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

[Thanatos]

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.? 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.

You aren't grasping the concept. Talking to them can do no harm.

[Squeaky Wheels]

Here's a detailed analysis of Ahmadinejad's remark about Israel:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He was talking about a one-state solution that would eliminate the Israeli government the way the Soviet government was eliminated. There was no indication that Iran would take military action against Israel.

Infact Iran offered to help us fight terrorism after 9/11:
Iran quietly signals an openness to terror fight | csmonitor.com

Shouldn't Bush have used that opportunity to improve our relationship with Iran? Don't you think we'd be in a better situation? Isn't that what a good leader should do? Or is a good leader someone who pushes for war as a first resort?

[GHook93]

Quote by: Squeaky Wheels Here's a detailed analysis of Ahmadinejad's remark about Israel: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia He was talking about a one-state solution that would eliminate the Israeli government the way the Soviet government was eliminated. There was no indication that Iran would take military action against Israel.

LOL, don't be so naive! Alamnutjob comments were clear. I agree that I don't think Iran will take any preemptive measures against Israel, but don't be gulliable enough to believe in leftist denial and distortion of facts. Alamnutjob desires a 2nd holocaust.
Clip
Clip
Clip
Clip

Infact Iran offered to help us fight terrorism after 9/11: Iran quietly signals an openness to terror fight | csmonitor.com Shouldn't Bush have used that opportunity to improve our relationship with Iran? Don't you think we'd be in a better situation? Isn't that what a good leader should do? Or is a good leader someone who pushes for war as a first resort?

Yes Bush made HUGE blunders. After 9/11 we had world sympathy and support. There were few countries out there that didn't support our invasion of Afghanistan. Bush destroyed that is one of the biggest blunders in US history - the Iraq war. Bush should have used this in order to gain ties with Iran. Remember not to long ago, I believe 1988, Iran threaten to take action against the Taliban for it harsh and genocidial suppression of the Shia minority, but they backed down. Al Qaeda is also a grave threat to Iran and Shias. Bush missed a gloden opportunity, but that is not new for him.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Squeaky Wheels Here's a detailed analysis of Ahmadinejad's remark about Israel: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia He was talking about a one-state solution that would eliminate the Israeli government the way the Soviet government was eliminated. There was no indication that Iran would take military action against Israel. Infact Iran offered to help us fight terrorism after 9/11: Iran quietly signals an openness to terror fight | csmonitor.com Shouldn't Bush have used that opportunity to improve our relationship with Iran? Don't you think we'd be in a better situation? Isn't that what a good leader should do? Or is a good leader someone who pushes for war as a first resort?

Gee, Bush and Halliburton only wanted to get you some oil for those squeaky wheels.

Sorry, could not pass up this chance to crack that joke, well, I gotta have some fun now and then.

[Squeaky Wheels]

Quote by: GHook93 LOL, don't be so naive! Alamnutjob comments were clear. I agree that I don't think Iran will take any preemptive measures against Israel, but don't be gulliable enough to believe in leftist denial and distortion of facts. Alamnutjob desires a 2nd holocaust.

What does tht mean? Either Iran is going to attack Israel or they aren't. If we go around assuming that they are, then how can there ever be peace? And how many times do people have to be told that Mr. Nutjob is not the dictator of Iran and can't order an attack on anyone.

From the Wikipedia article:

Iran's stated policy on Israel is to urge a one-state solution through a countrywide referendum. Juan Cole and others interpret Ahmadinejad's statements to be an endorsement of the one-state solution, in which a government would be elected that all Palestinians and all Israelis would jointly vote for; which would normally be an end to the "Zionist state". In Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamene, rejecting any attack on Israel, called for a referendum in Palestine: We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government. Ahmadinejad himself has also repeatedly called for such solution. Most recently in an interview with Time magazine: TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it? Ahmadinejad: [...] Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way.

[xyzer]

My question is, when you talk to an enemy leader(AhwannaJihad) who vows to exterminate your friend Israel and threatens nuclear missiles as the way he wants to do it, what do you talk about? Are there no preconditions? Obviously AhwannaJihads wants are simple. He wants to arm himself with nukes and missile delivery systems to obliterate the tiny state of Israel. There are no terms thats what he want to do?
Lets face it the UN and the western world believe in non proliferation. Iran and others are not satisfied with that because they say they want to develop nuclear power for energy use. Trouble is they are refining(enriching) weapons type uranium which you don't need to do for energy use? Which suggests(strongly) that they speak with forked tongue?

So does anybody seriously believe Obama when he says he will talk to Iran without preconditions? I don't. Because if he does,he ignores non proliferation and he turns UN and US policy on its rearend! I tend to think he is just talking political talk to soothe the antiwar crowd. Doesn't having a precondition better ensure success? What does Obama talking to him mean? That he will listen?

Further does anybody in their right mind think that talking to a criminal who has repeatedly announced he will destroy his neighbors, will change his mind? Maybe if we promise him something? We tried that with North Korea and guess what, they lied and continued secret development?

Obama like his mentor Wright is a hypocritical, unpatriotic idiot IMO. He will say anything he can conjure up to attract a bigger constituency and doesn't care a fig about his country of its future?

[GHook93]

Quote by: Squeaky Wheels What does tht mean? Either Iran is going to attack Israel or they aren't. If we go around assuming that they are, then how can there ever be peace? And how many times do people have to be told that Mr. Nutjob is not the dictator of Iran and can't order an attack on anyone.

I was referring to you stating that Alamnutjob didn't state that he wanted to wipe Israel off the map and that he never talks about his desire the Israelis gone. He has desires, but I don't think Iran will act on them in a preemptive manner.

A one state "solution" is a mask for the destruction of Israel. Its less viable than status quo. The results would be a genocidial civil war in which all the Arab countries would come on the side of the Palestinians and the 2nd Holocaust would be underway. Israel wouldn't and shouldn't consider it. It would basically be a death sentence to half the world's Jewish population. Hitler would be smiling from his grave!

[Squeaky Wheels]

Quote by: GHook93 A one state "solution" is a mask for the destruction of Israel. Its less viable than status quo. The results would be a genocidial civil war in which all the Arab countries would come on the side of the Palestinians and the 2nd Holocaust would be underway. Israel wouldn't and shouldn't consider it. It would basically be a death sentence to half the world's Jewish population. Hitler would be smiling from his grave!

But if, as you concur, Iran is not going to attack Israel, then that's not going to happen either. And so talking to Iran to try to get them to support anti-terrorism efforts or stability in Iraq does not amount to appeasement and doing so won't result in them starting WWIII. And so we don't have to start WWIII ourselves.

[Squeaky Wheels]

Quote by: xyzer ...nuclear missiles as the way he wants to do it...

Can you quote us his exact words?

[GHook93]

Quote by: Squeaky Wheels But if, as you concur, Iran is not going to attack Israel, then that's not going to happen either. And so talking to Iran to try to get them to support anti-terrorism efforts or stability in Iraq does not amount to appeasement and doing so won't result in them starting WWIII. And so we don't have to start WWIII ourselves.

Que? I think you are a little confused. See who started the thread.

[blue saki]

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.

Niether does Iran. j/k Hey.... yep quite a quandry we have this election year. McCain a flip-flopper?........ That's the understatement of the decade. I may have to hold my nose and compromise my principals and give him my vote. BO is worse in my opinion. Waaaay too far left for my consideration. He was a Sen. here in Illinois and is a manufactured politician. At least with McCain you know what you are getting before ya buy it.

[maximdewinter]

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.

Don't you have to take a position in order to flip flop? What positions has Obama taken that he has flip flopped on?

Or are you talking about simple gaffes like the one this past weekend where he told a crowd in Portland on May 18th that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us" and then on May 19th said to a different crowd “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.” I give all the candidates some slack on stuff like this because they are all run ragged from this constant campaigning.

And what do you mean by McCain doesn't know who the leader of Iran is?

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: blue saki Niether does Iran. j/k Hey.... yep quite a quandry we have this election year. McCain a flip-flopper?........ That's the understatement of the decade. I may have to hold my nose and compromise my principals and give him my vote. BO is worse in my opinion. Waaaay too far left for my consideration. He was a Sen. here in Illinois and is a manufactured politician. At least with McCain you know what you are getting before ya buy it.

I agree that it is murky as to who is in charge in Iran. But Iran sent Ahmadinejahd to the United Nations in NYC last year as "president" to talk to the Secuirty Council. Wouldn' t that be a good indicator of pecking order?

[blue saki]

Quote by: maximdewinter I agree that it is murky as to who is in charge in Iran. But Iran sent Ahmadinejahd to the United Nations in NYC last year as "president" to talk to the Secuirty Council. Wouldn' t that be a good indicator of pecking order?

Perhaps. My understanding is Khamenie runs the show being commander of the military and intelligence. Ahmadinejahd, imo is a patsy and a diversion. Remember this country is corrupt and kept in control by corrupt religious leaders. They bounce all over the place, again imo, to keep the world confused as well as their own people. Control by chaos thus leads to no accountability.......... A perfect cover.

[Technosoul]

So if Obama talked to their "puppet" spokesperson that would be the same as if they taked to Rice instead of President Bush. What is the difference? It does not mean we are confusing people just because we have Rice, the Congress, and not just a President. So why get confused about Iran?

By the way Obama changed his terms, he now has learned from Hillary that he would first send an envoy to make arrangements for such talks, and not just go his self without such prepreations. Which he stated in one of his latest speeches in Fla. (seen on CNN if you want to look it up). He is learning a few things as he goes along here. He also assured voters that he would defend the interests of Israel and would not "sell them out" duing those "unconditional talks".

[blue saki]

Look, the way things are with the present wars, the declining world opinion of the US, the unknowns of Iran's capability to attack Israel, the still as yet uncaptured bin Laden, and any unrest in the Middle East as yet unforeseen, not to mention growing hostilities in Kosovo, and throw in N. Korea as a booby prize, I do not put my trust in an inexpierenced, silver-spooned, Jr. Senator from IL. who is part and parcel of the "Machine." Particularly one intends to learn as he goes. WTF is that? Last I checked we do not negotiate with terrorists or their abedders. As far as sending an envoy, yeah he learned from Hillary after failing with the Jimmy Carter impression which is exactly my point. MANUFACTURED!

I think it is clear to entire world when we send Condi et. al. as representatives of the US, everyone knows what's to follow. She and the likes are not interpreted to be diversions. And what does he mean by unconditional talks? Sounds like alot of grandstanding, liberal, empty rhetoric to me.

[BobbyO]

[

QUOTE=Squeaky Wheels;508654]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.

Of course we have a great deal to lose. The issue seems to be that Iran's actions are based in reaction to actions of the USA. That is to say, Iran is seeking nukes because they are worried about the USa, and its the job of the USA to assuage that concern.
But that is false. Iran wants nukes so it is better able to project power in the region. That is the source of the problem. And the main block to it doing so is Israel and the USA. So Iran has presently has a policy of deliberately not merely confronting the USA, but Europe, and even Russia. A "negotiation" means that the subject is up for discussion.
Its also a success for the Iranian government, who can now claim their policy is working, they may get what they want at no or little cost (indeed, Obama talking directly with A-jad gets them exactly what they want, without giving up anything. It gets the IAEA as a paper tiger.).

[Technosoul]

Quote by: blue saki Look, the way things are with the present wars, the declining world opinion of the US, the unknowns of Iran's capability to attack Israel, the still as yet uncaptured bin Laden, and any unrest in the Middle East as yet unforeseen, not to mention growing hostilities in Kosovo, and throw in N. Korea as a booby prize, I do not put my trust in an inexpierenced, silver-spooned, Jr. Senator from IL. who is part and parcel of the "Machine." Particularly one intends to learn as he goes. WTF is that? Last I checked we do not negotiate with terrorists or their abedders. As far as sending an envoy, yeah he learned from Hillary after failing with the Jimmy Carter impression which is exactly my point. MANUFACTURED! I think it is clear to entire world when we send Condi et. al. as representatives of the US, everyone knows what's to follow. She and the likes are not interpreted to be diversions. And what does he mean by unconditional talks? Sounds like alot of grandstanding, liberal, empty rhetoric to me.

There is nothng empty about it. But you can have that opinion and so why debate your right to think that way.

McCain had the most silly way to direct our military as he just started to sing "bomb bomb Iran". A alternative version of the Beachboys song Barbara Ann that the Beachboys stole form a 1950s oldies LP.

If Iran can defeat the occupation of the USA I am sure it would be easy pie for them to defeat any attempts Iran might have to do what we did.

YouTube - McCain laughs, Sings Bomb Iran

A lot of nuts are still growing on that old Bush. We need President and not another nut case.

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: GHook93 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.

The Iran government with Ahmendinutjob not does want Israel to exist. How do you reason with that? And, what do you tell Israel while we're at the table with Iran?

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Sweet Katie The Iran government with Ahmendinutjob not does want Israel to exist. How do you reason with that? And, what do you tell Israel while we're at the table with Iran?

Very carefully, and to calm down and shut up while people with more sense than them try to defuse the situation in such a way that they don't all die from radiation poisoning.

You see, removing Israel is on their to-do list, but they could already do it; if you can think about refining uranium you can build a bunch of dirty bombs with lots of pretty isotopes and get rid of your enemies the slow and painful way. Stall them like the U.S. did the Soviets until the more oppressive regime implodes. Keep them from feeling too cornered and entrapped because then they really will turn into the suicidal nightmare nation the Israelis are daydreaming of.