Appeasement?
By
MikeAdamson
on May 19, 2008 at 02:05 pm
83 Comments
I’ve got your appeasement right here.
Talking with the enemy...what’s next?
Monday, May 19, 2008
Comments
Before you start crowing, Mike, see how it turns out for the Israelis. Of course, unlike Obama, that guy is actually in charge of something. Obama’s just flapping his gums.
"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”
Mike, you do know that one of the primary criticisms of Olmert in Israeli politics is that he’s a bit too much of an...appeaser, right?
Certainly you’re not suggesting that this exonerates Barack Obama in any way. Because if that’s the case, I’m going to have to laugh at you.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Rob’s recently listened-to songs:
While we’re at it Mike, why don’t we discuss the long line of successes that Israel has had in appeasing the Palestinians?
Here, I’ll start:
``.’’
OK, your turn.
Obamoid is preaching surrender, Olmert is practicing appeasement. You obviously can’t discern the difference.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
By this autumn, Bibi Netanyahu will be the new prime minister of Israel, presenting Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Fatah, the Iranian Mullahs, and the US Department of State with a notably different paradigm with which to deal.
“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”
I always thought appeasement meant buying off an enemy in an effort to avoid attack. When did it change into a synonym for dialogue?
I also see appeasement is on the move in Israel...now it’s the Syrians!
Shocking stuff.
"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*
Israel went way beyond just talking to the enemy.
See “Gaza Strip”.
The idea you can talk to people like Hamas and do anything other than give away something for nothing is extremely naive at best. Nothing will ever get accomplished through talk until Hamas has more to gain from peace than they are gaining right not from conflict.
Mike, you have obviously received a concussive blow to the head. Else you would not post such redundant stupidity. Put me in touch with one of your kids, I’ll impress upon them how it is their responsibility to protect you from injuring yourself. Further.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
Carrick, hence to basic military doctrine of overwhelming response.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
I’m trying to think of examples where America didn’t talk with an enemy and the strategy worked. Cuba? Still Communist. China? Didn’t work so well so America decided to talk.
I’m open to suggestions. Don’t get me wrong...I know that real appeasement is futile but I don’t think that no dialogue works either.
"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*
Show me where America is not using ongoing diplomatic dialogue. An example, please?
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
I know that real appeasement is futile but I don’t think that no dialogue works either.
I can’t believe you don’t know this, Mike, but the difference between appeasement and negotiation is: What you say. Obama previously announced that he would “sit down” with murdering dictators with no preconditions; that’s appeasement. In other words, he would make no demands. We want a leader with a lot more spine than that.
"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”
MIke, there are times it is important to be realistic. With Hamas, talking to them will accomplish nothing objective, because they benefit both materially and politically from the ongoing conflict with Israel.
All that talking to them does is legitimize their government.
There are times where negotiation is important, China in the ‘70s was a good example of that, South Africa in the 80s. However, it can only be counter productive, as with Hamas, so it would be foolish to engage in dialogue with them.
With Hamas, talking to them will accomplish nothing objective, because they benefit both materially and politically from the ongoing conflict with Israel.
I recognise that there are many hardline Hamas types who will never “surrender” but there are no doubt figures within Hamas who can practically size up the situation and realise that a settlement will have to happen. This no doubt creates tension within the Hamas leadership and I think our interests are best served by legitimising those aspects of Hamas that are practical enough to view a settlement as conceivable.
Recognising Israel’s right to exist must happen before a settlement is possible. How do we facilitate a shift in Hamas thinking if we don’t legitimise those that already enjoy legitimacy domestically and who don’t see the destruction of Israel as the over arching mission?
I don’t see the present course of non-engagement as a practical course of action. You either engage in dialogue and try to bolster and foster those elements that can be worked with or you use the military option. The latter can’t be justifed IMO until the former has been attempted both for practical and philosophical reasons.
I’m not claiming that talking is a sufficient condition on its own but it’s certainly a necessary one. If one believes that Hamas is an unredeemable monolith then I can understand why talk is viewed as a waste of time. I don’t think that is the case, I think that many is Israel don’t believe that to be the case and so the course of action seems pretty clear to me.
"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*
2H9...sorry I missed your question yesterday. Not being privy to whatever back room discussions take place, I’m thinking of Cuba, Syria, Iran, Palestine. These are all regimes with which the American government will not officially talk with and they are regimes that probably need talking with most...IMO of course.
"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*
I can’t believe you don’t know this, Mike, but the difference between appeasement and negotiation is: What you say. Obama previously announced that he would “sit down” with murdering dictators with no preconditions; that’s appeasement. In other words, he would make no demands. We want a leader with a lot more spine than that.
I can’t believe you don’t know this Robert, but appeasement is the giving up of something to get a desired outcome. As in giving up the Sudentanland to get Germany not to attack. It is not talking.
A modern day version of appeaseement is that Pakistan just allowed the Taliban to enforce Sharia law in NW Pakistan to get them to stop attacking Pakistani forces. That is appeasement. Whether it is wise or not is a whole different issue.
It is not talking.
Are you trying to sell the concept that Chamberlain did it by sign language? Of course it was talking, you fool!
"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”
Here’s your error: When you claim to “negotiate” with a murdering dictator(Hitler, Mahmoud), who has not alternate agenda than murdering those who won’t obey him, there is nothing to negotiate! By even meeting with such a person, you give him legitimacy, and more of a chance to implement his murdering agenda.
The only “talk” you would want to have with such a person is to tell him to surrender “or else”, and mean it! Obambi doesn’t have the spine to do that, as he really believes he can romance Mahmoud, because he doesn’t understand the evil he is dealing with. He’s simply stupid, like Chamberlain, and would produce a like result.
The outcome is undeniable.
"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”
Are you trying to sell the concept that Chamberlain did it by sign language? Of course it was talking, you fool!
No I am saying that he gave away the Sudentanland. That was the act of appeasement, not the talking.
That is why Israel’s current backdoor talks with Syria are not appeasement.
That was the act of appeasement, not the talking.
That is why Israel’s current backdoor talks with Syria are not appeasement.
Are you serious? The appeasement of even talking with the murdering savages precedes the action. Duh.
I love it when you lefties try your definitional relativism bullshit.
"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”
Robert, you are a moron.
To appease you must give into demands in exchange for peace.
Diplomacy is not appeasement. Under your warped believe we could never have dialogue with an adversary. War would always be the first option.
Here’s your error: When you claim to “negotiate” with a murdering dictator( Mahmoud), who has not alternate agenda than murdering those who won’t obey him, there is nothing to negotiate!
robert108 on May 23, 2008 at 10:31 am
And you know this how? How many has he murdered because they will not obey him?
And how much longer will he be president?
Surely there are elements within the Iranian theocracy that yearn for change. They surely want their country to enter the world community but without giving away their oil for next to nothing.
It is a well known fact that when you corner an animal (even a human one) and leave no avenue of escape the animal will strike. Nothing wrong with talking to your perceived enemies. Behind their vile rhetoric there is a desire for normalcy. It is a give and take situation. Mahmoud expessed the desire to eradicate Israel. So what. On that basis alone IMO our current foreign policy is driven, and it is not producing any desirable results.
Behind their vile rhetoric there is a desire for normalcy.
This is your foolish leftie illusion. Neville Chamberlain’s foolish bullshit is the proof.
"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”
Diplomacy is not appeasement. Under your warped believe we could never have dialogue with an adversary. War would always be the first option.
It always amazes me how someone like you can read plain English, and then make up something entirely different.
I never said that all diplomacy is appeasement; diplomacy is for dialogue with peaceful or reasonable nations, not ones who wish to wipe us off the map. Duh.
The threat of war should underlie any “dialogue"(which assumes two people talking). With Hitler and Mahmoud, it’s really a monologue. Mahmoud’s agenda is already set, and we are just talking to make ourselves feel better. It’s just stupid.
I repeat: any dialogue with an adversary(assuming there is any real room for them to move) should be under strict rules of engagement, set by us. That is the perk of being the world’s only superpower. I know you lefties hate that about the US, but it’s the truth, whether you are able to face it or not.
"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”
Recognising Israel’s right to exist must happen before a settlement is possible.
That’s a precondition, Mike. Thanks for being honest enough to admit the necessity of same.
"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”
Mike, You make good points: Namely that we need to have social interchanges with people within the Hamas party who can be reasoned with. Just as with the Soviet Union and China it undercuts their propaganda when we do so.
The problem is that Obama and others want to sit down and talk with the “hardliners who will never surrender”. These people have nothing to gain and everything to lose by accepting a peaceful resolution. I simply see no way to deal with such a government in a way that undercuts our own interests in seeing a resolution to the Palestiaan-Israeli conflict.
What Obama wants to do is foolish and naive. He threatens to prolong the conflict by giving legitimacy to what amounts to terrorists and thugs, who profit financially and politically from the current mess.
The problem is that Obama and others want to sit down and talk with the “hardliners who will never surrender”.
Carrick on May 23, 2008 at 10:38 am
Carrick who in his right mind discuss anything when you demand surrender?
That is a big stumbling block in sincere talks.
ellinas,
US/EU/UN: It is not acceptable for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
Iran: What is acceptable to you is of no concern to us.
Okay… now what?
“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”
Iran: What is acceptable to you is of no concern to us.
Okay… now what?
Bat One on May 23, 2008 at 11:14 am
Now my dear friend we sit down and discuss what is acceptible to both sides. We put the sabers away and meet and confer respectfully. We try realy hard to bridge our differences.
Now my dear friend we sit down and discuss what is acceptible [sic]to both sides. We put the sabers away and meet and confer respectfully. We try realy hard to bridge our differences.
e,
You have put an unimaginably upbeat spin on an exceedingly grave situation while studiously ignoring both the danger of that situation and the obvious fact that they, the Iranians, are going to get exactly what they want, while you will have nothing to show for your “efforts” but the embarrassment of your ineffectual self-righteousness.
You have a bright future ahead of you at the US Department of State, which is always looking for those whose commitment to “process” far outdistances their myopic view of reality. You should apply immediately.
Better yet, apply at the UN! They answer to no one for their ineptitude, with absolutely no reason to concern themselves with questions of competence, enjoy any number of opportunities for corruption, both financial and sexual, and the tax advantages are considerable.
“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”
Gee Bat! Ingenious writing.
I wonder why it took so many words to say so little.
The danger you are describing will get worse by not talking.
It’s like a divorce where the involved talk through intermediaries (lawyers) in this case third parties who only have their interests in mind.
The danger you are describing will get worse by not talking. It’s like a divorce where the involved talk through intermediaries (lawyers) in this case third parties who only have their interests in mind.
e,
But, my dear friend, we HAVE been talking to the Iranians! Both directly and through intermediaries: the Russians, the Germans, the French, the Chinese, the EU, the IAEA, and the UN. Where DO you people get the idea that we haven’t been?
I realize that this a political issue in a political season, but it looks very much like the only audacity to be found is the audacity of those who stupidly call themselves “reality based.”
“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”
Ingenious writing. I wonder why it took so many words to say so little.
In the greater scheme of things, my sarcasm was a relatively minor point. But I had to use a lot of relatively smaller words, in relatively smaller sentences, to ensure that you and what’s-his-apostrophe would have a relatively reasonable chance of understanding.
Call it a form of linguistic courtesy. You guys do remember what courtesy is, don’t you?
“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”
But, my dear friend, we HAVE been talking to the Iranians! Both directly and through intermediaries
Huh?
When did we have direct talks with Iran? And if we have, why can’t we do it now?
Since the leaders of Iran, both President Tom and the Mad Mullahs refuse to have one on one, direct talks with America exactly how is it our fault that we have not had one on one, direct talks with Iran, hawkie?
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
And if we have, why can’t we do it now?
Who said we aren’t? Robert Malley? Susan Power?
“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”
Bat: I love the leftie equivalence of divorce to world terrorism!
These are the same morons who insist we should treat international terrorism like street crime. You know how well that worked with the WTC attack in ‘93.
"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”
Page 1 Headline in todays WND blog Rice: Talks with Iran at ‘advanced stage’
If you lefty morons, yeah that includes you, e and hawk, bothered to get your news from sources other than MSM, Obamas campaign and Democrat representative critters, you would know that there has been ongoing diplomatic work being done by Rice and the state department who by the way are the ones (not Congress!!) commissioned to do negotiations with foreign states.At a State Department press conference, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confirmed Bush administration negotiations with Tehran are at an “advanced stage,” with a letter describing a new package of incentives prepared by European Union Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana for direct delivery to Iranian government.
Rice’s announcement yesterday directly contradicted statements in recent days by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, who has contended Iran is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons because the Bush administration has refused to talk directly with Tehran, or has refused to hold talks at a head-of-state level.
The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants
Mike, sorry I missed your direct response. Please to show me that the US Dept of State is not talking to the countries you listed. We are, in point of fact, talking to these asshats all the damn time.
Is it that you want a huge, flaming, neon sign declaring to the world each and every time a conversation occurs? An hour long TV extravaganza to commemorate each and every communique? We do BUSINESS with Iran on a daily basis. You actually think DeptState is not involved in that? We have an entire office and staff dedicated to talking to Iran.
Are you really trying to convince me America is not talking to unfriendly countries? Or are you trying to convince yourself.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
Excellent point, DD!! Congress members are NOT the entity through which International Relations is done. They get to oversee and give direction, to a specific degree, but do not do direct diplomacy outside of DeptState parameters. Its DeptState’s ricebowl, and they are rather protective of it.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
Carrick...that’s fair enough. I don’t know who Obama is thinking he’ll talk with and I agree that if it’s with the hard liners then not much is likely to come from it.
dd...I give you this quote from the WND piece you linked:
Since 2005, the Bush administration has pursued a policy of negotiating with Iran through the international community, working directly with the EU-3, the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.N. Security Council.
The Americans are not talking directly with the Iranians. The EU wrote the letter and they’ll deliver it...presumably on behalf of the Americans as well.
Leave it to WND to screw up the introductory paragraph and to certain right wing lemmings not to read to the bottom of the item.
2H9...I’ve already said that I’m not privy to the backroom meetings but, for example, WND says that the Bush Administration hasn’t negotiated directly with the Iranians since 2005. I’m open to evidence of dialogue with the other nations but I’m reasonably I’m correct as far as official meetings are concerned.
"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*
Is your computer broken, the search capability has fallen off? Right? Or is this part of that concusive head injury we discussed earlier?
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
”.....He indicated a diplomatic letter had been prepared for delivery to the Iranian government, emphasizing, “But we’re also very, very clear that our own package needs to be addressed very, very carefully by the Iranian regime, and that’s the basis on which we should go forward.”
docdave this is a laughable, ludicrous, ridiculous, comic,and comical statement. But again, my bad. I thought we were talking about direct negotiations.
I would be a moron if I took face value what you and others say.
Bat: I love the leftie equivalence of divorce to world terrorism!
robert108 on May 23, 2008 at 12:41 pm
You know what my point is. Quit it.
You know what my point is.
Your “point” is ridiculous. There is no valid comparison between divorce and world terrorism.
"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”
OK, e, I’ll bite. Prove America has no communication with Iran. Lets us see it.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
You know what my point is.
Your “point” is ridiculous. There is no valid comparison between divorce and world terrorism.
robert108 on May 23, 2008 at 06:08 pm
Point:It’s like a divorce where the involved talk through intermediaries (lawyers) in this case third parties who only have their interests in mind.
The lawyers in a divorce receive more compensation as the divorce lingers,and advise their clients accordingly. In this case the third parties (intermediaries) have more to gain if the animosity between US and Iran lingers.
That was my point.
But true to form, you took it and twisted it and tried to make it something I never said: “There is no valid comparison between divorce and world terrorism.”
Shame on you, you lying old geezer.
OK, e, I’ll bite. Prove America has no communication with Iran. Lets us see it.
2Hotel9 on May 23, 2008 at 04:16 pm
This is an election year. If we had direct communications with Iran the White House and it’s current occupants would have slammed those pesky democrats so hard, that Juan McCain would have won the presidency with no effort whatsoever.
Besides my good friend, is your computer broken, the search capability has fallen off? Or is this part of that concusive head injury we discussed earlier?
2H9...you definitely are hurting my head. 
It’s hard to prove that something isn’t happening...I’m not aware of any official American/Iranian, American/Cuban or American/Palestinian negotiations, dialogue, whatever. If you have something then pass it on...that’s how we learn.
"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*
Ellinas the phrase ““hardliners who will never surrender” is Mike’s and I was using it tongue in cheek.
If you are wondering the context, the top individuals in Hamas profit both monetarily and politically from the discord with Israel. They will never reconcile because it isn’t in their own best interests.
You know what my point is.
I repeat: yes, I do, and it’s ridiculous. You’re a moron.
"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”
Robert108youn are still twisting and spinning what I wrote.
Shame on you, you lying old geezer.
Direct negotiations?? What the hell is that? Joining with other nations on a common problem is SOP with any negotiations. e. you and Mike want it both ways. You want our country to work with other countries and the UN and when we do you complain that that is not ‘direct’ enough. Nothing will ever please you with your obvious negative bias toward the Bush admin.I thought we were talking about direct negotiations.
I would be a moron if I took face value what you and others say.
The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants
Neither of you have yet proven that America(government/DeptState) is not talking to Iran, or anyone else. Lets see it. Prove that America is not “talking” to anyone, anyone at all, in the geopolitical arena. That is the point you leftards and your boy, Barack Hussein Obamoid, are putting forth. Prove it. Or shut the fuck up.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
"Appeasement” is one of those buzzwords the far-right likes to repeat ad nauseum. But conservatives don’t know what it means.
But conservatives don’t know what it means.
Like you and the word ”generality”?
One instance, one guy and you brand all conservatives???
Once again, you don’t know, jack! Heh.
For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.
Frederick W. Kagan
Who the hell is Kevin James? And why should anyone give a crap about him?
Appeasement is slow suicide. Ask France, Poland, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, et al. The spirit of Neville Chamberlain is strong, in the Democrat Party.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
2H9...I believe that jack’s point is that of course appeasement is a bad idea. It’s just that some people don’t understand what appeasement is and they end up labeling dialogue as appeasement.
Hope this helps.
"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*
Mike: The original point, before all the distraction, was that Obama’s commitment to talk to terrorist leaders without precondition is appeasement, all by itself. He would give them a legitimacy they don’t deserve. You should know that.
"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”
jackoff’s point is that all people are the property of the State, which makes him your bitch. You repeatedly have spewed this same anti-human, anti-freedom bullshit. And I will tell you, for the last fucking time, we real human beings will hunt you fucking assholes down. You are the problem. You are anti-human, anti-freedom, anti-progress. And we real human beings will hunt you down and wipe you from the face of the planet.
Your mother is so ashamed of you.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
And spare us your sad assed, apologist bullshit. You are on your knees, sucking the Muslim appendage that is being rammed into your mouth. Because you “feel” guilty about blahblahblahblahblah what ever the fuck. That is your stupid horseshit. Keep it to yourself.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
I’d just like to comment on the link provided by Jack that simply because allowing Nazi Germany to annex part of Czechoslovakia (for example) is an act of appeasement on a grand scale, doesn’t mean that lesser acts are not appeasement as well.
Negotiating with terrorists is an act that gives these groups a legitimacy that they would otherwise lack, and, yes, these individuals gain in both a real political and monetary sense from such an act.
Now, talking to Hamas leadership isn’t probably appeasement in any standard definition of the word, though it would be equally well advised.
But I’d like to get some response from Mike and others what they think the purpose of such dialogue would be, if as I pointed out, the people you are talking to have nothing to benefit from a change in the status quo, other than to gain some “concession” that they won’t, e.g., attack our interests? And doesn’t this amount to as equally an irresponsible approach with such organizations as appeasement would be, regardless of whether it falls under a common rubric?
Carrick: My overall impression of what lefties mean when they suggest either “talking” or “diplomacy” is as a substitute for firm action. In other words, they are signaling the adversaries that we won’t fight, and that is always a bad thing. Whether we will actually do it or not, any enemy has to think that we will respond militarily, otherwise they can just talk us to death, while they prepare their next strike. Generally speaking, terrorists only want to “negotiate” in order to stop us from kicking their ass, and to give them time to rearm and regroup.
That’s what makes all the leftie stuff about “talking” essentially appeasement.
In my view, the enemy should be relieved that we want to talk, in hopes that they can avoid being wiped out.
"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”
2H9...I’m not quite getting it. I wish you weren’t so reticent about saying what’s on your mind.
Carrick...I suppose I would ask “legitimacy” in the eyes of who? Both Hamas and Hiz are different from your run of the mill terrorist gang because one is a popularly elected government and the other is a significant player in another popularly elected government. This is not to belittle the violent crimes they commit but the fact that those two groups both have real legitimacy in their own countries means that you have to tackle them differently than you would Al Qaeda or the Baeder-Meinhoff gang.
If talking with the political wings of those groups raises their legitimacy versus their military or terrorist wings then I think that’s a good thing. If offering economic incentives to the politicians served to frustrate the ambitions of the terrorist wings then I think that would be a good thing. Big “ifs” I know but the status quo isn’t acceptable and the military option in Lebanon and Palestine doesn’t appear viable...what else is there?
"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*
robert108: With your permission, I’m going to take your description of liberal “diplomacy” a step further.
Liberals cling to the notion that - unlike conservatives - they are reasonable people who, armed with a sophisticated world-view, can empathize with the victims of our imperialistic, militaristic machinations. Inherent in their naive philosophy is the notion that - again, unlike conservatives - liberals can be trusted because they are caring, loving people.
You can see the whole nauseating mind-set in the rheumy, all-knowing, all-wise, all-sympathetic eyes of Jimmy Carter; remarkably like those of Neville Chamberlain!
"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”
The stakes are high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts or national security, the right answers are coming not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans. The surge of operations that began a year ago is succeeding. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. Richard M. Cheney, Vice President, 30 May, 2008
pp: I’ll go you one better: with their belief in moral relativity, lefties are unable to distinguish between good and evil, which leaves them unable to deal with evil when it presents itself. They want to talk with it. This confusion is apparent when they consider the President in a less favorable light than any number of murdering dictators.
"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”
I think “popularly elected terrorist” is a bit of an oxymoron. Who oversaw those elections, Jimmy Carter? What would have happened if the terrorists had lost the popular vote? I don’t see how a terrorist organization can be considered “legitimate” in any sense of the word. Verbal delusion.
"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”
Mike:
Carrick...I suppose I would ask “legitimacy” in the eyes of who?
In the context of the world political scene. International funds dried up for the Palestinians, after Hamas was elected. Agreeing to engage diplomatically with Hamas leadership is a step back towards legitimate, internationally recognized government. And it certainly would undermine anybody within e.g. Palestine who is in opposition to current Hamas policies towards Israel.
Big “ifs” I know but the status quo isn’t acceptable and the military option in Lebanon and Palestine doesn’t appear viable...what else is there?
First accepting that the root causes of these conflicts lie in Syria and Iran. These nations are funding international terrorism, and in some cases directly pulling the strings for operations in Lebanon and the Palestine.
We can decide whether we can accept the status quo or not, but to pretend that we can “fix” things simply by talk in cases like this is just plain naive, in my opinion.
Until Syria and Iran stop actively supportting the policy of the eradication of the state of Israel, peace is impossible in the Middle East.
First accepting that the root causes of these conflicts lie in Syria and Iran.
At the expense of sounding picky I think the root cause exists in Israel and Palestine...who can live where is the bottom line. You’re right in that the terrorist leadership can be found in Syria and Iran and that those regimes support the terrorist menace that threatens Israel but I think that’s a good reason to try to engage the politicians in Lebanon and Palestine.
We can decide whether we can accept the status quo or not, but to pretend that we can “fix” things simply by talk in cases like this is just plain naive, in my opinion.
If I believed that talking would ensure a successful resolution to the problem then I’d be naive. If I thought that not talking would ensure a successful resolution then I’d be naive. I agree that getting Syria and Iran on side would mark significant progress...shall we bomb them or talk to them or allow osmosis to lead us out of the status quo?
Good comments though and I take them seriously.
"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*
Talking is necessary to arrange the terms of surrender.
"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”
pp
Liberals cling to the notion that - unlike conservatives - they are reasonable people who, armed with a sophisticated world-view, can empathize with the victims of our imperialistic, militaristic machinations.
Feel good liberals think that way. I think a more fundamental explanation is that modern liberals, like pre-revolutionary or traditional conservatives, view society as a construct of interrelated individuals whereas modern conservatives view society as a collection of competing individual interests.
Liberals believe that fixing or strengthening the weakest parts strengthens society while conservative believe that allowing the stronger parts to flourish strengthens society. Two fundamentally different ways of viewing the world...neither has it 100% right but we all have our preferred outlook.
"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*
Mike:
At the expense of sounding picky I think the root cause exists in Israel and Palestine...who can live where is the bottom line.
That may have been true at one time. But the root cause for the continuation of the conflict lies in the funding of terrorists by the governments of Syria and Iran.
If you can’t accept the basic calculus for why there is continued conflict then there isn’t much to discuss.
If I believed that talking would ensure a successful resolution to the problem then I’d be naive. If I thought that not talking would ensure a successful resolution then I’d be naive. I agree that getting Syria and Iran on side would mark significant progress...shall we bomb them or talk to them or allow osmosis to lead us out of the status quo?
I am not stating what policy one should have towards Syria and Iran. I am simply asserting that their surrogates will never accept compromise, simply because it is not in their best interests, as long as they continue to be supported financially and gain politically from the current status quo.
I am further stating that dialog with the leaders of Hamas and Hizbullah are not in our best interests, because it strengthens them politically, and undercuts moderates who want to see a change in the status quo. As far as I can tell, Obama is totally clueless and naive about the calculus that drives the violence in the middle east, and not only naive, his ideas are actually dangerous to world security because they advocate a diplomatic approach tantamount to appeasement.
Mike:
Liberals believe that fixing or strengthening the weakest parts strengthens society
The rub here is how you “fix” or “strengthen” the weakest parts of society.
Many liberal agendas actually enable the “weakest” (least productive from a different perspective) elements of society rather than strengthen them. I don’t think there is anybody who, all else being equal, would oppose measures that could actually “fix or strengthen” them, the problem from my perspective is that the classic liberal agenda has for the large been shown to either be ineffective or even counter productive.
In fact one could in practice be a liberal, while rejecting most of the modern “theology” of liberalism, including the belief system that people want to be “fixed” to start with.
Liberals believe that fixing or strengthening the weakest parts strengthens society while conservative believe that allowing the stronger parts to flourish strengthens society.You left out the most important part: the opportunity for all people to flourish.
Lefties don’t “strengthen” anything; they weaken the achievers to soothe the emotions of the non-achievers by stealing from the achievers, taking most of it, and dribbling a little out to the non-achievers.
When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can be assured of Paul’s vote.
"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”
...modern conservatives view society as a collection of competing individual interests.
How partisan of you; here’s the truth about the way we regard self-interest:
Invisible Hand
A term coined by economist Adam Smith in his 1776 book “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”. In his book he states:
“Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it… He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”
Thus, the invisible hand is essentially a natural phenomenon that guides free markets and capitalism through competition for scarce resources.Investopedia Says:
Smith assumes that individuals try to maximize their own good (and become wealthier), and by doing so, through trade and entrepreneurship, society as a whole will be better off. Furthermore, any government intervention in the economy isn’t needed as the invisible hand would best guide the economy.
It works that way in the real world, when govt stays away.
"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”
Obama previously announced that he would “sit down” with murdering dictators with no preconditions; that’s appeasement.
Can you show me the quote where Obama said he wanted to sit down with murdering dictators, and not the leaders and leadership?
We have never been weaker in the ME since this Administration took over. Iran is on the march, not freedom.
In fact, it is the policies that President George W. Bush has pursued, and that John McCain would continue, that are divorced from that great tradition – and from the legacy of Republican presidents like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
But...but....George Bush is amazing.
At the heart of this failure is an obsession with the “war on terrorism” that ignores larger forces shaping the world: the emergence of China, India, Russia and Europe; the spread of lethal weapons and dangerous diseases; uncertain supplies of energy, food and water; the persistence of poverty; ethnic animosities and state failures; a rapidly warming planet; the challenge to nation states from above and below.
Instead, Mr. Bush has turned a small number of radical groups that hate America into a 10-foot tall existential monster that dictates every move we make.
Um...but look, Iraq had elections…
Last week, John McCain was very clear. He ruled out talking to Iran. He said that Barack Obama was “naïve and inexperienced” for advocating engagement; “What is it he wants to talk about?” he asked.
Well, for a start, Iran’s nuclear program, its support for Shiite militias in Iraq, and its patronage of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
Beyond bluster, how would Mr. McCain actually deal with these dangers? You either talk, you maintain the status quo, or you go to war. If Mr. McCain has ruled out talking, we’re stuck with an ineffectual policy or military strikes that could quickly spiral out of control.
Sen. Obama is right that the U.S. should be willing to engage Iran on its nuclear program without “preconditions” – i.e. without insisting that Iran first freeze the program, which is the very subject of any negotiations. He has been clear that he would not become personally involved until the necessary preparations had been made and unless he was convinced his engagement would advance our interests.
President Nixon didn’t demand that China end military support to the Vietnamese killing Americans before meeting with Mao. President Reagan didn’t insist that the Soviets freeze their nuclear arsenal before sitting down with Mikhail Gorbachev. Even George W. Bush – whose initial disengagement allowed dangers to proliferate – didn’t demand that Libya relinquish its nuclear program, that North Korea give up its plutonium, or even that Iran stop aiding those attacking our soldiers in Iraq before authorizing talks.
The net effect of demanding preconditions that Iran rejects is this: We get no results and Iran gets closer to the bomb.
Equally unwise is the Bush-McCain