberlain signing the Munich Agreement (or him sending Hailfax over to meet with Hitler and proclaim the Nazis are go people). Appeasement is letting Hitler take Austria against that treaty and then sign the Munich Agreement allowing Hitler to take Sutterland from the Czechs and then allowing Hitler to steamroll the Czechs and take the whole country. Obama is doing that! What he is doing is opening dialog between 2 countries with britter pasts. Alamnutjob is not a saint, in fact he is a nutjob, but Iran is no where as dangerous as Nazi Germany and its disingenious to suggest that they are. The smartest thing we could do is start dialog with them directly.

George Bush's speech-writer went for (unlimited) vacation :-)
(The case is closed.)

Nevertheless, that George Bush's speech brought much more damage to Republican Party than expected and/or intended. Democrats are going to use it as an argument in upcoming election.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Rainbow George Bush's speech-writer went for (unlimited) vacation :-) (The case is closed.) Nevertheless, that George Bush's speech brought much more damage to Republican Party than expected and/or intended. Democrats are going to use it as an argument in upcoming election.

Regardless of the speech Bush did more harm to the Republican party since Nixon.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Wouldn't you rather send an honest man to be your diplomat, and representative for negotiaions? Then elect a real diplomat. Ron Paul 08

He would not go, he thinks that we should not be involved in the affairs of other nations, and he would care less if Iran had nukes or not as long as, or until, one is blown up inside our boarders. You seem to not be all that knowledgable about how Ron Paul thinks.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Technosoul He would not go, he thinks that we should not be involved in the affairs of other nations, and he would care less if Iran had nukes or not as long as, or until, one is blown up inside our boarders. You seem to not be all that knowledgable about how Ron Paul thinks.

Well off topic, but Porky is anything but honest.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: grandpa What about America's nuclear program? Would that be on the table as well? Grandpa h.

Yes it should. Logically Iran would point out that they have as much right as we do to that technology because we did not keep it a top secret. A lot of nations now have nuclear energy plants and so unless everyone agrees not to have them, then why should Iran be singled out.

That fact cannot be counter-debated without resorting to insults concerning the leadership in Iran. That is why Bush said you cannot sit down and debate them, because our stand would not be founded on fairness.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: GHook93 Well off topic, but Porky is anything but honest.

I was only responding to a comment. Porky? Who is Porky?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Technosoul He would not go, he thinks that we should not be involved in the affairs of other nations, and he would care less if Iran had nukes or not as long as, or until, one is blown up inside our boarders. You seem to not be all that knowledgable about how Ron Paul thinks.

More evidence you have no idea what it is you're talking about.


I'm not even going to correct you, just get comfortable wallowing around in your ignorance. ( or lies, whichever )

[Technosoul]

It should be reasoned that we want to stop the spread of nuclear technology because of the serious dangers such technologly represents. To help Iran comprehend this we must encourage the members of the United Nations to get on board with a agreement that nations who now have nuclear power will build no new plants, nor will they sell nuclear information nor will they help another country build a nuclear plant.

However we must also reason that some nuclear plants are needed to gain by-products that have useful purposes, such as in the field of medicene, metal inspection, and for the space program.

All nations (and Bush refused to sign on to this) should downsize their nuclear stock pile and agree not build no new nukes or related military equipment that uses such bombs.

However talks and policy agreements with Iran are not possible as long as the Bush people want to build hand held nuclear missles. Two madmen cannot come to a sane solution.

Also we should encourge to give full disclosure to the U.N. about their nuclear abilities relative to WMDs and then expect them to follow any recomendations the U.N. feels is needed to make the middle east safer for everyone.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley More evidence you have no odea what it is you're talking about. I'm not even going to corect you, just get comfortable wallowing around in your ignorance. ( or lies, whichever )

I listened to his speeches and his views about the Consitution and that is what I based my knowledge upon. If you wish to correct me then first correct how you spelled "corect" and how you spelled idea, unless a odea is a obama idea.

Talk about my ignorance will you eh? Gotcha'

[GHook93]

Quote by: Technosoul I was only responding to a comment. Porky? Who is Porky?

Ron Paul preaches against wasteful government spending, spending in general. It is bad blahblahblah! Yet the guy took $20+ million in pork! That is more than 5 or 6 other candidates that were running in the primaries including McCain, Tacredo, Biden and I believe Hunter. RP comes up with a half-arsed justification that is a complete cop-out, yet Milton and Osborne will still preach he is god.

In my opinion Ron Paul lost all creditability when the pork amounts were lost. If a guy is preaches strongly against something and then is a perpetrator of it what does that say? I mean it would be like a guy on a crusade against Marijuana, but then goes home and smokes a joint.

[grandpa]

Quote by: linda_mary_13 I don't think so but Israel would definitely be on the table. Obama's decision to talk is what JUST talk.?

Well, why wouldn't American nuclear weapons be on the table? As I've mentioned here before, America is the only country to have actually nuked another. So, unless our weapons are discussed, America's officially declared motives are false on sight.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Technosoul Yes it should. Logically Iran would point out that they have as much right as we do to that technology because we did not keep it a top secret.

Why bother to keep it a secret? The Bush administration has been relatively open about its development of nuclear weapons. I don't recall them denying their "mini-nukes" program (though they never mentioned the prospect of a mini-nuclear holocaust). The point is, the US says it can do whatever it wants -- and other countries cannot (unless they relate to "strategic interests").

We have a long way to learn.

Grandpa h.

[Squeaky Wheels]

Here's my take on the issue:

President Bush set off a controversy when he suggested that the Democrats favor a policy toward Iran that amounts to “appeasement”, likening it to Neville Chamberlain’s giving in to Adolph Hitler on the eve of WWII. But this is not 1938, Iran is not Nazi Germany, and Ahmadinejad is not Hitler.

At the time of the Munich Conference, Hitler had been demanding that the Sudentenland in Czechoslovakia go to Germany or else he would go to war over it. Desperate to avoid war, Britain and France agreed to give it to him in exchange for his promise that this was his last territorial demand, even though we now know that full-scale military action would have made Hitler back down. But of course Hitler was a megalomaniac and fully intended to take over all of Europe.

The basic point about the dangers of appeasement is that giving in to threats only encourages more threats. But Iran is not making territorial demands or threatening war. For all their expressed hostility to the US, meddling in Iraq, and defiance of the international community over their nuclear program, Iran’s leaders are not engaged in some blackmail scheme. Therefore any diplomatic overture to Iran will not automatically cause them to launch a major attack, and yet refusing to talk to them is not exactly compelling them to change their attitude. In short, we have nothing to lose.

Unfortunately, by now we have little to gain. The ideal time for a diplomatic overture with Iran was in the wake of our invasion of Afghanistan. We used the stick, it was time to break out the carrot. In the days after 9/11 there was a huge pro-American rally in Teheran and the Iranian government offered to help us against Al Queada—after all, Iran is Shiite while Al Queada are Sunni. Getting Iran on our side was critical in winning the War on Terrorism, but instead, Bush denounced them as part of the “Axis of Evil”.

What we should have done instead was engage in “back door diplomacy” with Iran’s Council of Guardians, led by Ayatollah Khamenei. We should have said to them, “We’ve been looking the other way while you’ve been supporting Hezbolla, but in the post-9/11 world, we will no longer abide. If you don’t get with the program and support worldwide anti-terrorism efforts, things will go very badly for Iran. But if we do see progress, we’ll begin talks aimed at restoring diplomatic relations and welcoming Iran back into the international community”.

Obviously this is all very dicey speculation. I mean, how can things have gone any better than they have under Bush’s leadership? We’ve got the Iranians and all the other Muslims right where we want them. After all, we all know what cowards they all are.

Now then, as most of us seem to have forgotten, until 2004 the President of Iran was the moderate, pro-Western Khatami. At the time it was understood that the Iranian President has no real power, which is why the emphasis is on getting through to the “Mullahs”, i.e. the Guardian Council. But these days, everyone is obsessed with Ahmadinejad. Even though he has no means to launch an attack, his words are threatening enough. That is why we should by trying to get through to the mullahs. If Amadinejhad’s stated desire to “erase the Zionist Regime from the map” correctly translates to “nuke Israel and kill millions of people” then we should be putting the question to the mullahs, “What’s up with that?”

[blue saki]

Obama's comments on 5/19/08

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, `We're going to wipe you off the planet.'"

5/20/08
"Let me be absolutely clear, Iran is a grave threat." That quote comes from . . . Barack Obama.

Mixed message there wouldn't you say? I don't ever recall a candidate flip-floppin' on such an important issue in less than 24 hrs. This is why BO will never get my vote. He is NOT capable of being Commander & Chief of our Military. In fact, with this example of his obvious lack of comprehension of Foreign Policy, he scares the hell outta me.`

[Technosoul]

Quote by: GHook93 Ron Paul preaches against wasteful government spending, spending in general. It is bad blahblahblah! Yet the guy took $20+ million in pork! That is more than 5 or 6 other candidates that were running in the primaries including McCain, Tacredo, Biden and I believe Hunter. RP comes up with a half-arsed justification that is a complete cop-out, yet Milton and Osborne will still preach he is god. In my opinion Ron Paul lost all creditability when the pork amounts were lost. If a guy is preaches strongly against something and then is a perpetrator of it what does that say? I mean it would be like a guy on a crusade against Marijuana, but then goes home and smokes a joint.

That is true, he also wrote bills to support the oil industry in this home state, a tax give-away to that industry.

But I was talking about his idea that the Consitution would interpret that he should bring all the troops home so they just defend our local boarders from within, not all over the world. He is not in favor of any kind of international agreements, especally those that take us outside of those controls allowed by the Consitution, which limits any purpose of trying to control other parts of the world outside of our boarders via the limitations granted to the Federal Government.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Squeaky Wheels Here's my take on the issue: President Bush set off a controversy when he suggested that the Democrats favor a policy toward Iran that amounts to “appeasement”, likening it to Neville Chamberlain’s giving in to Adolph Hitler on the eve of WWII. But this is not 1938, Iran is not Nazi Germany, and Ahmadinejad is not Hitler. At the time of the Munich Conference, Hitler had been demanding that the Sudentenland in Czechoslovakia go to Germany or else he would go to war over it. Desperate to avoid war, Britain and France agreed to give it to him in exchange for his promise that this was his last territorial demand, even though we now know that full-scale military action would have made Hitler back down. But of course Hitler was a megalomaniac and fully intended to take over all of Europe. The basic point about the dangers of appeasement is that giving in to threats only encourages more threats. But Iran is not making territorial demands or threatening war. For all their expressed hostility to the US, meddling in Iraq, and defiance of the international community over their nuclear program, Iran’s leaders are not engaged in some blackmail scheme. Therefore any diplomatic overture to Iran will not automatically cause them to launch a major attack, and yet refusing to talk to them is not exactly compelling them to change their attitude. In short, we have nothing to lose. Unfortunately, by now we have little to gain. The ideal time for a diplomatic overture with Iran was in the wake of our invasion of Afghanistan. We used the stick, it was time to break out the carrot. In the days after 9/11 there was a huge pro-American rally in Teheran and the Iranian government offered to help us against Al Queada—after all, Iran is Shiite while Al Queada are Sunni. Getting Iran on our side was critical in winning the War on Terrorism, but instead, Bush denounced them as part of the “Axis of Evil”. What we should have done instead was engage in “back door diplomacy” with Iran’s Council of Guardians, led by Ayatollah Khamenei. We should have said to them, “We’ve been looking the other way while you’ve been supporting Hezbolla, but in the post-9/11 world, we will no longer abide. If you don’t get with the program and support worldwide anti-terrorism efforts, things will go very badly for Iran. But if we do see progress, we’ll begin talks aimed at restoring diplomatic relations and welcoming Iran back into the international community”. Obviously this is all very dicey speculation. I mean, how can things have gone any better than they have under Bush’s leadership? We’ve got the Iranians and all the other Muslims right where we want them. After all, we all know what cowards they all are. Now then, as most of us seem to have forgotten, until 2004 the President of Iran was the moderate, pro-Western Khatami. At the time it was understood that the Iranian President has no real power, which is why the emphasis is on getting through to the “Mullahs”, i.e. the Guardian Council. But these days, everyone is obsessed with Ahmadinejad. Even though he has no means to launch an attack, his words are threatening enough. That is why we should by trying to get through to the mullahs. If Amadinejhad’s stated desire to “erase the Zionist Regime from the map” correctly translates to “nuke Israel and kill millions of people” then we should be putting the question to the mullahs, “What’s up with that?”

Iran is willing to offer economical aid to people in the West Bank and Israel does not like that at all. The USA does not want Iran to look like the good guys offering the West Bank support so they can get hospitals, medical supplies, or that they can get the reconstruction done to the areas distroyed by Israel. In contrast we give taxpayer money to Israel so they can use it to buy our tanks and build up their military power, while attempting to defeat Iran from funding the their neighbors whom Israel wants to ensalve to their domination.

Other Islamic countries that do not want to get on our bad side still favor Iran's position, and they can only attack us by raising the cost of oil that our ecnonomy is based on. But we cannot call that terrorism because "supply and demand" is one of our standards in our free economy.

One thing overlooked following the 9-11 attack is why do they hate us so much. We want to irgnore those causes because we might have to look at our self, and our fomer policy or business activities in those other countries. So we took the attitude of being above all fault.

Now Bin Laden is just a leader of a small religous cult and was not repersenting a country, but he did try at least to contact the citizens of this country, to have his voice listened too, so that we could take action to stop the injustice he thought was happening relative to our busness like dominaiton of the his fomer country and places like Afganistan. He spoke on behalf of the poor people in those places. Now I am not trying to paint Bin Laden as a saint or as some nice guy. But his efforts to talk were bushed off as unimportant by our government and our media.
And remember he was a Vet of our cold war with Russia when Russia attempted to overtake Afganistan, he was on our side then but later did not like how we treated that country after they pushed Russia out.

And that all took place before Bush was elected for the most part, but when a Halliburton CEO become one of our elected leaders then Bin Laden knew that he had little hope of ever getting any action on his gripes and complants.

What do you do when a Donkey does not listen? You bop it on the head with something. AKA - 9-11.

Why do they hate us? It is not because we are a democracy or because we advocate freedom. It is because we do not want them to be free to take part in international democracy. We do not want to clean out our ears so we can listen to their point of view.

We have the same situtation with Fla in our current election. We got our rules and so we must ignore everything else that might make sense. Like acturally listening to the everyday people. The elite rule and the rest are brushed off.

Why do they hate us? You cannot know that reality without acturally talking to them in an unconditonal setting.

Why would they like us instead? Because we changed that kind of attitude. In other words, stop electing those blockheads to represent us. Someone willing to listen and to take action on complaints where so justified.

Do you really want peace or do you just want to maintain our elistist image in the world?

Are you for Underdog or the mad scientist that wants to rule the world? Are you for Underdog or the bully dogs that claim they have "marked off the place for their selfish purposes"? Disney knows best. So pay attention kiddies.

[Squeaky Wheels]

Quote by: blue saki Obama's comments on 5/19/08 "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, `We're going to wipe you off the planet.'" 5/20/08 "Let me be absolutely clear, Iran is a grave threat." That quote comes from . . . Barack Obama. Mixed message there wouldn't you say? I don't ever recall a candidate flip-floppin' on such an important issue in less than 24 hrs. This is why BO will never get my vote. He is NOT capable of being Commander & Chief of our Military. In fact, with this example of his obvious lack of comprehension of Foreign Policy, he scares the hell outta me.`

Well, we've got to elect someone. McCain is a far greater flip-flopper that Obama (or Kerry) and he's for more incompetent in his lack of comprehension of foreign policy. He doesn't even know who the leader of Iran is.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Squeaky Wheels Well, we've got to elect someone. McCain is a far greater flip-flopper that Obama (or Kerry) and he's for more incompetent in his lack of comprehension of foreign policy. He doesn't even know who the leader of Iran is.

And Bush is known for sticking to his guns and never changing one bit.

Did Obama ever say that he would hold talks with Iran because they are such nice people? How did he flip flop? He said we must talk to people who are a threat, our enemy. It is better to downsize the threat into an exchange of words then an exchange of bullets.

However what McCain, Obama, Kerry and Bush lacks in wording things correctly, relative to sentitive topics, we see Hillary Clinton's carefully crafted words do not need flip flopping to appease people, and that experience in public speaking is to her advantage as she makes her case with the Super Deligates to pick the best person to represent us as a nation. With her as President they would need nearly no "damage control" because of miss-spoken words. That would be nice for a change.

She would not need to have her people go out and re-explain what she said in a more acceptable way. Why? More experience at making public statements.