Beneath the dignity of the Office of the President

[chemisttree]

That was a remark by Nancy Pelosi regarding President Bush's statement (below):

"The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.

This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.

And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you. (Applause.)

America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. (Applause.)

Ultimately, to prevail in this struggle, we must offer an alternative to the ideology of the extremists by extending our vision of justice and tolerance and freedom and hope. These values are the self-evident right of all people, of all religions, in all the world because they are a gift from the Almighty God. Securing these rights is also the surest way to secure peace. Leaders who are accountable to their people will not pursue endless confrontation and bloodshed. Young people with a place in their society and a voice in their future are less likely to search for meaning in radicalism. Societies where citizens can express their conscience and worship their God will not export violence, they will be partners in peace.

The fundamental insight, that freedom yields peace, is the great lesson of the 20th century. Now our task is to apply it to the 21st. Nowhere is this work more urgent than here in the Middle East. We must stand with the reformers working to break the old patterns of tyranny and despair. We must give voice to millions of ordinary people who dream of a better life in a free society. We must confront the moral relativism that views all forms of government as equally acceptable and thereby consigns whole societies to slavery. Above all, we must have faith in our values and ourselves and confidently pursue the expansion of liberty as the path to a peaceful future.

That doesn't sound beneath the dignity of the Office of the President to me.

[mgb_phys]

No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest .... or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers.
But they could design H bombs and fly them to the borders of the USSR on a daily basis, or call on G*D to bless this nuclear submarine and all who sail in her.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, We do when they look like they are going to win, remember the US and Isreali settlers were terrorists to us at the time. And it's a good job the IRA turned out to be a peaceful cultural organisation all along.

Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror I would like to see the accounts - a lot of 'terrorists' have got paid in dollars over the years.

we must offer an alternative to the ideology of the extremists
..they are a gift from the Almighty God
Their extremist ideology and our faith in Almighty God - is it still the same God ? I lose track sometimes.

[chemisttree]

But they could design H bombs and fly them to the borders of the USSR on a daily basis, or call on G*D to bless this nuclear submarine and all who sail in her.

We do when they look like they are going to win, remember the US and Isreali settlers were terrorists to us at the time. And it's a good job the IRA turned out to be a peaceful cultural organisation all along.

I would like to see the accounts - a lot of 'terrorists' have got paid in dollars over the years.



Their extremist ideology and our faith in Almighty God - is it still the same God ? I lose track sometimes.


Is that you, Nancy?

[drankin]

I guess if the speech is good and you don't like the president then it's bad despite how good it is.

[Art]

I think it just shows after his two terms in office he has learned absolutely nothing about foreign affairs in general and the ME in particular.

Maybe it's because he is simple and so can only understand very simple concepts like 'me good, you bad' assuming he even understands at that level or perhaps his mental capabilities are such that even these most basic constructs are beyond him and so he just recites lines parrot fashion without any real clue as to what he is talking about.

Personally I suspect the latter.

[drankin]

I think it just shows after his two terms in office he has learned absolutely nothing about foreign affairs in general and the ME in particular.

Maybe it's because he is simple and so can only understand very simple concepts like 'me good, you bad' assuming he even understands at that level or perhaps his mental capabilities are such that even these most basic constructs are beyond him and so he just recites lines parrot fashion without any real clue as to what he is talking about.

Personally I suspect the latter.

It sounds like you might disagree with the speech but you haven't actually said what you disagree with.

??

[mgb_phys]

It isn't a speech it's a collection of sound bytes.
I assume there is a piece of sotware that writes these things.
You select from a set of sliders, Israel=+9, Iran=-8, Terrorist=-9, God=+10 and it generates the text by simply sticking together previous phrases.

Actually I think I will make a web site that does that !

[russ_watters]

I think it just shows after his two terms in office he has learned absolutely nothing about foreign affairs in general and the ME in particular.

Maybe it's because he is simple and so can only understand very simple concepts like 'me good, you bad' assuming he even understands at that level or perhaps his mental capabilities are such that even these most basic constructs are beyond him and so he just recites lines parrot fashion without any real clue as to what he is talking about.

Personally I suspect the latter. No, Carter was only President for 1 term.

[russ_watters]

It isn't a speech it's a collection of sound bytes. Regardless, the point of the thread is that Pelosi (and Obama, btw), thought the speech was some sort of travesty. You haven't said if you agree or disagree with them.

I disagree with them. Further, I think Obama is only highlighting his hypocrisy with his objection to the speech. Barack Obama's presidential campaign Thursday accused President Bush of using a speech in Israel to launch a "false political attack" involving the appeasement of terror threats — a claim the White House said was not true.
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said in a speech to Israel's parliament. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-15-obama-bush_N.htm

So is Bush wrong about Obama's position (btw, he didn't actually mention Obama, but I'll go with the assumption that he was, at least, one of the targets)? And what we should be doing is reaching out aggressively to our allies, but also talking to our enemies and focusing on those areas where we do not accept their actions, whether it be terrorism or developing nuclear weapons, but also talking to Iran directly about the potential carrots that we can provide in terms of them being involved in the World Trade Organization, or beginning to look at the possibilities of diplomatic relations being normalized.

Now, there may come a point where those measures have been exhausted and Iran is on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon, where we have to consider other options. But we shouldn’t talk about those options now, when we haven’t even tried what would be a much more effective approach. http://politivity.com/barack-obama-wants-to-negotiate-with-terrorists-and-stand-up-to-law-abiding-americans

Obama is clearly saying we should be negotiating with terrorists on even ground (as opposed to the current policy that says we don't talk to them until they drop their requirement that we die).

[Art]

No, Carter was only President for 1 term.Would that be the same Carter who presided over the 1979 Egypt - Israel peace deal??

Who exactly has Iran terrorised???

[Ivan Seeking]

If Obama wasn't in agreement with Colin Powell, Robert Gates and the Pentagon, the 911 report, and Ronald Reagan, when he argues that we have to talk with our enemies, Bush might have a point, but as usual, he doesn't.

This was nothing more than fear mongering directed towards Jewish Democrats.

As for being beneath the dignity of the office, the notion that this even compares to his abuses of power is laughable. Bush is beneath the dignity of the office. He is a man without honor.

[rootX]

That speech looks so biased =P
"good and evil"
I wonder how British looked at people who were fighting for independence ...: terrorists or freedom fighters?

[mgb_phys]

I wonder how British looked at people who were fighting for independence ...: terrorists or freedom fighters?
Americans, Israeli's, Irish = freedom fighters although they looked like terrorists at the time.
Jordanians, Iranians = terrorists although they looked like freedom fighters at the time.

[Gokul43201]

Typical religious blather and pandering!
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before.Guess Bush is referring to himself and Kim Jong Il? Or was he calling his Sec State and Sec Def fools? Gates, just yesterday, said about Iran:"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them." Is Bush about to fire Gates and Rice?

PS: Talking tough about Iran in front of the Knesset. The irony behind the use of the word "appeasement" is just too hard to ignore.

[drankin]

Typical religious blather and pandering!
Guess Bush is referring to himself and Kim Jong Il? Or was he calling his Sec State and Sec Def fools? Gates, just yesterday, said about Iran:"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them." Is Bush about to fire Gates and Rice?

PS: Talking tough about Iran in front of the Knesset. The irony behind the use of the word "appeasement" is just too hard to ignore.

Are you suggesting that he was "appeasing" to Knesset? Knesset isn't an enemy, or a terrorist of any kind. That's the difference.

I think this is the best speech Bush has ever... uh, read. Kudos to his speech writers.

[TheStatutoryApe]

Beneath the Office? I thought that was the main requirement for the job these days... blather a bunch of patriotic platitudes and ignore any discrepencies in truth or logic.

[Gokul43201]

Are you suggesting that he was "appeasing" to Knesset? Knesset isn't an enemy, or a terrorist of any kind. That's the difference.Not officially an enemy, but Likud party members are undoubtedly extremists, and it is arguable that they have been responsible for more bloodshed than Hamas.

I think this is the best speech Bush has ever... uh, read. Kudos to his speech writers.I thought I'd never read anything more disgusting than that speech for a while. You just proved me wrong.

[Art]

I wonder what hope the Palestinians have for a just and fair peace given Bush's completely one sided view :rolleyes:

Apparently Bush welled up with emotion from the reception he received. Seems he's finally found people who appreciate his gun boat diplomacy. What a pathetic fool he is!

Correspondents describe President Bush's eyes welling with emotion as he received a standing ovation and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called him as a "great leader, a great friend". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7399722.stm

If he is so concerned with the unconventional weaponry the Palestinians are using in their struggle to regain their land and homes and to defend themselves from Israeli aggression why doesn't he ship them some assault rifles, missiles and attack aircraft. I'm sure the Palestinians would love to meet Israel on an equal military footing and would happily trade in their stones and suicide vests.

[Gokul43201]

So is Bush wrong about Obama's position (btw, he didn't actually mention Obama, but I'll go with the assumption that he was, at least, one of the targets)? Side note: Other targets (people that have proposed negotiating with Hamas and/or Iran) include Rice, Gates, Powell and McCain.

PS: When you throw in Kim Jong, that list of targets extends to Bush himself.

[chemisttree]

Not officially an enemy, but Likud party members are undoubtedly extremists, and it is arguable that they have been responsible for more bloodshed than Hamas.
Can you measure the blood and determine the side of evil or good? Did the Allies shed more blood than the Axis in WWII? The winners usually win by visiting more pain, death, destruction, devastation, famine, economic chaos, etc...

You propose that terrorism is defined by one's ability to defend oneself. That's kind of 'out there' IMO.

[Gokul43201]

You propose that terrorism is defined by one's ability to defend oneself. I made no such proposal.

AND \neq BECAUSE

[BobG]

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
Talking to Hitler wasn't the mistake, anymore than talking to the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile crisis was.

The mistake was in how the negotiations turned out. In other words, Chamberlain was weak in his negotiations. And, in Hitler's case, there was a good possibility that the negotiations would resolve nothing - and not being willing to accept that negotiations would fail certainly puts a person at a disadvantage. They're more likely to accept a bad deal as the best they can get. It's not that different than buying a car. If you can't say no and walk away, then you're going to have a hard time getting a good deal.

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. " isn't an outrageous statement. It's a statement that Bush believes any negotiations will be unsuccessful. That's a very realistic possibility, even if not a certainty.

"We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." is an outrageous statement if it's taken out of context. It suggests that any negotiation at all is the equivalent of appeasement.

Taken after the first, the statement is still pretty outrageous. He's basically saying "Since we're right about how negotiations will turn out, the only possible motivation you could have for trying again is to give up whatever it takes to get an agreement." Disagreeing with the first half of the statement doesn't necessarily lead to the second half of the statement.

[wildman]

No, Carter was only President for 1 term.

Actually Carter did quite well as President. Lets see:

1) The only lasting peace agreement between Israel and an Arab Nation (Egypt). That would be the Camp David Accords.

2) Helped bring democracy to Chile. (I have a friend from Chile that said he is very thankful for Carter).

3) Negotiated the return of the Iranian Hostages.

4) Cut the size of the government (amazing feat considering he had a Democratically controlled Congress)

5) Cut spending and decreased the federal deficit. (also amazing)

6) Had the political guts to allow the Fed to raise interest rates to fight inflation which finally paid off under Reagan (keep in mind that the inflation rate under Ford -- one year before Carter was in office -- was 12% which was higher than it ever was under Carter.)

I'd say he was a darn good President. Not popular, but solid.

[Gokul43201]

In order to defend this nonsensical line of "argument", this is what they have to resort to:
"It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies. But that's not the world we live in. And until Senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe," McCain said in a speech to the National Rifle Association in Louisville, Ky.http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_MCCAIN?SITE=CASDT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-05-16-17-03-08

So which is it? Does Obama believe we have no enemies, or does he propose that we talk to them?

Incidentally, an alien observer watching the exploits of this country in the Middle East over the last 8 years might easily mistake Bush for an Ahmedinejad appeaser. After all, he has hugely changed the power structure in the Middle East from Sunni domination to Shia domination, and handed Ahmedinejad more than he could have ever hoped for. First, he transfered power in Afghanistan (Iran's eastern neighbor) from the Sunni Taliban to Shia dominated, Iranian supported groups that made up what was then called the Northern Alliance (also called the United Islamic Front). Then he transfered power in Iraq (Iran's western neighbor) from Sunni-Baathist control to Shia rule. Quite arguably, the person that has most helped Ahmedinajad become what he is, is Bush.

[mheslep]

Incidentally, an alien observer watching the exploits of this country in the Middle East over the last 8 years might easily mistake Bush for an Ahmedinejad appeaser. After all, he has hugely changed the power structure in the Middle East from Sunni domination to Shia domination, and handed Ahmedinejad more than he could have ever hoped for. First, he transfered power in Afghanistan (Iran's eastern neighbor) from the Sunni Taliban to Shia dominated, Iranian supported groups that made up what was then called the Northern Alliance (also called the United Islamic Front). Then he transfered power in Iraq (Iran's western neighbor) from Sunni-Baathist control to Shia rule. Quite arguably, the person that has most helped Ahmedinajad become what he is, is Bush.That would be a quite simple, cherry picking alien observer then.

[Gokul43201]

That would be a quite simple, cherry picking alien observer then.Cerry picking? Can you name two cherries that are bigger than the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan? Let's forget the alien...it is my own personal opinion that Bush policies have aided Ahmedinejad more than any other influence I can think of among recent times.

But since we've now started drifting away from the nonsensical "arguments" being made by Bush and NeoMcCain (I still like to hold out some hope, that the erstwhile sensible, reasonable and moral McCain will make a comeback), let's get back to the issue at hand, which is getting harder and harder to defend by the day. And now we have virtually illiterate hacks coming up with idiocy like this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24672043#24672043

[Ivan Seeking]

And now we have virtually illiterate hacks coming up with idiocy like this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24672043#24672043

:rofl: That is a classic! Obama should use that as a commercial.

[wildman]

We should always talk first. If for no other reason than it is CHEAP. I know the neocons feel that we have infinite money and we should just shovel it out in large amounts when ever they feel like it, but I have news for them: we don't. Money is limited. We can't fight everyone for no other reason than we can't afford it. Talk should come first. If the Germans and French had talked at the beginning of World War I, then Hitler would never had come to power....

[wildman]

Cerry picking? Can you name two cherries that are bigger than the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan? Let's forget the alien...it is my own personal opinion that Bush policies have aided Ahmedinejad more than any other influence I can think of among recent times.

But since we've now started drifting away from the nonsensical "arguments" being made by Bush and NeoMcCain (I still like to hold out some hope, that the erstwhile sensible, reasonable and moral McCain will make a comeback), let's get back to the issue at hand, which is getting harder and harder to defend by the day. And now we have virtually illiterate hacks coming up with idiocy like this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24672043#24672043

Iran has won the war. No matter how it eventually turns out, they have won.

[russ_watters]

Taken after the first, the statement is still pretty outrageous. He's basically saying "Since we're right about how negotiations will turn out, the only possible motivation you could have for trying again is to give up whatever it takes to get an agreement." Disagreeing with the first half of the statement doesn't necessarily lead to the second half of the statement. I agree with your interpretation of what he is saying, but I don't see why it is outrageous. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. "

-Benjamin Franklin We've been negotiating with groups like Hamas on their terms for decades. Carter made an outright fool of himself by going to meet with them. They played him like a fiddle. It's easy to say agreeable things to a person who has no authority to be negotiating with them, and as soon as he left, they cut him off at the knees. The point is, the visit was beyond completely useless, it was counterproductive.

We must insist, as a condition of speaking with them, that groups like Hamas drop their requirement that Israel (or us, for that matter) be annihilated. There is nothing to be gained by negotiating with someone who'se only real goal is your death, a goal which is non-negotiable.

[russ_watters]

In order to defend this nonsensical line of "argument", this is what they have to resort to:
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_MCCAIN?SITE=CASDT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-05-16-17-03-08

So which is it? Does Obama believe we have no enemies, or does he propose that we talk to them? C'mon, Gokul, that's a really bad argument, and it is pretty obvious why: It is an easy word game to play where one person can use the word "enemy" (his definition for what he's describing) while saying the other person doesn't really recognize them as enemies. That's not a contradiction and it is not useful to try to pick apart the wording. Interpret! (like Bob did), what is actually meant by these statements.

So: more importantly than trying to pick apart the word games of politicians, is the simple logic that a person who would negotiate with an enemy must obvoiusly believe that it is possible that by the end of the negotiation they won't be enemies anymore.

[russ_watters]

We should always talk first. What does "first" mean in this context? How many times should we talk to someone before "first" is satisfied?

And "first" implies there is a "next". What comes next? Saying we shouldn't talk to a terrorist, doesn't automatically imply the alternative is invasion. Heck, these days, a single stealth fighter or Tomahawk cruise missile can fix a lot of problems. If for no other reason than it is CHEAP. Is it? How much money has the US spent trying to prevent Israel from being overrun these past 60 years? Talk should come first. If the Germans and French had talked at the beginning of World War I, then Hitler would never had come to power.... If only talk could actually solve everyting. Quite clearly, it can't.

[russ_watters]

There is something that has been missed here about the title/quote from Pelosi. The Democrats do need to be aggressive in the only type of war people have any confidence they can fight: the war of words. That's what motivated Peslosi's statement (and Obama's). It is a plain fact that the Democratic party has an image problem when it comes to dealing with foreign policy/security/terrorism, etc. So they have to attack these words as aggressively as they can and their supporters and media puppets have to try to convince people that they are tough enough. Trouble is, this is not an issue Democrats have won in decades, so they're in a catch-22: ignore the issue, and people will believe they are soft. Attack the issue, and it reminds people that people believe they are soft.

[mheslep]

Cerry picking? Can you name two cherries that are bigger than the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan? Let's forget the alien...it is my own personal opinion that Bush policies have aided Ahmedinejad more than any other influence I can think of among recent times.Yep, certainly there's a good argument that Iran has been helped by the removal of the Bathists and the Taliban, both long time hostiles to Iran, though its also possible that the Iranian mullahs might have more of a challenge to their long term power by way of a stable democratic state next door than a gun toting thug. We'll see. I don't take issue with that (here, at this time). Rather it is your original statement I challenge:
...easily mistake Bush for an Ahmedinejad appeaser
I think you'd have a hard time finding any war in any time that did not indirectly aid some third party, the third party often being antithetical to both the primary combatants. WWII had many such. Stalin was likely saved by the Allied invasion of Europe. Even though he was well into his own mass murders and terrors at the time, I don't think the invasion qualifies the Allies as appeasers. Then, even a casual look (by an alien or Gokul) at Bush Iran policies would include :

o UN Security Council Resolution 1803 on Iran's Nuclear Program (http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/fs/102891.htm), the fifth resolution imposing sanctions on Iran in which the US was either a sponsor or a strong supporter.
o Designation of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard as terrorist organization. (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/oct/94193.htm)
o Non-stop US calls on Iran to respect the rights of its citizens and to stop the silencing, jailing, and torture du jour:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/71787.htm
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/jan/99632.htm
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/dec/98116.htm
....
Finally there was the 'Axis of Evil' State of the Union speech, specifically naming Iran as nuclear rogue, terrorist exporter, and oppressor of its own people.

[wildman]

Russ,

Talk can't solve everything. Obviously. However, as I said before, IT IS CHEAP. You don't lose anything by trying it. Some people won't listen or want war . That is the case in Hamas. Hamas wants the destruction of Israel and they will not listen. However, that doesn't mean that Israel doesn't gain by trying to work with the Palestinians in general. And how do you know that the Germans and the French couldn't have solved their problems by talking? YOU DON'T KNOW and to imply that you do is silly.

It is amazing to me how the neocons think that going straight to the most expensive solution (war) is somehow smart. You all think that we should just have big money burning exercises. I mean it is great for the execs in the company I work for. They have been burning money like crazy. But it is crazy.

Russ, I am also a bit confused about the Israel example. How is that an example of how talk doesn't work? That is more an example of how war is very expensive, because there has been one war after another there instead of talk. No one there is serious about talk. It is all a front. We aren't either.

Finally, I state again. Talking doesn't always work. But at least it is cheap.

Russ answer this: Lets say you have very limited money (which believe it or not, we do have limited money). You have a leaky pipe. You can fix it yourself (risky but cheap) or you can immediately call the plumber (expensive but sure). Doesn't it make sense to try it yourself first (talk) instead of always calling the plumber (war)?

[mheslep]

...Finally, I state again. Talking doesn't always work. But at least it is cheap.
Wildman: In furtherance of routine talks, would you have the US reestablish an embassy in Iran?

[wildman]

I think that some kind of diplomatic presence would be appropriate. What level would be best? I am not qualified to answer that question.

[seycyrus]

Russ,
Talk can't solve everything. Obviously. However, as I said before, IT IS CHEAP. You don't lose anything by trying it.

I am obviously not Russ. But as he has pointed out, how much talk is enough? You can always say we didn't talk *enough*.

doesn't gain by trying to work with the Palestinians in general. And how do you know that the Germans and the French couldn't have solved their problems by talking? YOU DON'T KNOW and to imply that you do is silly.

Appeasement was tried with Hitler. It failed.

You are proposing that we didn't talk to Hitler enough? When do you think we should have stopped talking and actually done something?


Tt is amazing to me how the neocons think that going straight to the most expensive solution (war) is somehow smart. You all think that we should just have big money burning exercises. I mean it is great for the execs in the company I work for. They have been burning money like crazy. But it is crazy.

So full of logical fallacies, that I don't even know where to begin.

Russ answer this: Lets say you have very limited money (which believe it or not, we do have limited money). You have a leaky pipe. You can fix it yourself (risky but cheap) or you can immediately call the plumber (expensive but sure). Doesn't it make sense to try it yourself first (talk) instead of always calling the plumber (war)?

Yeah, you assign the choices in a certain light and then we are supposed to be surprised when the obvious choice is what you select? C'mon.

Here's a better example. Let's say you have a leaky pipe that is dripping water and destroying all your furniture. Isn't it better to to take some action (fix the pipe) then to talk to a plumber about it for years and years?.

[lisab]

Appeasement was tried with Hitler. It failed.

You are proposing that we didn't talk to Hitler enough? When do you think we should have stopped talking and actually done something?




You are confusing talk with appeasement...totally different things.

appeasement: to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles
diplomacy: skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility

The US is not going to agree to appease anybody by being diplomatic.

A good way to judge if we should change our tacts when dealing with people we don't agree with: Consider how we do it now. How's it working for us? Look at where we are now in the world, after eight years of conducting ourselves using the neo-con rules. Compare that to our position in the world in previous decades (under both Democrats and Republicans).

The neo-con way of dealing with the world just isn't working for us.

[Gokul43201]

C'mon, Gokul, that's a really bad argument, and it is pretty obvious why: It is an easy word game to play where one person can use the word "enemy" (his definition for what he's describing) while saying the other person doesn't really recognize them as enemies. That's not a contradiction and it is not useful to try to pick apart the wording. Interpret! (like Bob did), what is actually meant by these statements.Pick apart? Interpret? What thirteen ways are there to interpret and pick apart the statement that a triangle has four sides?


Let's look at the words again and see what possible interpretations there are, since I can't imagine what interpretation I should have applied:"It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies. But that's not the world we live in. And until Senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe," McCain said in a speech to the National Rifle Association in Louisville, Ky.
1. We do not live in a world where we have no enemies.
2. Obama does not yet understand this reality.

ERGO, Obama thinks we live in a world where we do have no enemies.

Are we agreed on what McCain is saying? Have I done any unfair picking apart, misinterpreting or bad arguing?

[seycyrus]

You are confusing talk with appeasement...totally different things.

Appeasement usually involves talk. The comment under discussion was Hitler and our "failure' to talk to him "enough". At what point do you think we should have stopped talking?

A good way to judge if we should change our tacts when dealing with people we don't agree with: Consider how we do it now. How's it working for us? Look at where we are now in the world, after eight years of conducting ourselves using the neo-con rules.

There was plenty of talking to Iraq. Regardless of the efforts by many to spin it otherwise, the US did NOT go to atack Iraq all of a sudden one morning.

The US also has had great fortune in negotiation with N. Korea over it's nuclear program in the last 8 years. Much greater than before, when they just lied to us and developed a reactor anyway. That *talk* failed.

It is a complicated issue. One that merits consideration above that of simple labeling.

[chemisttree]

And now we have virtually illiterate hacks coming up with idiocy like this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24672043#24672043

Wow! What an illeterate hack that Chris Matthews is! Did you see him asking the question and then SHOUTING DOWN his guest every time he tried to answer?

Great example!

Anyone who thinks that Chamberlain did nothing wrong (because talk is CHEAP) has an unfortunate history lesson in their future.

Lesson 1. Read and understand the following:

First of all I must say something to those who have written to my wife or myself in these last weeks to tell us of their gratitude for my efforts and to assure us of their prayers for my success. Most of these letters have come from women -- mothers or sisters of our own countrymen. But there are countless others besides -- from France, from Belgium, from Italy, even from Germany, and it has been heartbreaking to read of the growing anxiety they reveal and their intense relief when they thought, too soon, that the danger of war was past.

If I felt my responsibility heavy before, to read such letters has made it seem almost overwhelming. How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war.

I can well understand the reasons why the Czech Government have felt unable to accept the terms which have been put before them in the German memorandum. Yet I believe after my talks with Herr Hitler that, if only time were allowed, it ought to be possible for the arrangements for transferring the territory that the Czech Government has agreed to give to Germany to be settled by agreement under conditions which would assure fair treatment to the population concerned. . . .

However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account. If we have to fight it must be on larger issues than that. I am myself a man of peace to the depths of my soul. Armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me; but if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted. Under such a domination life for people who believe in liberty would not be worth living; but war is a fearful thing, and we must be very clear, before we embark upon it, that it is really the great issues that are at stake, and that the call to risk everything in their defense, when all the consequences are weighed, is irresistible.

For the present I ask you to await as calmly as you can the events of the next few days. As long as war has not begun, there is always hope that it may be prevented, and you know that I am going to work for peace to the last moment. Good night. . . .

excerpt of Chamberlain's address to the British people, September 27, 1938http://www.historyguide.org/europe/munich.html

Lesson 2. Learn what the phrase "Those that don't understand History are destined to repeat it," truly means.

Truly mind-boggling than anyone would find that Mathew's position on this is anything but disgusting!

[lisab]

Appeasement usually involves talk. The comment under discussion was Hitler and our "failure' to talk to him "enough". At what point do you think we should have stopped talking?




No, no, no - you're not getting what appeasement really is. Chamberlain appeased Hilter when gave him Sudetenland (a region of Czechoslovakia) in 1938.

Appeasement is not simply talking. To say we should not talk to people we don't agree with because "appeasement usually involves talk" is like saying that since choking to death usually involves eating, we should not eat. Ridiculous logic.

[jimmysnyder]

Wow! What an illeterate hack that Chris Matthews is! Did you see him asking the question and then SHOUTING DOWN his guest every time he tried to answer?

Great example!
Chris Matthews is illeterate? Kevin James never tried to answer the question until the end of the interview when he finally admitted that he didn't know the answer. Matthews did what it took to prevent James from evading the question.

[jimmysnyder]

When Bush spoke of appeasement, it was to an Israeli audience. They certainly don't want to be told that they must give Hamas something in order to achieve peace. Obviously, Bush was criticizing Carter's meeting with Hamas. However, the analogy is not apt. Carter did not offer Hamas anything, nor did he have anything to offer. He just wanted to talk.

[seycyrus]

No, no, no - you're not getting what appeasement really is. Chamberlain appeased Hilter when gave him Sudetenland (a region of Czechoslovakia) in 1938.

Yes, I do. You are the one who continue to avoid trhe fact that I was referring to the senator who supposedly thought that more *talk* with Hitler would have solved anything.

Appeasement is not simply talking. To say we should not talk to people we don't agree with because "appeasement usually involves talk" is like saying that since choking to death usually involves eating, we should not eat. Ridiculous logic.

Please show me where made that connection.

My point is that talk is not always beneficial. It depends on the intent and consequences of the talk.

[Art]

Wow! What an illeterate hack that Chris Matthews is! Did you see him asking the question and then SHOUTING DOWN his guest every time he tried to answer?

Great example!

Anyone who thinks that Chamberlain did nothing wrong (because talk is CHEAP) has an unfortunate history lesson in their future.

Lesson 1. Read and understand the following:

http://www.historyguide.org/europe/munich.html

Lesson 2. Learn what the phrase "Those that don't understand History are destined to repeat it," truly means.

Truly mind-boggling than anyone would find that Mathew's position on this is anything but disgusting!People have a very simplistic view of how WW2 began. It was a lot more complicated than nasty Hitler invaded poor little Poland.

Britain's so called 'appeasement' began in earnest in November 1937 when Lord Halifax, representing the British gov't who were quite sympathetic to Germany's desire to reclaim territory confiscated after WW1, positively encouraged Hitler to expand eastwards.

Sir Neville Henderson, Britain's ambassador to Berlin went so far as to request a confidential talk with Hitler where he said "Britain was much in sympathy with Hitler''s desire for 'change in Europe'"

Britain in September 1938 rejected a mutual defense pact offered by Russia to protect Czecho-Slovakia and when Germany invaded to regain the Sudetenland Poland helped itself to a slice of Czech territory too. Poland who at that time were defacto allies of Germany then overplayed it's hand by refusing to return the port of Danzig to Germany and by not allowing Germany free movement through the polish corridor to East Prussia.

Chamberlain then did a remarkable about face and threatened Germany with war if they invaded Poland. To this day nobody knows why such a drastic change in policy happened in such a short time but the effect was it emboldened Poland and made it even more determined not to return the territory it expropriated from Germany after WW1 and so made war inevitable.

It's hard to know what lessons there are to learn from this as Britain's initial motives are unclear but talking wasn't the problem per se, it was what was said during the talks with Hitler being given the 'wrong' message time after time.

A similar situation precipitated Iraq's invasion of Kuwait when Saddam thought he had been given the green light to invade Kuwait by the American ambassador April Glaspie when she said "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts" and that the U.S. did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq"

This too did not amount to appeasement but again is an example of Machiavellian politics with unclear motives.

One can understand why politicians like to reduce the causes of war to simple little slogans (good vs evil) (freedom vs slavery) (talk = appeasement) etc, but I'd have thought the people who post here would be more intelligent than the masses and so would dig a little deeper.

[chemisttree]

Chris Matthews is illeterate?
Oh, I thought we were calling people 'virtually illiterate' if we didn't like them. There is no evidence that James is 'virtually illiterate' in this clip.
James never tried to answer the question until the end of the interview when he finally admitted that he didn't know the answer. Matthews did what it took to prevent James from evading the question.

He actually answered it about half way through the 'interview'. James said that talking to Hitler enabled, energized and made it easier for Hitler to advance in the ways that he advanced. "It was appeasement", "He's talking about appeasement", "He was an appeaser, Chris," he said. All true. Matthews continued to harangue him "What did (Chamberlain) HE DO WRONG IN 1939? WHAT DID HE DO? WHAT DID HE DO IN 1939? Or 1938?"

When James finally uttered the words "I don't know..." Matthews immediately cut him off. He had his soundbite and nothing else mattered. What James went on to say just after that was, "I don't know what the President (Bush) was referring to when he talked about what was being said in 1939." (In 1939, Hitler took the rest of Czechoslovakia.) Did James know the history of the 1938 Munich agreement? Probably not. Did he know what was meant by 'appeasement'? Absolutely. Matthews then goes on to lecture James as to the definition of ''appeasement' and 'talking'. This is a useless distinction since 'talking' (diplomacy?) is only sucessful if it ends with an agreement. Those are the ends to the means. How useful is it to talk to an enemy who continues his transgression while fixing the other party into inaction?

I noticed that Matthews didn't ask the other guest (Mark Green, President of Air America Radio) any history questions. A great one would have been, "WHAT HAPPENED IN 1939 that Bush was refering to?" and then interrupt him a dozen times (Oops! that was 26 times by Matthew's own admission) as he tries to answer. What Matthews did eventually ask Green was, "Mark Green, help him out here with SOME history, this is pathetic... he doesn't even know what Chamberlain did in Munich!" Was that a question? Or an invitation to pile on? Green's diatribe mentions that Israel is currently in negotiations with Syria on the Golan. This isn't true but that wouldn't be a first for Mark Green!
Here is the unedited version. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0d8ENS__c

But James was right and Matthews was wrong in that England and France should never have allowed the situation to get as far as the Czech annexation in the first place. Germany was already in violation of two treaties (Versailles and St. Germain) and Chamberlain wanted to talk to them with the intent to negotiate another. No, talking with Germany led nowhere and there was plenty of history to prove that would continue to be the case. This is just what we have in the case of Iran, Hezbollah and ESPECIALLY Hamas. Hamas leader Khalid Meshaal has stated,

We say to the West that you have been beaten in Palestine and the defeat has already begun. Israel will be vanquished, and all those who have supported and continue to support it will also be vanquished. America will be defeated in Iraq. The nation of Muhammad will triumph in Palestine and Iraq and on all Arab and Muslim soil. Tomorrow, our nation will rule the world; this is a fact. Tomorrow, we will rule the world.

What is to be gained by talks with the likes of these? Remember, Bush's statement was specifically aimed at negotiations with terrorists and radicals. Iran, Hezbollah and Hammas are well-described by those terms.

[Art]

Green's diatribe mentions that Israel is currently in negotiations with Syria on the Golan. This isn't true but that wouldn't be a first for Mark Green!

Israel and Syria are in dialogue with each other re a peace agreement, with Egypt acting as mediators, according to Israel, Syria and Egypt :rolleyes:

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan paid a visit to Damascus late last month. He confirmed that Syria and Israel had asked Ankara for mediation, adding that such efforts would start at a low level before bringing the leaders together if successful. http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90854/6413332.html

The U.S. government has asked Turkey to increase efforts to advance negotiations between Israel and Syria, according to a report published by the London Arabic daily Al-Hayat on Saturday.

According to the report, the U.S. request comes in light of the recent political crisis in Lebanon, and U.S. assessments that peace between Israel and Syria will help distance the country from Hezbollah. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/984337.html

[chemisttree]

Israel and Syria are in dialogue with each other re a peace agreement, with Egypt acting as mediators, according to Israel, Syria and Egypt :rolleyes: You mean the unofficial 'talks' through a third party? I thought it was through Turkey (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79BAFC32-1E08-490B-B3E3-A846D8254413.htm) but maybe not. Either way, I don't think that counts as 'dialogue'. Telling a mediator to say, "Before we talk you have to do this and that," doesn't equate to 'talks' in my mind.

Do you have a reference for the Egytian mediation?:rolleyes:

[ThomasT]

That doesn't sound beneath the dignity of the Office of the President to me.
Bush himself is beneath what we would like the dignity of the Office of the President to be if it actually had any dignity, which after Reagan, Clinton, and Bush it doesn't any more.

A particularly ironic statement is:
" ... On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies."

Of course Bush is characterizing himself and his regime as "those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth."

But we all know that he and his group are actually "committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies."

The reason that Palestinians and Iraqis despise the United States and Israel is not at all complicated. The U.S. and Israel have stolen or destroyed their homes and their homelands and murdered their friends and relatives.

The fact that Bush hasn't been impeached is a testimonial to the complacency and hypocrisy of the American people.

[Art]

Some of Bush's mutterings would be funny if they weren't so tragic. Following on from his fawning diatribe to the Knesset he gave a speech in Egypt criticising his hosts Winding up a five-day trip to the region, Bush took a strikingly tougher tone with Arab nations than he did with Israel in a speech Thursday to the Knesset. Israel received effusive praise from the president while Arab nations heard a litany of U.S. criticisms mixed with some compliments.

"Too often in the Middle East, politics has consisted of one leader in power and the opposition in jail," Bush said in a speech to 1,500 global policymakers and business leaders at this Red Sea beach resort. That was a clear reference to host Egypt, where main secular opposition figure Ayman Nour has been jailed and President Hosni Mubarak has led an authoritarian government since 1981. The oppressed opposition being in the main the Muslim Brotherhood whose credo is Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Egypt had planned elections for 2005 but abandoned them because of the strong support for this group.
Hmmm just the sort of party the US would want in power in Egypt :rolleyes:

He then added "America is deeply concerned about the plight of political prisoners in this region, as well as democratic activists who are intimidated or repressed, newspapers and civil society organizations that are shut down and dissidents whose voices are stifled," Bush said. Hmm Guantanamo Bay ring a bell??

Then this Gem Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on Air Force One with Bush returning to Washington, said there were serious peace negotiations going on in private and that she expected them to intensify in the months ahead. She said Bush inserted the wording in the speech that "I believe" the Palestinians will build a democracy, as a sign of his confidence that will happen.Perhaps someone should tell Bush the Palestinians had free and democratic elections but the US didn't like the results.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hkf--m78S6F3LZAcz4sVHGGCQSTgD90OCSSO0

All in all Bush seems to have completely lost touch with reality (assuming he ever was in touch).

[chemisttree]

I guess I'm feeling pretty complacent...

[Art]

You mean the unofficial 'talks' through a third party? I thought it was through Turkey (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79BAFC32-1E08-490B-B3E3-A846D8254413.htm) but maybe not. Either way, I don't think that counts as 'dialogue'. Telling a mediator to say, "Before we talk you have to do this and that," doesn't equate to 'talks' in my mind.

Do you have a reference for the Egytian mediation?:rolleyes:My mistake, I meant the talks you now admit to but claimed were lies, were being mediated through Turkey as referenced in the links I provided. :rolleyes:.

[seycyrus]

Bush himself is beneath what we would like the dignity of the Office of the President to be if it actually had any dignity, which after Reagan, Clinton, and Bush it doesn't any more.

A bunch of opinionated claptrap.


A particularly ironic statement is:
" ... On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies."

So, you are saying that Al-Quaida is actually the purveyor of justice and dignity. that's a bunch of bs.


The reason that Palestinians and Iraqis despise the United States and Israel is not at all complicated. The U.S. and Israel have stolen or destroyed their homes and their homelands and murdered their friends and relatives.

Oh yeah, that's right. And to show us just how much they hate us, the go around and murder their friends and relatives.

Let's strike at the US!! Where's the nearest civilian supermarket?

Such obvious stupidity.

[chemisttree]

The oppressed opposition being in the main the Muslim Brotherhood whose credo is...

Egypt had planned elections for 2005 but abandoned them because of the strong support for this group.
Hmmm just the sort of party the US would want in power in Egypt :rolleyes:

Just a touch-up here, Art. Bush was referring to Ayman Nour, head of the secular liberal party, Al-Ghad. I believe that the Muslim Brotherhood is an illegal organization in Egypt.

[Art]

Just a touch-up here, Art. Bush was referring to Ayman Nour, head of the secular liberal party, Al-Ghad. I believe that the Muslim Brotherhood is an illegal organization in Egypt.They stood as independents in the cancelled 2005 elections and were by far the best supported opposition group.

In reference to Ayman Nour you're not suggesting it's okay if Egypt suppresses some opposition groups but not others are you?? Such a view would hardly represent freedom and democracy.

[Gokul43201]

Oh, I thought we were calling people 'virtually illiterate' if we didn't like them.That's a pretty bizarre definition!

There is no evidence that James is 'virtually illiterate' in this clip. Okay, what do you call it if a political commentator appearing on TV to talk about a speech involving the appeasement of Hitler shows not a shred of knowledge about the Munich Treaty, the Sudetenland problem, the prevailing opinion on Versailles or anything related to what actually was talked about in 1938, by the appeasers?

He actually answered it about half way through the 'interview'. James said that talking to Hitler enabled, energized and made it easier for Hitler to advance in the ways that he advanced. "It was appeasement", "He's talking about appeasement", "He was an appeaser, Chris," he said. All true.It may all be true, but absolutely none of it answered the question.

Chris: James, what is two times three?
James: Chris, he enabled and energized and enabled...and energized! That's what he did Chris. It's all about appeasement. He was an appeasing appeaser, Chris.
Chris: James, can you tell me what two times three is?
James: I won't let you box me in, Chris. I know what you're trying to do here. And he was an appeaser.

When James finally uttered the words "I don't know..." Matthews immediately cut him off. He had his soundbite and nothing else mattered. Yes, Matthews was being too kind to him. I think it would have been more accurate for it to have ended with James never acknowledging that he was ignorant about the subject he was appearing on TV to talk about (and that's what he went on to do with his follow up about what he didn't know.)

What is to be gained by talks with the likes of these? Remember, Bush's statement was specifically aimed at negotiations with terrorists and radicals. Iran, Hezbollah and Hammas are well-described by those terms.So were the jihadis of Afghanistan in the 80s, Ferdinand Marcos, Mao Zedong, "Dear Mr. Chairman" Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein (all of whom were "appeased" by Republican Administrations).

I'm so waiting for Bush to fire Bob Gates this week, for urging that we find ways to sit down and talk with Ahmedinejad. Can't have an appeaser for Sec Def, can we?

[drankin]

Should we talk to terrorists? Seems reasonable enough, but to what end? Convince them not to terrorize?

Should we negotiate with terrorists? It's been our long standing policy that we do not. Should that change? If so, why now?

And please, no nonsense about how WE are terrorists. The distinction is pretty clear and the argument naive.

[mheslep]

Winding up a five-day trip to the region, Bush took a strikingly tougher tone with Arab nations than he did with Israel in a speech Thursday to the Knesset. Israel received effusive praise from the president while Arab nations heard a litany of U.S. criticisms mixed with some compliments.

"Too often in the Middle East, politics has consisted of one leader in power and the opposition in jail," Bush said in a speech to 1,500 global policymakers and business leaders at this Red Sea beach resort. That was a clear reference to host Egypt, where main secular opposition figure Ayman Nour has been jailed and President Hosni Mubarak has led an authoritarian government since 1981.
Hmmm just the sort of party the US would want in power in Egypt :rolleyes:US State Dept. has been after Eygpt for this jailed parliamentarian; even the news link you post says Pres. Bush was specifically referring to a secular figure. You should retract that part.

Then this Gem Perhaps someone should tell Bush the Palestinians had free and democratic elections but the US didn't like the results.Nor did the EU, who also cut off funding to the Palestinian govt. given its continued clear statements that Israel can not be allowed to exist. Again you should retract.

[mheslep]

"America is deeply concerned about the plight of political prisoners in this region, as well as democratic activists who are intimidated or repressed, newspapers and civil society organizations that are shut down and dissidents whose voices are stifled," Bush said.
He then added Hmm Guantanamo Bay ring a bell??Yes, yes they're untold thousands of democratic activists, newspaper owners, and civil society members locked away in Guantanamo.

[chemisttree]

That's a pretty bizarre definition! So you really do think he is virtually illiterate? That's pretty bizarre!

Okay, what do you call it if a political commentator appearing on TV to talk about a speech involving the appeasement of Hitler... Do you need to know the history of the Munich Treaty of 1938 to know that the American Senator's statement regarding Hitler amounted to the false comfort of appeasement? This statement, made as Hitler had already gobbled up Czechoslovakia and was at that moment moving in Poland? Do you really need to know what Chamberlain did wrong in 1939? (it was 1938, BTW) That's just pathetic hit piece journalism.
...shows not a shred of knowledge about the Munich Treaty, the Sudetenland problem, the prevailing opinion on Versailles or anything related to what actually was talked about in 1938, by the appeasers? And you think this important, WHY? Perhaps James is not such a good political commentator. I certainly wouldn't refer to him regarding history but that is not 'illiterate'. So, why did you call him virtually illiterate again? Because he didn't know what Chamberlain did wrong in 1939? That was the question, you know. "What did Neville Chamberlain do wrong in 1939?" was the question. He wasn't asked, "What is meant by 'appeasement'?" Only later did Matthews correct himself and stammer, "...or 1938?" Why did Matthews ask a totally unimportant question regarding James' historical knowledge of the term 'appeasement' and how it referred to what Chamberlain did wrong in 1939 (errr... 1938)? Anyway, that's pretty far from what I would consider to be 'virtually illiterate' so naturally I assumed that it was meant to be a pejorative.

It may all be true, but absolutely none of it answered the question.
Oh, but it did. Just not to Matthews' (or your) satisfaction. Was it more important to know what Chamberlain did wrong in 1939 (errrr.... 1938) or that appeasement is giving something to your adversary to keep him satisfied?
Matthews could have asked, "What do you think Bush meant by 'the false comfort of appeasement' when he called the American Senator's statement, "If I had only talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided" the "false comfort of appeasement?" But that probably would have been a little too 'fair and balanced', eh?

Yes, I think it would have been more accurate for it to have ended with James never acknowledging that he was ignorant about the subject he was appearing on TV to talk about (and that's what he went to to do with his follow up about what he didn't know.)
He said that ""I don't know what the President (Bush) was referring to when he talked about what was being said in 1939." (errrr... 1938) You think that this meant that he didn't know why Chamberlain was an appeaser? Perhaps you believe that it is most important that the commentator not actually comment on Bush's statement but on the history of Chamberlain's utter failure as a leader and negotiator? Yeah, that's the part that's important... the history of the Sudetenland problem and the treaty that resulted in the labelling of Chamberlain as an "appeaser" and his self-described methods "appeasement". Quite histrionic, if you ask me...

[Art]

Yes, yes they're untold thousands of democratic activists, newspaper owners, and civil society members locked away in Guantanamo.You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what their politics are it is the principle of arbitrarily locking up people who disagree with your pov whatever that may be.

[chemisttree]

They stood as independents in the cancelled 2005 elections and were by far the best supported opposition group.

In reference to Ayman Nour you're not suggesting it's okay if Egypt suppresses some opposition groups but not others are you?? Such a view would hardly represent freedom and democracy.

Yeah, I know. But just a note.... the Muslim Brotherhood was outlawed for plotting an assination on then President Nasser, right? And they have been outlawed ever since? Things are a bit different over there than they are in the West. Imagine.... outlawing a group bent on the establishment of sharia law throughout all the muslim lands and the whole world. I could live with a little repression aimed at those guys...

[lisab]

Yes, yes they're untold thousands of democratic activists, newspaper owners, and civil society members locked away in Guantanamo.

So if we hate a person enough, it's OK to subvert our Constitution and lock them up -- with no due process?

[turbo-1]

Appeasement. Ah yes, talking with enemies - something that the Republicans excoriate the Democrats for suggesting. Anybody here old enough (or objective enough) to remember when Reagan et al stole advanced weaponry from the US arsenals to sell to Iran in return for the release of US hostages? George H W Bush knew nothing about the whole affair. (Right!) That went far beyond "talking to terrorists". Of course, W's grandfathers were financiers for the Nazis, but he probably "forgot" that too. Bush's politicization of his Israel visit is beneath the dignity of the presidency, but it certainly is not beneath him. Little is.

[Art]

US State Dept. has been after Eygpt for this jailed parliamentarian; even the news link you post says Pres. Bush was specifically referring to a secular figure. You should retract that part.Already answered. Read post #57

Nor did the EU, who also cut off funding to the Palestinian govt. given its continued clear statements that Israel can not be allowed to exist. Again you should retract. :confused: And this relates to my post how??? :confused: I'm not saying he or anyone else has to like the result I am merely pointing out the Palestinians already carry out democratic elections which based on his comments Bush apparently isn't aware of.

[mheslep]

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what their politics are it is the principle of arbitrarily locking up people who disagree with your pov whatever that may be.You're changing the point. You clearly implied Pres. Bush's clear )and commendable) statements about Egypt locking up one of its own Parliamentarians or other democratic activists was the same thing as what is going on Guantanamo, when it clearly is not. Combatants (at least suspected) have been locked up in Gmo, and not just arbitrarily and not just because they disagree w/ 'pov'. I'd personally like to see Gmo shut down since as a POW camp it is too ambiguous to define the end of a war w/ non-state actors. None the less your comparisons are distorted.

[Gokul43201]

So you really do think he is virtually illiterate? That's pretty bizarre! For a political commentator to not know some of the basic history of WWII is in itself pretty shocking, and disgraceful. But to appear on TV, knowing nothing about the subject involved and choosing not even to read up about it in order to not appear ignorant...that suggests that he either can not read, or chooses not to (maybe he is a masochist, or perhaps he thinks preparation is over-rated?).

Oh, but it did. Just not to Matthews' (or your) satisfaction. Was it more important to know what Chamberlain did wrong in 1939 (errrr.... 1938) or that appeasement is giving something to your adversary to keep him satisfied? I see it is more important to you that Chris made an error about the year of the Munich Accord than that the person talking about it didn't have a clue about what it was even about?

James' keyword salad was simply pathetic, in my opinion, and I guess we'll just have to disagree about that.

PS: I notice no one here is calling Robert Gates an appeaser...or Rumsfeld, or Nixon, or Reagan, or Bush!

[Art]

You're changing the point. You clearly implied Pres. Bush's clear )and commendable) statements about Egypt locking up one of its own Parliamentarians or other democratic activists was the same thing as what is going on Guantanamo, when it clearly is not. Combatants (at least suspected) have been locked up in Gmo, and not just arbitrarily and not just because they disagree w/ 'pov'. I'd personally like to see Gmo shut down since as a POW camp it is too ambiguous to define the end of a war w/ non-state actors. None the less your comparisons are distorted.Maybe you should read my post and the link I provided before responding and so save us both a lot of wasted time. Bush never mentioned Ayman Nour. He actually said "Too often in the Middle East, politics has consisted of one leader in power and the opposition in jail," and in Egypt the main opposition party is the Muslim Brotherhood.

I'm baffled why you think there is much of a difference between Egypt locking up people it thinks threaten it's way of life and the US doing it? If anything at least Egypt goes through the motions of putting these people on trial whereas the US hasn't. It's probably also worth noting these suspected 'combatants' held in Guantanamo were largely picked up in their native country fighting against an invading army on behalf of their legitimate (at that time) government. Is patriotism now a crime for non-US citizens??

[chemisttree]

Maybe you should read my post and the link I provided before responding and so save us both a lot of wasted time. Bush never mentioned Ayman Nour.

Art, we know what you posted. The story you posted clearly identifies Nour as the reference Bush intended. YOU are re-interpreting his meaning to mean the Muslim Brotherhood as the main opposition party in Bush's statement. This is factually incorrect since the MB cannot legitimately hold office in Egypt since it is an outlawed organization. It cannot be an opposition party by definition (in Egypt).

You are correct in saying that the MB 'secret' members might run as Independents but what is your source of information for that statement? Can such as statement be proven?

[mheslep]

So if we hate a person enough, it's OK to subvert our Constitution and lock them up -- with no due process?Strawman, and a silly one.

[lisab]

Strawman, and a silly one.

I wish. In fact, it's exactly what we've done.

[Art]

Art, we know what you posted. The story you posted clearly identifies Nour as the reference Bush intended. YOU are re-interpreting his meaning to mean the Muslim Brotherhood as the main opposition party in Bush's statement. This is factually incorrect since the MB cannot legitimately hold office in Egypt since it is an outlawed organization. It cannot be an opposition party by definition (in Egypt).

You are correct in saying that the MB 'secret' members might run as Independents but what is your source of information for that statement? Can such as statement be proven?The author covering the story interpreted it as a swipe at Egypt about Nour however as I pointed out Bush didn't specify what he was talking about (and probably didn't know himself as it seems unlikely his speech writers would bother trying to explain it to his limited intellect) but regardless the point remains you can't only support the non-oppression of opposition parties when they happen to agree with your world view. At least not if you want to be considered sane and reasonable. Democracy is about choice but democracy based on a choice of agree with me or else isn't exactly what it's supposed to be all about.

As for your contention the MB cannot hold seats in Egypt, well they actually do so you are factually wrong. They cannot run under the MB flag but they make no secret of their affiliation. You can even read about them on their English language website http://www.ikhwanweb.com/SectionsPage.asp?SectionID=67

[mheslep]

I wish. In fact, it's exactly what we've done.Regardless of what you think has been done, equivocating my statement w/ some distortion of it so that it appears false is still a strawman:

wiki

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y. Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Person B draws a conclusion that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

[mheslep]

...It's probably also worth noting these suspected 'combatants' held in Guantanamo were largely picked up in their native country fighting against an invading army on behalf of their legitimate (at that time) government. Art, simply, no they are largely not natives. Theywere the invaders. Of the ~500 detainees, they're largely Saudi, Yemeni, Pakistani, Morrocan, Algerian, Jordanian, etc, etc. There are also ~50 some Afghans, most of whom have now been released, but I don't hold that the Taliban was a legitimate anything.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/nationalsecurity/gitmoarchive.html

[turbo-1]

The Taliban were made up of groups that were actively recruited by the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to fight the Soviets in a proxy war. It wasn't until the Taliban began to persecute Afghanis (especially women) with a very restrictive form of sharia that the US broke with them. Short-term political convenience breeds some very nasty, messy, alliances.

Many of the people in Gitmo were turned in for bounties, and have been held for years with no charges and no access to legal defense. Many of those people may be Muslim fundamentalists and some of them may in fact be guilty of crimes, but the fact that the US government has not been able to make cogent legal cases against them argues against that.

[quadraphonics]

Many of those people may be Muslim fundamentalists and some of them may in fact be guilty of crimes, but the fact that the US government has not been able to make cogent legal cases against them argues against that.

Not that I have any urge to defend Guantanamo, but the difficulty in making cases has more to do with the inadmissability of the evidence against these guys than it does with their actual guilt. I can't see why the government would continue to hold people it didn't truly believe were guilty, considering that they've already released over half of all of the detainees that were ever sent there without any charges.

[lisab]

Regardless of what you think has been done, equivocating my statement w/ some distortion of it so that it appears false is still a strawman:

wiki

That line of reasoning doesn't work because your original comment (what I was refering to) was sarcasm:

Yes, yes they're untold thousands of democratic activists, newspaper owners, and civil society members locked away in Guantanamo.

[turbo-1]

Not that I have any urge to defend Guantanamo, but the difficulty in making cases has more to do with the inadmissability of the evidence against these guys than it does with their actual guilt. I can't see why the government would continue to hold people it didn't truly believe were guilty, considering that they've already released over half of all of the detainees that were ever sent there without any charges.Does the inadmissibility of evidence have anything to do with sleep-deprivation, prolonged restraint in stress-positions, water-boarding, exposure to extremes of heat and cold, etc? Gosh, we are the white knights of the world, aren't we?

[drankin]

Does the inadmissibility of evidence have anything to do with sleep-deprivation, prolonged restraint in stress-positions, water-boarding, exposure to extremes of heat and cold, etc? Gosh, we are the white knights of the world, aren't we?

Should we just let them all go then?

[turbo-1]

Should we just let them all go then?Do we keep them all in endless detention with no charges filed and no access to legal defense. The ball's in your court.

[drankin]

Do we keep them all in endless detention with no charges filed and no access to legal defense. The ball's in your court.

It's a tough situation. They have access to legal defense, but the question is on what foundation of law are they tried and defended? It can't be American law because they aren't in America and they aren't Americans. We can't try them as we are accustomed and we can't just let them all go lest they come back and try to kill us. If we did try them the way we are accustomed, it would be a farce, the legal foundations would be made up on both sides. Hopefully the next administration helps bring a rational approach and solution on how to deal with this in a way that doesn't let murders loose and doesn't keep innocents locked up.

Nowadays it's better than a typical American prison over there. But, it's still a prison.

[Art]

Art, simply, no they are largely not natives. Theywere the invaders. Of the ~500 detainees, they're largely Saudi, Yemeni, Pakistani, Morrocan, Algerian, Jordanian, etc, etc. There are also ~50 some Afghans, most of whom have now been released, but I don't hold that the Taliban was a legitimate anything.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/nationalsecurity/gitmoarchive.html
The foreign fighters were not invaders they were allies of the then official Afghan gov't forces. There are 50 Afghanis left in detention but hundreds were held there at the beginning tortured and then released.

For example dangerous Afghan terrorists such as these :rolleyes:

PESHAWAR, Pakistan - Badr Zaman Badr and his brother Abdurrahim Muslim Dost relish writing a good joke that jabs a corrupt politician or distills the sufferings of fellow Afghans. Badr admires the political satires in "The Canterbury Tales" and "Gulliver's Travels," and Dost wrote some wicked lampoons in the 1990s, accusing Afghan mullahs of growing rich while preaching and organizing jihad. So in 2002, when the U.S. military shackled the writers and flew them to Guantanamo among prisoners whom Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared "the worst of the worst" violent terrorists, the brothers found life imitating farce.

For months, grim interrogators grilled them over a satirical article Dost had written in 1998, when the Clinton administration offered a $5-million reward for Osama bin Laden. Dost responded that Afghans put up 5 million Afghanis -- equivalent to $113 -- for the arrest of President Bill Clinton.

"It was a lampoon ... of the poor Afghan economy" under the Taliban, Badr recalled. The article carefully instructed Afghans how to identify Clinton if they stumbled upon him. "It said he was clean-shaven, had light-colored eyes and he had been seen involved in a scandal with Monica Lewinsky," Badr said.

The interrogators, some flown down from Washington, didn't get the joke, he said. "Again and again, they were asking questions about this article. We had to explain that this was a satire." He paused. "It was really pathetic."

It took the brothers three years to convince the Americans that they posed no threat to Clinton or the United States, http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wobadr094492447oct31,0,1261397.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines

[mheslep]

...they were allies ... There are 50 Afghanis left in detention but hundreds were held there at the beginning tortured and then released.
Allies? Can you provide a source that says 'hundreds' of Afghanis were tortured at Gmo?

Nevermind. Your proposition has grown thin, and your holding it up with sophistries.

[Poop-Loops]

I guess if the speech is good and you don't like the president then it's bad despite how good it is.

I guess if the speech is bad and you are infatuated with the president then it's good despite how bad it is.

[drankin]

I guess if the speech is bad and you are infatuated with the president then it's good despite how bad it is.

That doesn't apply to me because I'm not a big fan of Bush. But it was a good speech.

[Poop-Loops]

That doesn't apply to me because I'm not a big fan of Bush.

Uh huh.

[Gokul43201]

That doesn't apply to me because I'm not a big fan of Bush. But it was a good speech.I've asked this more than once now, and have gotten no answers, so I'll ask again...especially since you like the speech so much.

Which of the following people are appeasers?

Bob Gates, Colin Powell, Condi Rice - for wanting the US to engage in negotiations with Iran,

McCain - for wanting to engage in diplomacy with Hamas after their election victory in Palestine,

Bush - for talking to Kim Jong Il just after the announcement that they had violated the Agreed Framework,

Reagan, Bush Sr., Rumsfeld, et al. - for their support of Pinochet, Marcos, the fascist junta of Argentina, the drug trafficking contra in Nicaragua, Saddam Hussein, the apartheid government of South Africa, military regimes in Nicaragua and Guatemala that carried out civilian massacres, etc.

Nixon & Kissinger - for meeting with Mao

[chemisttree]

The greatest thing that Bush said in the speech was,

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

[Poop-Loops]

The wrench in the works, of course, is how you define a terrorist.

[lisab]

The greatest thing that Bush said in the speech was,

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals

Sounds like his speech writer was straight from Faux News. I hear that a lot on that channel; a "journalist" sets up a "some say" construct and then shoots it down with some right-wing rant.

[seycyrus]

Sounds like his speech writer was straight from Faux News. I hear that a lot on that channel; a "journalist" sets up a "some say" construct and then shoots it down with some right-wing rant.

As opposed to the straight from the hip news on CNN or MSNBC?

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

What time and what channel are you going to be watching tonight? Let's compare notes.

[BobG]

Matthews could have asked, "What do you think Bush meant by 'the false comfort of appeasement' when he called the American Senator's statement, "If I had only talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided" the "false comfort of appeasement?" But that probably would have been a little too 'fair and balanced', eh?

Damn! That would have been a tougher question than the one Matthews actually asked!

Of all the people to quote, William Borah has to be one of the strangest. If anyone using that quote could describe what Borah meant, I'd be pretty impressed. Borah had the nickname, "The Great Opposer", and seemed to get more pleasure from opposing whatever the prevailing sentiment was than to actually stand for something.

He was a Republican, a Communist sympathizer, a supporter of FDR's New Deal, an opponent of the League of Nations, and a supporter of revising many of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles (which might have been what he meant in the quote, but, if so, he must have meant if he could have talked to Hitler about 10 years prior to the invasion of Poland).

Aside from annoying his fellow Republicans, Borah's main legacy was allegedly fathering Teddy Roosevelt's grand daughter, Paulina Longworth (actually, that was probably pretty annoying to Alice Longworth's husband).

Years from now, I guess people will be quoting Ron Paul in the same vein that Bush uses Borah quotes.

[BobG]

Maybe Obama could respond with his own Borah quote from the post World War I era:
"Everybody is in favor of the Constitution when it favors them, but too many are willing to trample upon it when it gets in their way. The war disclosed that the great principles and guarantees of the Constitution are vital to a free people and at the same time are easily disregarded in an hour of passion or crisis."

With the next salvo in the war of Borah quotes being:
"No more fatuous chimera has ever infested the brain than that you can control opinions by law or direct belief by statute, and no more pernicious sentiment ever tormented the heart than the barbarous desire to do so. The field of inquiry should remain open, and the right of debate must be regarded as a sacred right."
Hmm, that quote might fit better into John Kerry's style of speaking.

[Poop-Loops]

John Kerry would completely butcher the quote and you'd end up with a story of a man running out of ice cream.

[mheslep]

Sounds like his speech writer was straight from Faux News. I hear that a lot on that channel; a "journalist" sets up a "some say" construct and then shoots it down with some right-wing rant.Like you just did here for instance w/ the nondescrip 'a journalist sets up' construct.

[Poop-Loops]

Like you just did here for instance w/ the nondescrip 'a journalist sets up' construct.

Yes, except she doesn't get paid to provide non-biased news coverage of events happening around the world.

But we can ignore that. Yes, she is just as horrible.

[wildman]

The greatest thing that Bush said in the speech was,

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.



By Poland it was too late. Talk doesn't always work. However, if the French and Germans had talked 25 years earlier (before WW I), we might had avoided the whole mess.

[seycyrus]

Yes, except she doesn't get paid to provide non-biased news coverage of events happening around the world.

But we can ignore that. Yes, she is just as horrible.

If her off-handed remark was directed at Oreiley, then I must point out that Oreiley is of course NOT paid to provide non-bias. He is there to give an opinion.

If you are talking about the other news people, I must yet again ask you when you will be watching so we can compare notes.

[seycyrus]

By Poland it was too late. Talk doesn't always work. However, if the French and Germans had talked 25 years earlier (before WW I), we might had avoided the whole mess.

Is that mean to be funny?

They talked PLENTY.

That is the problem with this *talk* argument. If the outcome is different than you wanted, then you didn't talk *enough*.

That argument could be made forever and thus it loses its credibility.

[Art]

I don't think anyone could accuse Winston Churchill of being an appeaser who famously said To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.

International relations are managed through diplomacy. Talking is the cornerstone of diplomacy and war is the final diplomatic solution to be used only when all other avenues of diplomacy are exhausted. To jump from A straight to Z because everything in the middle might not work is hardly an intelligent way (or civilised way for that matter) to resolve a dispute. Unless of course you doubt your negotiating skills to such an extent you feel failure is inevitable. In which case train better negotiators

[seycyrus]

Talking is the cornerstone of diplomacy and war is the final diplomatic solution to be used only when all other avenues of diplomacy are exhausted. To jump from A straight to Z because everything in the middle might not work is hardly an intelligent way (or civilised way for that matter) to resolve a dispute.

It is a good thing that we do not jump straight from A to Z! Why the creation of the obvious straman?

[Art]

It is a good thing that we do not jump straight from A to Z! Why the creation of the obvious straman? So presumably you do support talking to one's enemies and so agree with Obama's strategy. That's good!!

[chemisttree]

Obama's statement:
QUESTION: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"...
OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous."http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4
Hillary's response is actually quite good.

Obama's latest explanation of this statement:
Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

and

There has been no confusion. I have been absolutely clear on this. I will meet not just with our friends but with our enemies. I will meet without preconditions. That does not mean I will meet without preparation. It is very important before any meeting to make sure that there is a list of agenda items that we are going to be talking about. But the difference is with me, for example, meeting with Iran, I would not expect that they would give in on critical issues like nuclear weapons before the meeting. The objective of the meeting would be to ensure that they stand down and that we've offered them carrots and sticks." http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-19-2008/0004816986&EDATE=

Without preparation? Without precondition? This is a typical politician/lawer doubletalk... and we've seen it all before. This isn't change. It is the Bush policy.

Engel's immediate follow-up question was, "Repeatedly you've talked about Iran and that you don't want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon. How far away do you think Iran is from developing a nuclear capability?"

The President replied, "You know, Richard, I don't want to speculate – and there's a lot of speculation. But one thing is for certain – we need to prevent them from learning how to enrich uranium. And I have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a seat at the table for them if they would verifiably suspend their enrichment. And if not, we'll continue to rally the world to isolate them."

Not talking to Iran until they give up the uranium enrichment is the diplomatic tool (yes, diplomatic) the Bush Administration is currently using to pressure Iran.

[seycyrus]

So presumably you do support talking to one's enemies and so agree with Obama's strategy. That's good!!

Not necessarily. There are other steps between A and Z that do not include direct legitimizing of a radical government.

[BobG]

International relations are managed through diplomacy. Talking is the cornerstone of diplomacy and war is the final diplomatic solution to be used only when all other avenues of diplomacy are exhausted. To jump from A straight to Z because everything in the middle might not work is hardly an intelligent way (or civilised way for that matter) to resolve a dispute. Unless of course you doubt your negotiating skills to such an extent you feel failure is inevitable. In which case train better negotiators

I don't think jumping "from A straight to Z" is the case in US-Iran relationships. The two have been enemies for nearly 30 years, but the amount of talking between the two countries has varied over the years.

Obviously, there were some talks in order for the Iran-Contra controversy to occur.

There were also some communications between the US-Iran even during Bush's term:

US-Iran post 9/11 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/slapface.html)

US-Iran post Iraq (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/grandbargain.html)

As the remarks from a spectrum of individuals show, there's a lot of disagreement about both topics. However, when the situations change, the possibility of changing a relationship also change.

There's some real economic benefits to Iran in having better relations with Europe and the US, so it's not unthinkable that Iran would see 9/11 as an opportunity. It's also not unthinkable that the invasion of Iraq changed the scenario as seen from Iran's point of view: first giving them the idea that they didn't want to be next and eventually giving them the idea they had at least a limited time of safety.

I think there probably was an opportunity for Bush to improve US-Iran relationships at some point, but I think it's probably true that any attempts for further negotiation at this time would be pretty disappointing. The US isn't dealing from nearly as strong a position as we were in 2003.

A change in leadership is a change in the scenario and it's certainly worth looking at negotiations with Iran after the President changes, but I wouldn't be expecting a huge breakthrough regardlesss of who's elected.

[Gokul43201]

I don't think jumping "from A straight to Z" is the case in US-Iran relationships. The two have been enemies for nearly 30 years, but the amount of talking between the two countries has varied over the years. It may be worth recalling that there was similarly no talking between the US and China for over 20 years before Nixon visited Mao.

[mheslep]

US-Iran post 9/11 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/slapface.html)

US-Iran post Iraq (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/grandbargain.html)
These Frontline pieces would be great if they'd just stick to the well done interviews with the principals, and just drop the oh so ominous narration loaded with non-sequitors and mis-characterizations.

[BobG]

These Frontline pieces would be great if they'd just stick to the well done interviews with the principals, and just drop the oh so ominous narration loaded with non-sequitors and mis-characterizations.

Yeah, I wouldn't give all of the comments equal weight.

Still, a lot changed in a rapid amount of time.

Libya and Pakistan made abrupt changes in their attitudes, although neither made quite as drastic a change as one would have liked and the results in interactions with them have been pretty mixed. Libya was dropped from the state sponsored terrorist list by the US and is a member of the UN Security Council while Pakistan became an ally against the Taliban, but Libya still has a poor human rights record and Pakistan has turned out to be a very weak ally against the Taliban at best.

To be honest, I would have expected some pretty mixed results on Iran if the US had taken the opportunity to improve US-Iran relations.

But why the difference in attitude towards Libya and Pakistan vs the "Axis of Evil"?

Pakistan having a nuclear weapon probably explains their exception, but Libya falls right in there with Iraq and Iran. (Personally, if I were going to invade a country after Afghanistan, Pakistan would have been at the top of my list even in spite of them having a nuclear weapon. It would have directly supported a goal of wiping out Al-Qaeda.)

[mheslep]

Yeah, I wouldn't give all of the comments equal weight.

Still, a lot changed in a rapid amount of time.

Libya and Pakistan made abrupt changes in their attitudes, although neither made quite as drastic a change as one would have liked and the results in interactions with them have been pretty mixed. Libya was dropped from the state sponsored terrorist list by the US and is a member of the UN Security Council while Pakistan became an ally against the Taliban, but Libya still has a poor human rights record and Pakistan has turned out to be a very weak ally against the Taliban at best.

To be honest, I would have expected some pretty mixed results on Iran if the US had taken the opportunity to improve US-Iran relations.

But why the difference in attitude towards Libya and Pakistan vs the "Axis of Evil"?

Pakistan having a nuclear weapon probably explains their exception, but Libya falls right in there with Iraq and Iran.Capability. I don't know that the two have the same intentions by Libya lacks the capability. Iran $850B GDP/ 70 M people, Libya $80B GDP / 6 M or 10:1. So its maybe 10x harder for the Libyans to have an entirely indigenous nuclear weapons program, and they can be seriously hurt by sanctions if they continued to flaunt guerilla training camps out in the desert. If I recall the sanctions against Libya in the 90s had largely slowed (stopped?) Libyan terrorist play, while Iran can afford to continue handsomely fund and equip Hezbollah in spite of sanctions and Hussein could still give cash rewards to West Bank suicide bombers even under severe sanctions.

[Art]

I don't think jumping "from A straight to Z" is the case in US-Iran relationships. The two have been enemies for nearly 30 years, but the amount of talking between the two countries has varied over the years.

I wasn't referring to Iran specifically, more generically challenging the notion that to talk to one's enemies or potential enemies is somehow a sign of weakness / appeasement.

In the case of Iran I still suspect if the military planners and his legal advisers give the green light an attack will be made by Israel with US support before Bush leaves office as I think he believes in his delusional mind he is the only one 'strong' enough to make the decision.

[turbo-1]

I wasn't referring to Iran specifically, more generically challenging the notion that to talk to one's enemies or potential enemies is somehow a sign of weakness / appeasement.

In the case of Iran I still suspect if the military planners and his legal advisers give the green light an attack will be made by Israel with US support before Bush leaves office as I think he believes in his delusional mind he is the only one 'strong' enough to make the decision.Yes, this is the Frank Sinatra option. Sinatra was a coward, but he gained a reputation for mixing it up, tellingly only in company of an overwhelming entourage. He'd sucker-punch somebody at a club on some pretense, and then his heavies would jump in to prevent retaliation and would pound his victim, or at the very least, eject him. Israel could very well draw the US into another war with just such a strategy, since we are "blessed" with a neo-con administration that loves the economic leverage that accompanies international conflict.

[seycyrus]

... Israel could very well draw the US into another war with just such a strategy, since we are "blessed" with a neo-con administration that loves the economic leverage that accompanies international conflict.

It's amazing the amount of speculative biased strawmen that you guys throw in virtually every post.

[Gokul43201]

Let's also not forget that this thread is based on a strawman the the President threw out in his speech.

Of course there is reason to think long and hard about negotiating with our "enemies". Historically, we have seen both good and poor outcomes from such negotiations, and we must learn from these examples. Likewise, deciding to engage certain groups only militarily or not at all is also foolish, and has also shown to produce mixed results.

The assertion that someone proposing to negotiate with enemies is an appeaser or a traitor is itself the worst kind dirty politicking. Where are all those Republicans who called the Dixie Chicks cowardly traitors for criticizing the President on foreign soil? Where are the Republicans who were outraged by Clinton protesting Vietnam while he was on scholarship in the UK? How cool would it be for Obama to make a speech in Baghdad telling them that some senators think we should have a 100-year occupation in Iraq (which would at least be completely truthful)?

The simple truth about the Bush speech is that it is at the very least downright dishonest. It intentionally conflates diplomacy with appeasement. It turns a hypocritically blinded eye to the fact that both the Sec State and Sec Def have supported negotiations with Iran (as well as the Sec States for Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr., who sat on the Baker-Hamilton commission). It conveniently ignores the long and continuing history that the US has of supporting and enriching dictators, radicals and extremists. It ignores that fact that Bush hurried into negotiations with Kim Jong Il as soon as he started acting up...and it produced positive results. It ignores the fact the Bush continues to have talks with Abdullah and al-Bashir, among the worst dictators alive today...and there is probably good reason for such engagement.

[seycyrus]

Let's also not forget that this thread is based on a strawman the the President threw out in his speech...

...

How cool would it be for Obama to make a speech in Baghdad telling them that some senators think we should have a 100-year occupation in Iraq (which would at least be completely truthful)?.

I'm not sure of the point you are making here. Are you providing another example of a misstated position? If so, you succeeded.

I think we owe it to ourselves on PF to steer away from such obvious intentional misinterpretations of what people have said.

[chemisttree]

I'm not sure of the point you are making here. Are you providing another example of a misstated position? If so, you succeeded.

I think we owe it to ourselves on PF to steer away from such obvious intentional misinterpretations of what people have said.

Hear, hear! The misstatement that McCain said we should have a 100 year occupation is the worst, most cynically false thing to come out of the Obama camp so far. Completely untruthful.

[mheslep]

...The simple truth about the Bush speech is that it is at the very least downright dishonest. It intentionally conflates diplomacy with appeasement. It turns a hypocritically blinded eye to the fact that both the Sec State and Sec Def have supported negotiations with Iran (as well as the Sec States for Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr., who sat on the Baker-Hamilton commission)....Then there must have been another Presidential speech given we have not seen here, because that's not a 'simple truth' that can be drawn from the Israeli speech. Bush did not say don't talk any hostile states, nor does he necessarily equate diplomacy with appeasement. Talk may be, or may not be, appeasement, it depends on the context. It is fair to call the intentions of the '39 US Senator appeasement, based on naiveté. The US position on Iran is clear across State and DoD: US will talk to them one on one about anything if they kill their nuclear program, as I've seen Sec Rice say in the same room with