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

[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.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Name calling and weird expession aside, I agree, we're not leaving thousands of people to nazi oppression and strengthening a war machine by talking to Mahmoud.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Name calling and weird expession aside, I agree, we're not leaving thousands of people to nazi oppression and strengthening a war machine by talking to Mahmoud.

Yeah, you never know, we might even find out why he's so determined to seek more investigation into the holocaust.


I mean, the only way to tell what's on somebodies mind is to ask.


As usual, I suspect the people that don't want us talking to them wish to supply the dialogue, and the intent for them.


You know, the "Good Guys".

[Thanatos]

Its only appeasement if we give Iran something without getting something meaningful back. A promise not to attack Iran if they give up their nuclear program and allowing weapons inspectors in etc would be logical and fair. What sort of idiot would not talk to their enemies at all?

And Milton...what did you mean about the holocaust?

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Thanatos Its only appeasement if we give Iran something without getting something meaningful back. A promise not to attack Iran if they give up their nuclear program and allowing weapons inspectors in etc would be logical and fair. What sort of idiot would not talk to their enemies at all?

Nixon went to China. Even Ronnie said, "Trust but verify."

Our idiot media (of all stripes) consistently fails to get the story out that Iran's enormous young population is pro-American. You probably all know about pro-american demostrations that spring from soccer games there. And why are they so strongly pro-American? It's because they have lived under the repressive Mullahs the longest (29 years).

One Reporter's Opinion – Iranian Youth Give Hope for the Future

Iran…The Untold Story--Desire for Change
"........Yet within Iran’s borders, a storm is brewing—of which few outside the country are aware.

In December 2006, a notable crowd of Iranian students participated in an event called “University is Alive.” They chanted, “Nothing to lose but our chains!” “Death to dictators!” “We want bread, not bombs!” This demonstration occurred despite the government’s tough measures on political dissent....".

Whether it is Obama or McCain they should go, they should learn a couple of sentences of Farsi and they should turn the propaganda tables on these kooks by lightening things up. This is the age of TELEVISION....use it. You don't have to do ANYTHING of substance---you just have to look good. Bring Oprah or Rachel Ray on the plane, for godsakes, and have them share falafel recipes. Find out who the kids like and bring them too (like Britney Spears or David Archuletta.)

If i were president I would go dressed as the Mahdi

[Gods_Mercenary]

Nixon went to china as a power play against the soviets, but the point stands, I suppose.

[Sonart]

.

A suprising OpEd (5/17/08) by conservative columnist David Brooks...

--"Barack Obama issued a statement in response. He called on “all those who have influence with Hezbollah” to “press them to stand down.” Then he declared, “It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment.”

Does Obama believe that even the most intractable enemies can be pacified with diplomacy? What “Lebanese consensus” can Hezbollah possibly be a part of?

If Obama believes all this, he's not just a Jimmy Carter-style liberal. He's off in Noam Chomskyland.

That didn't strike me as right, so I spoke with Obama Tuesday to ask him what he meant by all this.

Right off the bat he reaffirmed that Hezbollah is “not a legitimate political party.” Instead, “It's a destabilizing organization by any common-sense standard. This wouldn't happen without the support of Iran and Syria.”

I asked him what he meant with all this emphasis on electoral and patronage reform. He said the United States should help the Lebanese government deliver better services to the Shiites “to peel support away from Hezbollah” and encourage the local populace to “view them as an oppressive force.” The United States should “find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services.”

The United States needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.”

He knows these movements aren't going away anytime soon (“Those missiles aren't going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we're going to recognize that. That's an evolution that should be recognized.”

Obama being Obama, he understood the broader reason I was asking about Lebanon. Everybody knows that Obama is smart (and he was quite well-informed about Lebanon). The question is whether he's seasoned and tough enough to deal with implacable enemies.

“The debate we're going to be having with John McCain is how do we understand the blend of military action to diplomatic action that we are going to undertake,” he said. “I constantly reject this notion that any hint of strategies involving diplomacy are somehow soft or indicate surrender or means that you are not going to crack down on terrorism. Those are the terms of debate that have led to blunder after blunder.”

Obama said he found that the military brass thinks the way he does: “The generals are light-years ahead of the civilians. They are trying to get the job done rather than look tough.”

I asked him if negotiating with a theocratic/ideological power such as Iran is different from negotiating with a nation that's primarily pursuing material interests. He acknowledged that “If your opponents are looking for your destruction it's hard to sit across the table from them,” but, he continued: “There are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms. We can strengthen those elements that are making practical calculations.”

Obama doesn't broadcast moral disgust when talking about terror groups, but he said that in some ways he'd be tougher than the Bush administration. He said he would do more to arm the Lebanese military and would be tougher on North Korea. “This is not an argument between Democrats and Republicans,” he concluded. “It's an argument between ideology and foreign policy realism. I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush. I don't have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm. I don't have a lot of complaints with their handling of the fall of the Berlin Wall.”

In his heart, Obama talks like the Democrats of that era, viewing foreign policy from the ground up. But in his head, he aligns himself with the realist deal-making of the first Bush. Apparently, he's part Harry Hopkins and part James Baker."--

.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Nixon went to china as a power play against the soviets, but the point stands, I suppose.

The thread title says "talk to Iran" not "negotiate with Iran." Talk is cheap. Pictures are even cheaper. Take for instance Sarko's visit to England this spring with Carla. He had dropped 30 points in the French polls in the past 6 months. All of a sudden Carla--who BTW is pretty damn hot--- brings a chic costume change for each official appearance and pulls a Jackie Kennedy on the Brits. Sarko then goes up 15 points in domestic polls simply because of this dog and pony show which says that the French still know how to dress. (And Americans are shallow?) My advice to any president....always go for the subliterate.

[Captain Cardio]

I saw that bit of bush's speech overseas and was really hoping that somebody who gets a lot of media play would bring the distinction between appeasement and diplomacy into the light.

I'm rather bothered by the notion that Bush or McCain might succeed at scaring people into voting republican with this misleading notion that 'talking' to the enemy, is somehow the same as 'appeasing' the enemy.

I guess we just need to hope that it's obvious enough, even to the average person or the masses, that it's more undermining to Republican credibility than it is successful at harvesting votes..

[grandpa]

Quote by: Captain Cardio I saw that bit of bush's speech overseas and was really hoping that somebody who gets a lot of media play would bring the distinction between appeasement and diplomacy into the light. I'm rather bothered by the notion that Bush or McCain might succeed at scaring people into voting republican with this misleading notion that 'talking' to the enemy, is somehow the same as 'appeasing' the enemy.

This is especially ironic because the US did "appease the enemy" in Iraq -- Saddam Hussein. Americans also aided "the enemy" in Afghanistan.

Grandpa h.

[GHook93]

Quote by: maximdewinter Nixon went to China. Even Ronnie said, "Trust but verify." Our idiot media (of all stripes) consistently fails to get the story out that Iran's enormous young population is pro-American. You probably all know about pro-american demostrations that spring from soccer games there. And why are they so strongly pro-American? It's because they have lived under the repressive Mullahs the longest (29 years). One Reporter's Opinion – Iranian Youth Give Hope for the Future Iran…The Untold Story--Desire for Change "........Yet within Iran’s borders, a storm is brewing—of which few outside the country are aware. In December 2006, a notable crowd of Iranian students participated in an event called “University is Alive.” They chanted, “Nothing to lose but our chains!” “Death to dictators!” “We want bread, not bombs!” This demonstration occurred despite the government’s tough measures on political dissent....". Whether it is Obama or McCain they should go, they should learn a couple of sentences of Farsi and they should turn the propaganda tables on these kooks by lightening things up. This is the age of TELEVISION....use it. You don't have to do ANYTHING of substance---you just have to look good. Bring Oprah or Rachel Ray on the plane, for godsakes, and have them share falafel recipes. Find out who the kids like and bring them too (like Britney Spears or David Archuletta.) If i were president I would go dressed as the Mahdi

You have a great point there. Try to appeal to the younger generation.

[Technosoul]

Well at least Obama has something in common with those guys, the American perspective was attacking Obama's religious background just like we attack their religious background. As being anti-American in some of the wording of those two religions.

They might get along just fine in understanding each other's situation.

The thing is we should not go there and demand they become a Democracy like us, or that they must obey us or else war will be the result. We need to take a more humble attitude, our pupose should not be to generate a civil war in their country or anything like that.

Our objective is first to show that we respect them and are willing to listen to their sides of a dispute, and that we would be willing to take actions to resolve some of the complaints when they are rightly justified. We must show them that yes, America is really changing our ways and that the Obama motto is not made out of hot air.

We have lots of famous people here in the USA who belong to the Islamic religion and who are not viewed as radicals. Take them with us to those talks.

We must create a new image of America which is less threatening while keeping our true power in a more sedated mode and as a mystery.

We must demonstrate somehow that we will treat all middle eastern countries with the same sense of equality and fairness that we have granted to Israel, by offering the same hand of potential friendship. And we must stop with this fear of saying anything bad about Israel when they get wrongly out of control.

We must make it clear that some of the businessmen who operate in forien countries or who take advantage of forien workers are not representive of the rest of us in America. If Nike shoes is really using child labor that is misstreated we should take action and not just sit by and allow that to happen, even if we must ban such imports to this country. We must show the world we will stand up for human rights everywhere that we can have direct influence. (starting in our own back yard and with those who cross our own boarders to be taken advantage of by our employers).

[GHook93]

Quote by: Technosoul Well at least Obama has something in common with those guys, the American perspective was attacking Obama's religious background just like we attack their religious background. As being anti-American in some of the wording of those two religions.

They are more calling him an appeaser not anti-americe (at least in the talks with his decision to no prerequisite talks with Iran).

The one good thing coming out of the Wright controversy is that no one thinks or even attacks Obama about being a Muslim.

The thing is we should not go there and demand they become a Democracy like us, or that they must obey us or else war will be the result. We need to take a more humble attitude, our pupose should not be to generate a civil war in their country or anything like that.

It doesn't seem like Obama would do that. At least not on the first talks.

Our objective is first to show that we respect them and are willing to listen to their sides of a dispute, and that we would be willing to take actions to resolve some of the complaints when they are rightly justified. We must show them that yes, America is really changing our ways and that the Obama motto is not made out of hot air.

We must also demostrate that we disapprove of many of their actions.

We have lots of famous people here in the USA who belong to the Islamic religion and who are not viewed as radicals. Take them with us to those talks.

Such as? We have only one Congressman, Supreme Court Justice or Governor - Ellison!

We must create a new image of America which is less threatening while keeping our true power in a more sedated mode and as a mystery.

No arguments here on that.

We must demonstrate somehow that we will treat all middle eastern countries with the same sense of equality and fairness that we have granted to Israel, by offering the same hand of potential friendship. And we must stop with this fear of saying anything bad about Israel when they get wrongly out of control.

Yet you can fall into appeasement, which your strategy is falling grossly towards.

[linda_mary_13]

You guys are sooooo American. Should we distribute "I'm o.k. You're o.k.?

Do you hear what Iran is saying? Do you think they are kidding or really not serious or thoughtful about what they say? They feel hatred. Their word is worthless because their own faith allows them to lie and deceive their enemies. Their ideology placed those who are in power and oil has a strangle hold on the world.

Just what is Obama going to say? Please don't cross these lines in the sand and we will .........

What do you think Iran will say? We'll consider it. Okay. Then they cross the line? Everyone in the world is very clear where the United States and the Western world stand and where the Islamic nations stand including Russia and China. NO ONE trusts the other. Sitting down to talk is as good as closing your eyes, hoping the boogie man disappears.

Obama hasn't put one ounce of thought into this dilemma. He's too busy fulfilling the role of being the first black man with a shot at the presidency.
What's pathetic is how little thought and serious talk occur amongst ourselves regarding a situation where Yes meets No and the next step reveals a winner.

The place for diplomacy is in Iraq. Someone mentioned the military officers are eons ahead of us in getting the mission done. Action speaks louder than words. Instead of hoping the war fails or adopting isolationist chants the world should reach out to Iraq with heartfelt efforts and let that speak for us. Our military is trying to do this but the burden is too heavy for them. The world needs to help but what percentage of the world really even cares? Those in power most likely and that leaves us right back to the beginning.

Meanwhile, nuclear weaponry, plots to destroy Israel, U.S.,oil dilemma, suspicious movement in Russia, China cheating la de da de da, we're going to cheer and cry in adoration for Obama because he going to do what George Bush said he wouldn't. Tit for tat between the Dems and Republicans and America is satisfied today and what lies ahead we'll deal with it tomorrow.

We should be drilling Obama and McCain for details. These free candy speeches are a waste of time. We have no media to help reveal the details because they sold out. The government is sheepishly telling us they cannot provide any relief to soaring gas prices. The government has never been able to protect us individually and all the ducks are lined up in a row, food prices, heating fuel, means of travel to job should gas be out of reach.

Obama looks and sounds great when he's talking pie in the sky. Will someone hold his feet to the fire and take one pie and show us what it's made of?

[Thanatos]

Quote by: linda_mary_13 You guys are sooooo American. Should we distribute "I'm o.k. You're o.k.? Do you hear what Iran is saying? Do you think they are kidding or really not serious or thoughtful about what they say? They feel hatred. Their word is worthless because their own faith allows them to lie and deceive their enemies. Their ideology placed those who are in power and oil has a strangle hold on the world. Just what is Obama going to say? Please don't cross these lines in the sand and we will ......... What do you think Iran will say? We'll consider it. Okay. Then they cross the line? Everyone in the world is very clear where the United States and the Western world stand and where the Islamic nations stand including Russia and China. NO ONE trusts the other. Sitting down to talk is as good as closing your eyes, hoping the boogie man disappears.

So? If they cross the line in the sand you have an excuse to bomb them. Interesting form of fallacy.

In case you've been living under a rock for the past few years there are already lines in the sand. They have not been crossed and America's weakness has not been taken advantage of because whatever else he is Ahmadenijad is not dumb. He has suicidal minions, but true to form the evil genius himself has a sense of self preservation.

This is what's happening:

Iran wants nukes for security and diplomatic leverage. Nothing says no trespassing quite like an atomic bomb.

America wants to bomb Iran because it would make our arms dealers rich. If you haven't been paying attention Bush has been trying to goad Iran into moving first for several years.

Israel is trying to direct and encourage America's dumbness to remove their upstart neighbors for them. They may panic and fire first if Iran gets the bomb.

Ways out of this:

1. War.

2. A bigger war.

3. Be stuck doing everything Iran says forever.

4. A magic fairy appears and turns all of Iran's uranium into unsweetened chocolate.

5. Try to convince Ahmadenijad he doesn't need the bomb before he actually has it.

[Jack]

This is a good thread in that it shows at least some people understand the meaning of appeasement.
Too bad some who want to accuse Obama of that act don't have the slightest idea of its meaning...YouTube - Radio Host Kevin James Walks into a Smackdown

[Technosoul]

Quote by: GHook93 They are more calling him an appeaser not anti-americe (at least in the talks with his decision to no prerequisite talks with Iran). The one good thing coming out of the Wright controversy is that no one thinks or even attacks Obama about being a Muslim. It doesn't seem like Obama would do that. At least not on the first talks. We must also demostrate that we disapprove of many of their actions. Such as? We have only one Congressman, Supreme Court Justice or Governor - Ellison! No arguments here on that. Yet you can fall into appeasement, which your strategy is falling grossly towards.

When the famous " I Am The Greatest" boxer changed his name from Clay to X he set into motion a lot of interest in those middle eastern religions. I do not know who is who among famous people, but we must have some famous people of that faith.

But the bad news is Obama is allowing McCain to set the debate about who is the best one to deal with terrroism. National polls have put McCain ahead in that arena, just like Hillary pointed out. CNN reported that Obama would have trouble contesting that with McCain because he lacks experience and McCain is a big war hero.

But today Obama fired back, and said it is easy to talk to our friends but we must also talk to our enemy, and he said that he is not afraid to talk with those people, suggesting that McCain is fearful of such talks.

He got cheers with that come back remark.

Once when fishing at a peer I was enjoying a nice conversation with this old guy from Japan. It is strange how time changes things, for not so long ago Japan was our number one enemy and we hated them with a passion. Who knows, someday our grandchildren might be fishing next to friendly people from Iran. We must remember the everyday people in those countries, and not think that their leaders really speak for all of them.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Jack This is a good thread in that it shows at least some people understand the meaning of appeasement. Too bad some who want to accuse Obama of that act don't have the slightest idea of its meaning...YouTube - Radio Host Kevin James Walks into a Smackdown

Now they can try also to comprehend the meaning of the word "Deplomacy", which is what Obama is suggesting.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Technosoul Now they can try also to comprehend the meaning of the word "Deplomacy", which is what Obama is suggesting.

Wouldn't you rather send an honest man to be your diplomat, and representative for negotiaions?


Then elect a real diplomat.


Ron Paul 08

[Technosoul]

Irans nuclear energy program would be on the table, what other reason would they hold talks? The new Iragi government already stated they want to have a friendly relationship with Iran, this means we have an opening for a workable solution.
1. Iran agrees to discontinue their nuclear energy program .... if....
2. They can get oil from Irag to use to produce the energy for their cites with, and if they agree to help out Irag in other ways during Irags reconstruction era. And if they agree not to attack one another.
3. The USA meanwhile, under Democratic leadership, will be focusing on a number of different ways to create energy without using oil, coal, or expensive nuclear power. And our new technology will be safer and better for the health of thier citizens, and we can agree to share with Iran the new technologies we will be developing for energy and power needs.

Which would put Iran ahead of the old foggie nuclear plant days which is now less practical concidering the earthquake threats in the middle east.

And of course we would remove their name from our "axes of evil" list. Which stupid insult Bush made about them long before they even asked China and Russia to aid them with the developement of nuclear energy.

This is called deplomacy.

This is simple, they need energy for their cities and so all we need to do is help them find a way to do that without needing nuclear plants for that purpose.

The so-called negative remarks made about the USA were triggered as come back remarks for what Bush called them, and because Bush has this bully attitude concerning Iran. The Bully is leaving office and we hope he is not replaced by another bully person. No more Bull..... time for a change.

Mr Bully McCain is now making bad remarks about Obama's wife, and like Iran we hear Obama responding by saying "He better leave my wife alone". (of course, what can Obama do if the Republicans continue with that ad, really? )

Once when Obama got some popular wins in his bid for being President his wife said "for the first time I am proud to be an American". So McCain is using that remark to make people think she hated America before the current elections. That really upset Obama. ( trying to make his wife another Rev Wright).

So we are off to an ugly start folks.