Say Anything Blog

It’s only appeasement if you’re a democrat, I get it now! I run Baker’s statement as an Obama ad.

Wrong.  It’s appeasement if you offer a murdering dictator something in exchange for his worthless promise to stop being a murdering dictator, or even to dial it back a little.  When Reagan walked out on the Soviets, it was the opposite of appeasement, and the Soviets caved.  Obama should learn from that, but he won’t.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Thanks to the efforts of Mr. Baker, Israel is no longer threatened by Syria, right?  Syria is committed to Israel’s peaceful existence, right? 

No? Then what exactly was accomplished by talking with Syria, and what advantages has Syria gained in the meantime?

Syria remains Israel’s principal immediate military threat.

Since Baker’s “diplomacy”, Syria has continued to sponsor terrorism and has gained an ally in Iran and its state sponsored terrorist organization creating the Syria-Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas nexus.  So, 17 years later and after countless terrorist attacks and skirmishes (ie, no peace) Syria is stronger and better positioned as a threat to Israel.  Thanks in part to our successful diplomacy with our enemies.

Bush is sending 500,000 tons of food to North Korea, Axis of Evil, nuclear player.
Diplomacy or

It’s appeasement if you offer a murdering dictator something in exchange for his worthless promise to stop being a murdering dictator, or even to dial it back a little.

WOOF, humanitarian aid is not appeasement. Otherwise, we’re appeasing Burma by trying to help the poor people there.

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

Watching liberals run around and post about paying for tax cuts, nationalized healthcare, limiting spending increases as cuts, tough diplomacy, etc, etc, would be kinda cute if they weren’t adults (physically speaking of course).

Woof: Despite your partisan ignorance, we are feeding the starving victims of Marxism, not giving any concessions to a murdering dictator.  Handing him S. Korea in exchange for him being nice would be appeasement.  We’re not asking for anything in return, which makes it charity.  I’ll make it real simple for you: Obama is an appeaser, Bush is not.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

We’re not asking for anything in return, which makes it charity.

How do you know...were you there?

Excuse me, you were saying?

First victory, then diplomacy.

rbb: your “talent” for making false equivalences is undimmed, I see.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

108, that has been your argument many times before.

Were you there?

Excuse me, you were saying?

Bush refused to talk to the North Koreans for six years and cut off oil aid to them.

They ripped the seals off their closed reactor shot a few missiles off and conducted a nuclear test.

The food is part of a deal to get back to where we once belonged.

Where are our mangoes?

Excuse me, you were saying?

The food is part of a deal to get back to where we once belonged.

Even if that were true, it simply illustrates the futility of “diplomacy” without military victory.

rbb: Were you?  You don’t have to have been there to know the disastrous consequences of both Baker’s and Chamberlain’s appeasment.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

They ripped the seals off their closed reactor shot a few missiles off and conducted a nuclear test.

The reality is NK lied to the Clinton administration and there never was a “deal” struck by our efforts at diplomacy, save in word only.

The food is part of a deal to get back to where we once belonged.

Yeah, where we are lulled into the false hope of a diplomatic solution while our enemy proceeds with their evil intentions.

The Swamp Foxes of the 169FW have a saying on their mascot something to the effect of:  We will negotiate with the enemy with our dagger to his throat.

Communism is evil

Excuse me, you were saying?

“These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” — Ronald Regan while introducing the Mujahideen leaders to media on the White house lawns (1985).

Excuse me, you were saying?

RBB, please point out teh “appeasement” part of Reagan’s talks? Was it when he told Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall? Was it when he refused to disarm? Was it when he refused to scrap Star Wars?

Even Republicans at the time were furious with Reagan for refusing to make even the littlest concession to Russia.

From all accounts, the Russians were trying to negotiate and Reagan was, in essence, deamnding surrender. We are stronger for Reagan.

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

You mean when Raygun signed the INF Treaty

or when he signed the START I Treaty?

Excuse me, you were saying?

rbb: I know you’re not sharp enough to catch it, but your dated reference points out the exact reason not to negotiate with those who are now known to be so deceitful.  Twenty-three years and many terrorist attacks later, Obama should know better.  Of course, the real lie you are trying to sell here is revealed in that they were our allies against the Soviets then.  You know, that “Cold War” thing?  You forgetful lefties always seem to miss that one.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

You mean when Raygun signed the INF Treaty

or when he signed the START I Treaty?

Excuse me, you were saying?

Thank you for confirming that Raygun armed and funded the Mujahideen /Taliban/bin Laden brigade.

Excuse me, you were saying?

Thank you for confirming that Raygun armed and funded the Mujahideen /Taliban/bin Laden brigade.

When Reagan decided to assist the Taliban / Mujahideen , they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.  Reagan was determined to roll back the Soviet advances made since the end of the Nixon administration and turbo-charged under the criminal stupidity of the Carter administration. 

Although warned about the possible diversion of some of the Stinger, shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles to other uses, the introduction of Stinger missiles into that theater of operations broke the superiority of the Mi-24 Hind armored attack chopper and in large part, turned the tide of that war against the Soviets.  That battlefield loss was one of the reasons of the political collapse of the USSR, along with Chernobyl and some other factors.

Not exactly clean, but it was fighting a war—and a very successful one—against Americas’ most formidable enemies.  Reason enough for the US-based Left to despise Reagan and curse his name.

Fast forward a little bit later in time.  Clinton’s support for Islamic fundamentalist terrorists into Europe proper.  Aided by the Left-wing MSM spin machine, using vastly overinflated and completely lop-sided accusations of ‘ethnic cleansing’ Clinton threw his support decisively onto the side of Muslim terrorists, thugs, rapists and murderers (KLA/UCK) and started a completely wrong-headed foreign policy which continues to this day.

Clinton was paid $250,000 for his participation in the unveiling of the monument by Mr Izetbegovic’s SDA party, and that Mr Clinton visited Mr Izetbegovic in hospital in Sarajevo.

All of this despite mounting evidence that Mr Izetbegovic and his SDA colleagues have actively supported terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, and that there are profound links between terrorists related to the September 11, 2001 , attacks on the US and Mr Izetbegovic.

and

Perhaps most threatening to the SFOR mission - and more importantly, to the safety of the American personnel serving in Bosnia - is the unwillingness of the Clinton Administration to come clean with the Congress and with the American people about its complicity in the delivery of weapons from Iran to the Muslim government in Sarajevo. That policy, personally approved by Bill Clinton in April 1994 at the urging of CIA Director-designate (and then-NSC chief) Anthony Lake and the U.S. ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith, has, according to the Los Angeles Times (citing classified intelligence community sources), “played a central role in the dramatic increase in Iranian influence in Bosnia.

and

Evan F. Kohlmann, author of Al-Qaeda’s Jihad in Europe: The Afghan-Bosnian Network, argues that the “key to understanding Al Qaida’s European cells lies in the Bosnian war of the 1990s. Using the Bosnian war as their cover, Afghan-trained Islamic militants loyal to Osama bin Laden convened in the Balkans in 1992 to establish a European domestic terrorist infrastructure in order to plot their violent strikes against the United States. As the West and the United Nations looked on with disapproval, the fanatic foreign ‘mujahideen’, or holy warriors, wreaked havoc across southern Europe, taking particular aim at UN peacekeepers and even openly fighting with Bosnian Muslims at times. Middle Eastern religious and charitable organizations, largely based in and funded from the Arabian Gulf, were responsible for bankrolling this effort, and providing travel documentation for would-be mujahideen recruits.” Kohlmann adds that “many of the cell members – responsible for some of the most notorious terrorist attacks of the past decade – spent their formative years waging jihad in the unlikely Muslim land of Bosnia.”

Unlike Reagan, who could at least be credited in taking the risk in arming the Mujahideen with Stingers to fight a real American enemy, Clinton has no such cover.  Indeed, he came down squarely on the side of a terrorist organization that later went on to attack the USA itself, with no countervailing positive excuse.

Some writers have surmised that Clinton’s motives were money and the drug connection.

The Times’ comparison of treatment of the KLA with that of the African National Congress (ANC)—a group with its own history of terror attacks on political opponents, including members of the ethnic group it claims to represent—is a telling one. In fact, it points to the seemingly consistent Clinton policy of cultivating relationships with groups known for terrorist violence—not only the ANC, but the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Irish Republican Army (IRA)—in what may be a strategy of attempting to wean away a group from its penchant for violence by adopting its cause as an element of U.S. policy.

By the time the NATO airstrikes began, the Clinton Administration’s partnership with the KLA was unambiguous:

”With ethnic Albanian Kosovars poised to sign a peace accord later Thursday, the United States is moving quickly to help transform the Kosovo Liberation Army from a rag-tag band of guerrilla fighters into a political force. . . . Washington clearly sees it as a main hope for the troubled province’s future. ‘We want to develop a good relationship with them as they transform themselves into a politically-oriented organization,’ deputy State Department spokesman James Foley said. ‘We want to develop closer and better ties with this organization.’

“A strong signal of this is the deference with which U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright treats the Kosovar Albanians’ chief negotiator Hashim Thaci, a 30-year-old KLA commander. Albright dispatched her top aide and spokesman James Rubin to Paris earlier this week to meet with Thaci and personally deliver to him an invitation for members of his delegation to visit the United States. Rubin, who will attend the ceremony at which the Kosovar Albanians will sign the accord, is expected to then return to Washington with five members of the delegation, including Thaci. Thaci and Rubin have developed a ‘good rapport’ during the Kosovo crisis, according to U.S. officials who note that Thaci was the main delegate they convinced to sign the agreement even though the Serbs have refused to do so. [ . . . ]

“ ‘[W]e believe that we have a lot of advice and a lot of help that we can provide to them if they become precisely the kind of political actor we would like to see them become.’ Foley stressed that the KLA would not be allowed to continue as a military force but would have the chance to move forward in their quest for self government under a ‘different context.’ ‘If we can help them and they want us to help them in that effort of transformation, I think it’s nothing that anybody can argue with.’ “

Such an effusive embrace by top Clinton Administration officials of an organization that only a year ago one of its own top officials labeled as “terrorist” is, to say the least, a startling development.

Even more importantly, the new Clinton/KLA partnership may obscure troubling allegations about the KLA that the Clinton Administration has thus far neglected to address. (Drugs… continue… )

...for great justice

You mean when Raygun signed the INF Treaty

From the favorite source of every liberal here, wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty

The treaty eliminated nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with intermediate ranges, defined as between 500-5,500 km (300-3,400 miles). By the treaty’s deadline of June 1, 1991, a total of 2,692 of such weapons had been destroyed, 846 by the U.S. and 1,846 by the Soviet Union, which was much more unequal in number of INF warheads destroyed. Under the treaty both nations were allowed to inspect each other’s military installations.

More than double the US missles destroyed were taken out in USSR. And it came with inspection rights.

This treaty strongly favored the U.S.[citation needed] Many treaty provisions, such as counting Soviet RSD-10 Pioneer (SS-20) multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) missiles as equivalent to single-warhead Pershing II systems, including TR-1 Temp (SS-12) and R-400 Oka (SS-23) short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) into INF the treaty—while excluding all U.S. nuclear naval cruise missiles[citation needed] (in which U.S. had a huge advantage over Soviet Union[citation needed]), and not taking into account expanded British and French nuclear arsenals—were clearly provisions unfavorable for the USSR. In sum, after the treaty’s implementation the NATO again regained strategic nuclear superiority[citation needed] over USSR in Europe which existed before SS-20 deployment.

That damned Reagan! Signing a treaty which was advantageous to the US.

or when he signed the START I Treaty?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I

By limiting the phase-in as it was proposed, the US would be left with a strategic advantage, for a time.

As Time Magazine put it at the time, “Under Reagan’s ceilings, the U.S. would have to make considerably less of an adjustment in its strategic forces than would the Soviet Union. That feature of the proposal will almost certainly prompt the Soviets to charge that it is unfair and one-sided. No doubt some American arms-control advocates will agree, accusing the Administration of making the Kremlin an offer it cannot possibly accept—a deceptively equal-looking, deliberately nonnegotiable proposal that is part of what some suspect is the hardliners’ secret agenda of sabotaging disarmament so that the U.S. can get on with the business of rearmament.

The treaty was considered unfair to the USSR by even OUR SIDE. Indeed:

Continued negotiation of the START process was delayed several times because US agreement terms were considered non-negotiable by pre-Gorbachev Soviet rulers. President Reagan’s introduction of the Strategic Defense Initiative program in 1983, regardless of its possible disinformation and propaganda goals, was viewed as a threat by the Soviet Union, and the Soviets withdrew from setting a timetable for further negotiations. Due to these facts, a dramatic nuclear arms race proceeded during the 1980s, and essentially ended in 1991 by nuclear parity preservation at a level of more than ten thousand strategic warheads on both sides.

Reagan went after something that was disadvantageous to the Soviets. And it was signed years after he left office.

What is your beef again?

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.