DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on May 27, 2008, 10:53:21 PM
-
Castro's President
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Tuesday, May 27, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election 2008:
What is it about Barack Obama that makes our enemies like him?
The latest anti-American icon to express eagerness for an Obama presidency is none other than Fidel Castro.
Presidential candidates usually collect the endorsements of governors, senators and aldermen. But Obama is
getting the backing of thug after thug on the international scene. Castro became the latest when, in an article
in the Cuban government organ Granma, he gave the Democratic front-runner the closest thing to an endorsement
the communist despot has ever bestowed.
Castro called Obama, "this man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive
candidate to the U.S. presidency." He also oddly conceded what the effect of his praise would be: "Were I to defend
him, I would do his adversaries an enormous favor."
This comes after Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega praised Obama and his political allies as "laying the foundations
for a revolutionary change" in America.
Then there's the seized laptop of Raul Reyes, warlord with Colombia's Marxist-Leninist FARC narcoterrorist group slain in
an army raid in March. It contained Reyes' cheery report of some "gringos" he met assuring him that Obama would be
the next president.
Which raises a question: When Obama promised, as he did in a recent speech on Latin American policy, that "we will
fully support Colombia's fight against the FARC," does that mean more military aid or just "social" aid?
Data on Reyes' computer also implicated Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as supporting FARC as it tries to
overthrow Colombia's government. Can we guess from all this who Chavez himself would like to see in power in Washington?
And let's not forget the chief political adviser to Hamas' Gaza leader Ismail Haniyeh remarking, "We like
Mr. Obama, and we hope he will win the election."
By contrast, Obama rival John McCain was blasted by Castro earlier this year when the Arizona senator reiterated
claims made in his memoirs of Cuban Communists torturing U.S. POWs in Hanoi.
"Let me remind you, Mr. McCain," said Castro, "the commandments of the religion you practice prohibit lying."
The Castros and Chavezes and Mahmoud Ahmadinejads of today's dangerous world are masters of the lie.
That's why Sen. Obama's willingness to speak to all of them without precondition so thrills these enemies of freedom.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=296780433898387 (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=296780433898387)
-
He's not Bush?
-
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/070306.html
-
Though both Bush and Kerry denounced bin-Laden?s statement, right-wing pundits, bloggers and talk-show hosts portrayed it as an effort to hurt Bush and help Kerry ? which understandably prompted the exact opposite reaction among many Americans. [For instance, conservative blog site, Little Green Footballs, headlined its Oct. 31, 2004, commentary as ?Bin Laden Threatens U.S. States Not to Vote for Bush.?]
However, behind the walls of secrecy at Langley, Virginia, U.S. intelligence experts reviewed the evidence and concluded that bin-Laden had precisely the opposite intent. He was fully aware that his videotape would encourage the American people to do the opposite of what he recommended.
By demanding an American surrender, bin-Laden knew U.S. voters would instinctively want to fight. That way bin-Laden helped ensure that George W. Bush would stay in power, would continue his clumsy ?war on terror? ? and would drive thousands of new recruits into al-Qaeda?s welcoming arms.
=========================================================
Again, what possible harm could come from a US president talking with Raul Castro?
We know that 50 years of pretending that Castro does not exist has been utterly useless.
-
asked & answered already
-
He's not Bush?
Thank gods for small miracles.
Seriously, though. If our "enemies" "like" Obama, I think that is a good thing. For the last eight years, we've had a moron in the White House who is basically a frightened to the core bully. Bush is the kind of guy who gets mad if someone thinks that he might be gay. Bush is the kind of guy who picks a fight with his dad because he is so insecure he has no idea, no concept of communication or expression. Bush is the kind of guy who thinks that if you talk to the guy who makes you mad that makes you a big pussy chicken.
Fighting takes no humanity. Fighting takes no emotional input. Bush, rather than sit down with someone he doesn't like and figure out how to keep people from getting killed and promote peace and harmony, would rather just go in and eradicate the "other" rather than try to understand it first.
It's a classic insecure bully situation who is so afraid of being laughed at or seen as "less than". The only way he can be seen as "bigger" is by hitting the "other" and knocking it on its ass then kick dust in its face. Not surprisingly, he is the Ultimate Expression of right-wing ideology. Don't think, just hit. And if you're forced to think, think of a better way to hit. Keep all your fears and doubts and "concerns" to yourself, pansy. Get up, put up your dukes and take this fucker out before someone takes your marbles.
Conversely, Obama is the ultimate expression of the left-wing ideology. Measure twice, cut once. Figure out a solution that doesn't require hundreds of people getting killed or dying. Ego is bullshit but don't be somebody else's doormat. In all things, Balance. It's not necessary to win at any cost. Sometimes honor is more important than winning. The rules are the rules even if it means you lose.
You know. He believes in all the things that the Right says they believe and that everyone should believe in. The difference is those of us on the left don't just chuck it all out the window if it means that we might lose. We believe that laws and principles are to be followed even if it means that we aren't on top of the dogpile. Rightwingers (at least those elected to office) will throw it all out the window if it means they might not get another term, might not win their ideological argument, might not be the big dog, or might not get to do whatever the hell they wanna do.
They believe in the "idea" of whatever their point is but when push comes to shove, that's all idealistic bullshit.
Case in point is the right's cry of Support The Troops!? But look how hard they fight to do all of the following:
1) Keep the troops in harm's way for no reason other than to protect oil revenues for the oil companies
2) Ignore the troops' families losing their houses
3) Ignore the VA hospitals
4) Fight to keep from paying for the troops' health care
5) Fight to keep from giving the troops a fucking raise
6) Drag their feet on getting the troops the proper equipment (it is unconscionable how families had to raise money to get their sons and daughters armor!)
7) Hire mercenary firms who hold guns on our troops (and then refuse to FIRE those mercenary firms, in fact, RE-UP their contracts!)
8) RE-HIRE KBR who served the troops filthy water then suggested that the troops only drink bottled water!
The right in elected office is full of shit and you guys put them there. Well, now the chickens are coming home to roost on your doorsteps.
-
He's not Bush?
Thank gods for small miracles. Seriously, though. If our "enemies" "like" Obama, I think that is a good thing.
Welp....no need to add anything to that. Thanks for the honesty, Brass.
-
He's not Bush?
Thank gods for small miracles. Seriously, though. If our "enemies" "like" Obama, I think that is a good thing.
Welp....no need to add anything to that. Thanks for the honesty, Brass.
You're more than welcome.
If your enemies like you, then they are more inclined to follow your lead or heed your warnings or listen to your advice or best of all, not attack you. I think that is something you guys have never learned. You're still trapped in that cartoon/cowboy serials mentality of the '50's. The good guy is the good guy with the white hat and his only raison d'etre is to kill the bad guy in the black hat (who we saw tying the beautiful girl to the tracks in episode 4).
And you're more than willing to ignore any evidence that is detrimental to that image of good vs evil.
Fidel Castro and Cuba are no threat to us whatsoever and we could actually benefit ourselves and the people of Cuba by talking to the Castros and ending the embargo but noooooooooo that might mean someone might find out that Cubans are pretty happy. You could even infect the people of Cuba with capitalism. Let some of them get to own houses of their own and see how fast they throw the Castros out but noooooooooo then it wouldn't be seen as a "win" for America.
It's just macho bullshit and it's old news/antiquated/so last century.
-
He's not Bush?
Thank gods for small miracles. Seriously, though. If our "enemies" "like" Obama, I think that is a good thing.
Welp....no need to add anything to that. Thanks for the honesty, Brass.
You're more than welcome. If your enemies like you, then they are more inclined to follow your lead or heed your warnings or listen to your advice or best of all, not attack you.
LOL.
I think that is something you guys have never learned.
Yea, tell that to Chamberlain, Great Britian, and all of Europe in the late 30's. If only we were nicer to Hitler. If only we had made him our trusted friend. Beyond hysterical. Talk about not learning
-
Mainly I am impressed by the imaginitiveness .
-
Yea, tell that to Chamberlain, Great Britian, and all of Europe in the late 30's. If only we were nicer to Hitler. If only we had made him our trusted friend. Beyond hysterical. Talk about not learning
Nobody is saying hand anyone the keys to gates and saying, "come on in and kill us." You guys are forgetting the successes of diplomacy. Or would you like to do away with diplomacy altogether and just let nuclear bombs do our talking forever?
And you guys love to throw around Chamberlain. Could you, without google or wikipedia, tell us exactly what it was that Chamberlain did to earn the title of Appeaser Extraordinaire?
-
And "you guys" are forgetting that diplomacy is ALWAYS advocated and supported, by those who also support war as a last resort.
However when dealing with one's ENEMIES, there is no appeasing, there is no placating, there is no playing nice-nice, and expect them to be nice in return. There is no sitting down and expecting everyone to fully abide by some signiture on a piece of paper. HISTORY has demonstrated how that process simply enables & emboldens one's enemies to do more with greater tragic effects
-
And "you guys" are forgetting that diplomacy is ALWAYS advocated and supported, by those who also support war as a last resort.
However when dealing with one's ENEMIES, there is no appeasing, there is no placating, there is no playing nice-nice, and expect them to be nice in return. There is no sitting down and expecting everyone to fully abide by some signiture on a piece of paper. HISTORY has demonstrated how that process simply enables & emboldens one's enemies to do more with greater tragic effects
No, we're not forgetting it. I remember full well when I read that Bush wanted to attack Iraq BEFORE he was "elected" and that all his lies and plans (confirmed now by Scott McClellan after literally a who's who of others) were all leading to an attack on Iraq no matter what his "diplomacy" led to.
Saying you're pursuing diplomatic ends while amassing ships in the gulf is not diplomacy, it's spin.
-
And "you guys" are forgetting that diplomacy is ALWAYS advocated and supported, by those who also support war as a last resort.
However when dealing with one's ENEMIES, there is no appeasing, there is no placating, there is no playing nice-nice, and expect them to be nice in return. There is no sitting down and expecting everyone to fully abide by some signiture on a piece of paper. HISTORY has demonstrated how that process simply enables & emboldens one's enemies to do more with greater tragic effects
No, we're not forgetting it.
Yes, apparently you are. especially when you gleefully cheer the idea that its good that our enemies like Obama. Quite the opposite of "not forgetting". You could even say willfully ignoring
I remember full well when I read that Bush wanted to attack Iraq BEFORE he was "elected" and that all his lies and plans (confirmed now by Scott McClellan after literally a who's who of others) were all leading to an attack on Iraq no matter what his "diplomacy" led to.
Minus all your invalid, unsubstantiated, consistently refuted claims of lying us into war, DIPLOMACY was used.....12+years in fact. And we got largely squat compliance to UN resolutions. And following the events of 911, there was a required clock that had to be set, in order for both the credibility of the International Community & the U.S. to actually mean something again, and to facilitate compliance. War was the last resort, and SADDAM apparently thought it was simply more uncredible rhetoric. He thought wrong
-
I so utterly reject your assertions here that I won't even bother responding to them.
you're living in a world of lies.
-
The fine art of projection & transferrence
-
Yea, tell that to Chamberlain, Great Britian, and all of Europe in the late 30's. If only we were nicer to Hitler. If only we had made him our trusted friend. Beyond hysterical. Talk about not learning
Nobody is saying hand anyone the keys to gates and saying, "come on in and kill us." You guys are forgetting the successes of diplomacy. Or would you like to do away with diplomacy altogether and just let nuclear bombs do our talking forever?
And you guys love to throw around Chamberlain. Could you, without google or wikipedia, tell us exactly what it was that Chamberlain did to earn the title of Appeaser Extraordinaire?
I am indeed , could you provide a few examples of Diplomatic success , achieved with no threat or force?
I have forgotten them.
-
<<He [Castro]also oddly conceded what the effect of his praise would be: "Were I to defend
him [Obama] I would do his adversaries an enormous favor.">>
Well, of course, that's the key to the whole thing right there. Castro doesn't really give a shit who wins this election. There's absolutely nothing "odd" about Castro simultaneously praising Obama and realizing that his praise is helping McCain a lot more than Obama.
Obama might be more likely to lift the embargo than McCain, but the embargo isn't exactly a negative as far as Cuba's concerned. It helps clarify who the real enemy is, and it helps unify and solidify support for the regime. In a way, the embargo "keeps 'em honest." They can't sell out the Revolution for trade incentives when there's no trade going on.
In Osama's case, everything that he says has to be read through the lens of reverse psychology. No way could he have believed that his endorsement would actually boost any American. In fact, I think most people understand now that Bush has been far and away the best President that OBL could ever have hoped for. The real repercussions of Bush's stupid adventurism have yet to be felt and already he's brought the nation to the edge of ruin. And the beauty of it is, it can only get worse under McCain and Obama will never get the mandate to turn it all around. He's already back-tracking and he's not even President yet.
I also couldn't resist some comments on the so-called "appeasement" issue. "Appeasement," like war, is just a tactic, a way to approach a perceived problem. It's as foolish to say that "appeasement never works" as it would be to say that "an uppercut never works." All tactics will fail in some circumstances - - appeasement didn't work out too well for Chamberlain, but then going to war didn't work out so well for Hitler.
I think, if one is going to hold up Neville Chamberlain as the supreme example of the folly of appeasement, it would be smart to know a little more about the facts of the case than the cartoonish oversimplifications that Americans, through their dumbed-down educational systems and corrupted MSM, believe to be "the truth."
Appeasement of Hitler by Great Britain and France took place against a background of intensive German rearmament and a belated but on-going attempt by Britain and France to catch up to, and overtake, Germany, particularly in air-power. Basically, appeasement bought time for the Allies - - time to rearm, to catch up. It helps in understanding the situation to remember that, unlike Germany, Britain primarily (and to a lesser extent, France) had to prepare for the defence of a world Empire against Japan, Italy and the U.S.S.R. and only secondarily for a war in Europe. So the options to appeasement of Germany were rather limited. It's problematic at best to claim that appeasement was a total failure.
Of course when one compares the relative strengths of the U.S. and its adversaries today (Iran, Cuba, etc.) it is just ludicrous to equate dialogue with "appeasement." Even if one accepts the most simplistic definition of Munich-era appeasement ("They gave away the store and got nothing in return.") there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to expect any such result from any dialogue that Obama proposes. It's just ludicrous to compare the position of the U.S. vis-a-vis its current "enemies" with the position of Britain and France in the 1930s vis-a-vis Nazi Germany.
What's the real reason why the Right is scared shitless of any kind of dialogue with "rogue states" or "the Axis of Evil?" IMHO, it's to give them complete control of the narrative so that they and their MSM accomplices can continue to hoodwink the people with the same kind of bullshit they've been able to get away with for years ("They hate us for our freedoms." "They want a New Caliphate." etc.)
When you're talking to somebody, you at least have to hear what they say. When you're not talking to them, and they're not talking to you, you get to write all their lines by selectively cherry-picking whatever any one of them (no matter how batshit crazy he may be) has ever said anywhere or any time. But of course, talking over one's differences is vastly superior to war as a first resort - - as Winston Churchill once said, "Jaw-jaw is better than war, war."
-
I am indeed , could you provide a few examples of Diplomatic success , achieved with no threat or force?
I have forgotten them.
I find it difficult to believe that you have forgotten your blessed Richard Milhouse Nixon going on his trip to China to visit with mass murderer Chairman Mao Zsedong.
Or that you could forget all those meetings between Ronald Reagan and assorted Heads of State from the USSR.
Or that you could forget the summit between Gorbachev and Bush 41.
How about Carter's Camp David Accords?
What about the SALT Treaties?
Beuhler? Beuhler? Beuhler?
-
Welcome back, Tee
-
Thanks, sirs.
-
I am indeed , could you provide a few examples of Diplomatic success , achieved with no threat or force?
I have forgotten them.
I find it difficult to believe that you have forgotten your blessed Richard Milhouse Nixon going on his trip to China to visit with mass murderer Chairman Mao Zsedong.
Or that you could forget all those meetings between Ronald Reagan and assorted Heads of State from the USSR.
Or that you could forget the summit between Gorbachev and Bush 41.
How about Carter's Camp David Accords?
What about the SALT Treaties?
Beuhler? Beuhler? Beuhler?
Which of these would have happened if the USA were not very powerfull?
The Soviets and Chineese never talked to nations that they could just take over instead.
If Nixon had all the moral authority of the Dali Lama , and about the same military strength , he would have negotiated with Mao on about the same terms that the Dali Lama does.
-
Which of these would have happened if the USA were not very powerfull?
The Soviets and Chineese never talked to nations that they could just take over instead.
If Nixon had all the moral authority of the Dali Lama , and about the same military strength , he would have negotiated with Mao on about the same terms that the Dali Lama does.
The powerful part of America don't even enter into it.
Mao was a "murderer" right? Yet, Nixon and Kissinger got on a plane and went over to talk to him. Opened China right up.
But I've never heard you call Nixon an appeaser once. If you have please let me know.
-
Which of these would have happened if the USA were not very powerfull?
The Soviets and Chineese never talked to nations that they could just take over instead.
If Nixon had all the moral authority of the Dali Lama , and about the same military strength , he would have negotiated with Mao on about the same terms that the Dali Lama does.
The powerful part of America don't even enter into it.
Mao was a "murderer" right? Yet, Nixon and Kissinger got on a plane and went over to talk to him. Opened China right up.
But I've never heard you call Nixon an appeaser once. If you have please let me know.
Actually I like makeing the connection between Nixon and Obama.
Nixon , Obama
Tricky Barak
Hmmmmmm...
The point is that the agreements were worked out between the US and China before Nixon went to the summit , it would not have happened if the US were not very strong and also able to give to China stuff it wanted .
What would Barak Obama say to Acmedanejad if they were to meet?
"Hi there Achmed ! How are the wives?"
-
<<What would Barak Obama say to Acmedanejad if they were to meet?
<<"Hi there Achmed ! How are the wives?">>
LOL. I don't think you're supposed to refer to a man's female relatives, for sure if you haven't already been introduced to them previously, and maybe even if you have, because it insults the guy's honour. Sounds like you already know these babes, which means you didn't need him to introduce you to them, and leaves open the question of just how well you know them. You could probably lose some serious body parts if you said this to the wrong guy. And Ahmadinejad sure doesn't look like the right guy.
I would sit quietly on the rug for a few minutes with a downcast expression on my face, staring down, and then I would say, "Oy," in a big exhalation of breath. About ten seconds of silence, then I'd repeat the "Oy." And then I'd say, "Mahmoud, my friend, I've got problems."
And Ahmadinejad, I mean, Mahmoud, would simply say, "Tell me, Barak, my friend," and I'd say, "It's dat bitch Hilary, she's still undermining me, Mahmoud," and he'd ask, "Would you like me to take care of her for you?" and I'd thank him politely and decline, but we'd embrace as brothers, because he'd at least offered, and from there we'd move into matters of substance.
-
<<What would Barak Obama say to Acmedanejad if they were to meet?
<<"Hi there Achmed ! How are the wives?">>
LOL. I don't think you're supposed to refer to a man's female relatives, for sure if you haven't already been introduced to them previously, and maybe even if you have, because it insults the guy's honour. Sounds like you already know these babes, which means you didn't need him to introduce you to them, and leaves open the question of just how well you know them. You could probably lose some serious body parts if you said this to the wrong guy. And Ahmadinejad sure doesn't look like the right guy.
I would sit quietly on the rug for a few minutes with a downcast expression on my face, staring down, and then I would say, "Oy," in a big exhalation of breath. About ten seconds of silence, then I'd repeat the "Oy." And then I'd say, "Mahmoud, my friend, I've got problems."
And Ahmadinejad, I mean, Mahmoud, would simply say, "Tell me, Barak, my friend," and I'd say, "It's dat bitch Hilary, she's still undermining me, Mahmoud," and he'd ask, "Would you like me to take care of her for you?" and I'd thank him politely and decline, but we'd embrace as brothers, because he'd at least offered, and from there we'd move into matters of substance.
And when he learned you were Jewish , he would stop takeing you seriously right then.
-
The point is that the agreements were worked out between the US and China before Nixon went to the summit , it would not have happened if the US were not very strong and also able to give to China stuff it wanted .
What would Barak Obama say to Acmedanejad if they were to meet?
"Hi there Achmed ! How are the wives?"
What the hell did Nixon and Mao have in common?
And please, I'm dying to know, why is it that Nixon "giv[ing] China stuff it wanted" not appeasement but somehow going to Achmanenajad and working out some kind of peaceful resolution to our conflicts WOULD BE?
And please tell me, are you implying that America was somehow strong during Nixon's regime and we are now weak during Bush's utter failure of a regime?
And please remind me. Were there constant rumors of Nixon planning to bomb China to hell and back at that time before he went to visit Mao?
-
And please remind me. Were there constant rumors of Nixon planning to bomb China to hell and back at that time before he went to visit Mao?
Well yes of course, Nixon was a communist fighter from away back , if that were not so then he would not have had the credability to sell a treaty to our own Senate.
If a president with a more concilliatory reputation had gone to Mao the people of America would have been very suspicious of the whole situation.
Only Nixon could go to China without fear of being labeled an appeaser.
And Nixon did not go there to negotiate , that ws finished before he got on the plane.
-
Only Nixon could go to China without fear of being labeled an appeaser.
This was because anyone other than Nixon would have been labeled a traitor by one other than Richard F*cking Nixon. This is like the kid that murders his parents and throws himself at the mercy of the court, because he is an orphan.
====================================
And Nixon did not go there to negotiate , that ws finished before he got on the plane.
So what? He started the deal. He went there to sign off on what may have been agreed to by Kissinger and his Chinese counterparts before the visit.
The productive part of all this was that both sides began discussions, to seek out places where they could find agreement. If you say that Nixon was a hero, but Obama would be a traitor for doing the same thing.
Know that you are not arguing about actions, but nuances in how those actions might be dealt with. And that is immaterial. The goal is peace and justice. No peace and no justice is ever attained by stubbornness and stupidity, which are the cornerstones of Juniorbush and Cheney's foreign policy.
I am sure that Obama and whomever he is going to talk with will have an agenda, with the proviso that other topics might be discussed by mutual agreement.
-
Which of these would have happened if the USA were not very powerfull?
If the US weren't powerful, we wouldn't have needed SALT or the Gorbachev/Bush Sr summit. As to the Camp David accords, I see that Qatar is hosting a peace talks for Lebanon and recently brokered a peace settlement in Yemen, I don't think that you necessarily need to be powerful to do that, but you do need credibility. And lastly, for Reagan to meet with heads of state is nothing unusual, even small and marginalized nations do that.
-
And lastly, for Reagan to meet with heads of state is nothing unusual, even small and marginalized nations do that.
====================================
Every year, the six Central American States (Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama) all get together.
So do the six Bolivarian States (Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia) and the Mercosur States (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Paraguay, Bolivia, and I think, Peru).
There have been no serious wars between any of these countries since the Chaco War in 1938. Only a few skirmishes.
-
And lastly, for Reagan to meet with heads of state is nothing unusual, even small and marginalized nations do that.
====================================
Every year, the six Central American States (Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama) all get together.
So do the six Bolivarian States (Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia) and the Mercosur States (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Paraguay, Bolivia, and I think, Peru).
There have been no serious wars between any of these countries since the Chaco War in 1938. Only a few skirmishes.
Colombia and Venezuela are working on it , could start one any time now, if you don't count the skirmishes as a start already.
What is the diplomatic solution?
-
<<And when he learned you were Jewish , he would stop takeing you seriously right then.>>
I thought we were talking about what OBAMA would say to Ahmadinejad.
Michael Tee wouldn't be the right guy to talk to Ahmadinejad, not initially at any rate. Part of the art is to send the right negotiator. But you still gotta map out how the negotiator is going to handle this. If I really wanted to negotiate face to face, someone would have to sound out Mr. A. on what it would take or even IF it could be done. I wouldn't pre-judge Mr. A. on what he says in public against Jews (actually, nothing, as far as I know - - most of his vitriol seems to be reserved for the State of Israel, not Jews as individuals.)
Given that the Bush administration would love to invade Iran next and control its oil too, the MSM cooperatively churns out reams of bad propaganda about Iran and its leaders, and of course Ahmadinejad comes in for his fair share of it. A lot of it is even true. They DO do a lot of barbaric and inhumane things. Just like the U.S.A. Worse, even. But at the end of the day, until you actually sit down and talk to the guy, you'll never know what he's really all about, and even then you won't know if he doesn't lay his cards on the table. Talking obviously can't guarantee resolution, some talks don't succeed, either because the differences can't be bridged or because the other guy is jerking you around. Talking presents the CHANCE to move forward. Not talking just kills that chance.
I think if the Republicans continue to push the line that Obama's a schmuck for wanting negotiations, it could backfire on them, because most people have the common sense to know that's bullshit. But unfortunately, it seems that Obama's already starting to backtrack because he's a schmuck for other reasons, so this is becoming a non-issue.
-
"...or because the other guy is jerking you around. ..."
What if you have very good reason to expect this?
-
<<What if you have very good reason to expect this [that your potential negotiating partner will be jerking you around]?
I'd say you have to consider (a) the importance of the unresolved issues and (b) the "goodness" of your "good reason" to expect being jerked around and (c) his skill and ability to jerk you around and (d) your own skill and ability as a negotiator to break down the other guy's assholism and get him to negotiate sincerely in spite of himself.
Add 'em all up, especially factor (a) and if that factor is a big deal like war or peace, then I'd probably downplay all the rest of it and go forward with a "What have I got to lose?" attitude.
I don't think any country looks forward to being bombarded by the U.S., let alone invaded by them. The idea that Ahmadinejad or Chavez would jerk around a U.S. negotiator when war is a likely consequence is, frankly, ludicrous. The U.S. does not want to negotiate with Iran for very good reasons, but fear of being jerked around is not one of them.
Basically, the U.S. is afraid to negotiate with either Chavez or Ahmadinejad for the simple reason that:
(a) it has no real case against either one of them;
(b) Iran and Venezuela have very reasonable cases against the U.S.;
(c) America's real objectives are to subvert and overthrow the existing governments which do not kowtow to U.S. interests and replace them with pro-American puppet governments as they are attempting to do with mixed success in Iraq and to gain a firm control over the oil of both countries so as to assure themselves of a stable and reliable source of energy controlled by them.
Any real negotiations would soon make this apparent. As I said in an earlier post, by NOT negotiating with either opponent, the U.S. government and its cheerleader media control the narrative, speaking both for itself and for its "opponents" and once again bamboozling the American sheeple as to its objectives and (if able to go to war) the "reasons" for the war. Why we "must" invade (a) Iran (b) Venezuela.
-
<<What if you have very good reason to expect this [that your potential negotiating partner will be jerking you around]?
I'd say you have to consider (a) the importance of the unresolved issues and (b) the "goodness" of your "good reason" to expect being jerked around and (c) his skill and ability to jerk you around and (d) your own skill and ability as a negotiator to break down the other guy's assholism and get him to negotiate sincerely in spite of himself.
Add 'em all up, especially factor (a) and if that factor is a big deal like war or peace, then I'd probably downplay all the rest of it and go forward with a "What have I got to lose?" attitude.
I don't think any country looks forward to being bombarded by the U.S., let alone invaded by them. The idea that Ahmadinejad or Chavez would jerk around a U.S. negotiator when war is a likely consequence is, frankly, ludicrous. The U.S. does not want to negotiate with Iran for very good reasons, but fear of being jerked around is not one of them.
Basically, the U.S. is afraid to negotiate with either Chavez or Ahmadinejad for the simple reason that:
(a) it has no real case against either one of them;
(b) Iran and Venezuela have very reasonable cases against the U.S.;
(c) America's real objectives are to subvert and overthrow the existing governments which do not kowtow to U.S. interests and replace them with pro-American puppet governments as they are attempting to do with mixed success in Iraq and to gain a firm control over the oil of both countries so as to assure themselves of a stable and reliable source of energy controlled by them.
Any real negotiations would soon make this apparent. As I said in an earlier post, by NOT negotiating with either opponent, the U.S. government and its cheerleader media control the narrative, speaking both for itself and for its "opponents" and once again bamboozling the American sheeple as to its objectives and (if able to go to war) the "reasons" for the war. Why we "must" invade (a) Iran (b) Venezuela.
That Chaves is ordering the death of Colombians and Ahmadinejad is ordering the death of Americans doesn't count as a case against?
-
>>I find it difficult to believe that you have forgotten your blessed Richard Milhouse Nixon going on his trip to China to visit with mass murderer Chairman Mao Zsedong. Or that you could forget all those meetings between Ronald Reagan and assorted Heads of State from the USSR. Or that you could forget the summit between Gorbachev and Bush 41. How about Carter's Camp David Accords? What about the SALT Treaties?<<
Brass ... do you actually believe these meetings just happened one day? Nixon called up Mao and said, "He Mao buddy! Let's get together next week and chat." Conditions had to be met. Promises made. That's diplomacy. The same is true of all you're other examples. They didn't just happen.
Read some history for cripes sakes. You look foolish and uniformed.
-
Brass ... do you actually believe these meetings just happened one day? Nixon called up Mao and said, "He Mao buddy! Let's get together next week and chat." Conditions had to be met. Promises made. That's diplomacy. The same is true of all you're other examples. They didn't just happen.
Read some history for cripes sakes. You look foolish and uniformed.
Rich, I agree with you that he didn't just call up Mao and go over for a chat, but surely you don't think that is the way that Obama would meet with Ahmanenadjad. Do you?
My point with mentioning these things was that Nixon and the rest didn't necessarily have people running around saying that China had to be bombed and bombed in order to get China to agree to some position of vulnerability.
-
<<That Chaves is ordering the death of Colombians and Ahmadinejad is ordering the death of Americans doesn't count as a case against?>>
Chaves is helping guerrillas fight a war of Resistance against a right-wing U.S. puppet regime that's in bed with right-wing death squads and always has been. IF you believe hard drives fortuitously "found" by said regime in the laptops of murdered Resistance fighters. Which I don't. I think Chavez has a case against the U.S.A. for plannng, orchestrating and prematurely celebrating his short-lived "overthrow" as democratically elected leader of an independent state and fellow member of the UN and a case against the Colombian government and its U.S. puppet-masters, paymaster and armourers for armed and deadly incursions into Venezuelan national territory and I think the Colombian people have a case against their own puppet government and its army for paramilitary death-squad activities which for decades have tortured and murdered teachers, labour union organizers, priests, farmers and villagers, and a case against the U.S. government for arming, paying and advising the said government, death squads, paramilitaries, etc.
Ahmadinejad is helping a neighbour drive out illegal invasion forces who happen to be Americans. If they want to get out voluntarily, well and good. If they don't, then blame their leaders for their deaths, not Ahmadinejad. Nobody asked them to come into Iraq and nobody is stopping them from leaving either. The invasion and the occupation are criminal. Face up to it. Nobody who kills a criminal in the course of committing a crime is guilty of anything.
Your problem is projection: you are so clearly and obviously the bad guys in this scenario but instead of just owning up to the crime you continue to act virtuous, fooling absolutely no one but yourselves, and try to paint everyone else in the area as the true evildoers. What a load of bullshit. It just won't wash. Ahmadinejad is no choir boy, but he sure is when compared to Bush.
-
>>Rich, I agree with you that he didn't just call up Mao and go over for a chat, but surely you don't think that is the way that Obama would meet with Ahmanenadjad. Do you?<<
That's what he's saying. No preconditions. Which is incredibly stupid. But then the guy doesn't know how many states are in the union so ...
>>My point with mentioning these things was that Nixon and the rest didn't necessarily have people running around saying that China had to be bombed and bombed in order to get China to agree to some position of vulnerability.<<
Is the president and the adminstration saying that? If so, could you provide a quote?
-
That's what he's saying. No preconditions. Which is incredibly stupid. But then the guy doesn't know how many states are in the union so ...
That is what he is saying if you take the literal meaning of his words but come on, use your common sense. He was meaning that he would talk to Iran without first demanding that they dismantle the nuclear programs.
Is the president and the adminstration saying that? If so, could you provide a quote?
You know that Cheney and Bush are way too slick to actually say they're going to bomb Iran but lots of their surrogates are going around saying that the "Bush administration" should/could/is planning on/will bomb Iran before being dragged out of the White House to jail.
-
>>That is what he is saying if you take the literal meaning of his words but come on, use your common sense. He was meaning that he would talk to Iran without first demanding that they dismantle the nuclear programs.<<
If that's the case, why does he keep repeating it and Alan Colmes keep defending it? Not just Colmes (Colmes defends anything), but every liberal talking head and all the lefties in here? If he diodn't mean it, why doesn't he retract it? I'll tell you why, because the guy is clueless. He has no earthly idea what he's talking about. And like a typical democrat he lies about what he said. He simply denies it. Now that's change for you.
>>You know that Cheney and Bush are way too slick to actually say they're going to bomb Iran but lots of their surrogates are going around saying that the "Bush administration" should/could/is planning on/will bomb Iran before being dragged out of the White House to jail.<<
I thought Bush was a moron? So he's a slick moron?
-
you're living in a world of lies.
Speaking of lies, could you quote the passage where McClellan claims Bush lied?
I seem to have missed that.
-
Brass ... do you actually believe these meetings just happened one day? Nixon called up Mao and said, "He Mao buddy! Let's get together next week and chat." Conditions had to be met. Promises made. That's diplomacy. The same is true of all you're other examples. They didn't just happen.
Read some history for cripes sakes. You look foolish and uniformed.
Rich, I agree with you that he didn't just call up Mao and go over for a chat, but surely you don't think that is the way that Obama would meet with Ahmanenadjad. Do you?
My point with mentioning these things was that Nixon and the rest didn't necessarily have people running around saying that China had to be bombed and bombed in order to get China to agree to some position of vulnerability.
It isn't too late for Obama to make it clear that he would put conditions on a summit meeting, nor is it too late for him to state that he would empower his emissaries in the style that Nixon empowered Kissinger.
But that is a political consideration , it is unfortunate that Obama made a political football out of diplomacy , Nixon didn't run on the idea that he would normalize the relationship with China , doing that would have given China a lot of leverage in negotiations as Nixon tried to live up to a campaign promise , it might have made the deal impossible to negotiate at all. Nixon empowered emissaries who dickered diplomatically with the Communist Chinese , the failure of this negotiation would have hurt neither the US nor China so the secrecy allowed the negotiation to succeed under little pressure.
Will President Obama be expected to go abroad and bring back results? That is a pernicious self defeating expectation.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hooman-majd/the-persian-question_b_104361.html
"......one the Supreme Leader will ultimately decide for Iran (and will need to explain to the millions of supporters of the regime not just in Iran, but throughout the Muslim world, who believe that Iran is the last influential and significant power that stands up against the hegemony of the West).
The Supreme Leader himself will not be someone the US will talk to, as tempting as it may be for Senator Obama to believe, now that he has revised his position vis a vis Ahmadinejad, that that may be possible. The Supreme Leader does not travel outside of Iran and does not grant audiences to non-Muslims except in rare instances, nor would he, to borrow Hillary Clinton's terminology, confer legitimacy on the US president by granting him a meeting until he was sure Iran's interests would be protected. (Yes, the Iranians can think exactly the same way we do, and gee, doesn't it sound arrogant?) Whoever the next US president is will have to begin the process of talking to Iran, if he or she decides to do so, by first exploring avenues to the Supreme Leader, whether through Larijani, Velayati, Mottaki (Iran's foreign minister), Khazaee (Iran's ambassador to the UN who reports to the foreign ministry as well as the Supreme Leader and who conveniently has an office on Third Avenue in Manhattan), or even someone like Khatami and his trusted lieutenant Sadegh Kharrazi, who despite their diminished roles in Iranian politics, still have the ear of the Supreme Leader."
-
it is unfortunate that Obama made a political football out of diplomacy ...
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Au contraire, mon ami.
Foreign policy is a major issue with regard to the presidency, because in 2000 the people supposedly elected a president who did not believe in reforming foreign governments, and got one who mongered a war on false premises that continues to devour the lives, sanity, and health of US servicemen, the lives and future of millions of Iraqis, and our saving ans future incomes to boot.
After a total shift from expected foreign policy caused major problems and continues to cause them for the foreseeable future, this is a MAJOR ISSUE, not some sort of dumbass ball sport.
-
it is unfortunate that Obama made a political football out of diplomacy ...
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Au contraire, mon ami.
Foreign policy is a major issue with regard to the presidency, because in 2000 the people supposedly elected a president who did not believe in reforming foreign governments, and got one who mongered a war on false premises that continues to devour the lives, sanity, and health of US servicemen, the lives and future of millions of Iraqis, and our saving ans future incomes to boot.
After a total shift from expected foreign policy caused major problems and continues to cause them for the foreseeable future, this is a MAJOR ISSUE, not some sort of dumbass ball sport.
I mean it is unfortunate for Obama , who will have no experience to point to and who is prone to t urn something he has emphasized as his issue into exploitable gaffes.
He really is probably no worse than Carter in terms of outlook or naivete , but Carters experience in foreign affairs is not an example to be bragged on , Carter made gaffes that foreign leaders could exploit.
-
I mean it is unfortunate for Obama , who will have no experience to point to and who is prone to t urn something he has emphasized as his issue into exploitable gaffes.
He really is probably no worse than Carter in terms of outlook or naivete , but Carters experience in foreign affairs is not an example to be bragged on , Carter made gaffes that foreign leaders could exploit.
=====================================================================
For a guy who had no experience, Obama was the only one of the three current candidates who called it right on Iraq and did not fall for the "President's" lies and bullshit. What good is "experience" when the other two more "experienced" candidates couldn't tell their foreign policy ass from their Middle East elbow (and to anyone bothering to follow McCain's on-going series of gaffes/"senior moments" with regard to Iraq, it's obvious that he still can't.) Either "experience" is vastly over-hyped, or these other two jackasses don't really have the "experience" they lay claim to. If you are worried about "gaffes," I'd say the biggest foreign policy gaffe in U.S. history, next to Viet Nam, is the Iraq War, and that gaffe was not Obama's.
-
I mean it is unfortunate for Obama , who will have no experience to point to and who is prone to t urn something he has emphasized as his issue into exploitable gaffes.
He really is probably no worse than Carter in terms of outlook or naivete , but Carters experience in foreign affairs is not an example to be bragged on , Carter made gaffes that foreign leaders could exploit.
=====================================================================
For a guy who had no experience, Obama was the only one of the three current candidates who called it right on Iraq and did not fall for the "President's" lies and bullshit. What good is "experience" when the other two more "experienced" candidates couldn't tell their foreign policy ass from their Middle East elbow (and to anyone bothering to follow McCain's on-going series of gaffes/"senior moments" with regard to Iraq, it's obvious that he still can't.) Either "experience" is vastly over-hyped, or these other two jackasses don't really have the "experience" they lay claim to. If you are worried about "gaffes," I'd say the biggest foreign policy gaffe in U.S. history, next to Viet Nam, is the Iraq War, and that gaffe was not Obama's.
Why don't WWI and WWII make your list of gaffes?
-
<<Why don't WWI and WWII make your list of gaffes?>>
WWI might well have been a gaffe. I have a great sentimental affection for Great Britain, though, and I'm sure there are plenty of Americans who feel the same way. But Germany wasn't the villain in WWI that she was in WWII, so it's harder to see how any overriding interest of America was served by that war. I don't really know all that was at stake in WWI, so I'm keeping an open mind on that question. That was a war without any real bad guys, at least in Europe.
WWII was a threat to Western civilization and to the Socialist Motherland from an unremittingly evil source. That evil had to be, as Churchill said (more or less) "expunged, erased and if need be, BLAWSTED (blasted) from the face of the earth." How is it a gaffe to kill Japs and Nazis? If Winston Churchill says it's OK, then it's OK with me too.
-
<<Why don't WWI and WWII make your list of gaffes?>>
WWI might well have been a gaffe. I have a great sentimental affection for Great Britain, though, and I'm sure there are plenty of Americans who feel the same way. But Germany wasn't the villain in WWI that she was in WWII, so it's harder to see how any overriding interest of America was served by that war. I don't really know all that was at stake in WWI, so I'm keeping an open mind on that question. That was a war without any real bad guys, at least in Europe.
WWII was a threat to Western civilization and to the Socialist Motherland from an unremittingly evil source. That evil had to be, as Churchill said (more or less) "expunged, erased and if need be, BLAWSTED (blasted) from the face of the earth." How is it a gaffe to kill Japs and Nazis? If Winston Churchill says it's OK, then it's OK with me too.
If only Chirchill could be consulted presently.
He had a lot of success blawsteing Facism , I shouldn't suppose that he would understand the threat of Islamo fascism simularly.
If I understand his career correctly , he was early in condemning Fascists and proposed readyness sooner than most Brits were ready to think in those terms.
An ideology that frankly admits that it wants to conquer is again running around , but there are lots of people who don't think it is serious ,....again.
-
An ideology that frankly admits that it wants to conquer is again running around , but there are lots of people who don't think it is serious ,....again.
==========================================================
The US would never think of world domination ::), but I think you will find that the ultimate goal of Coca Cola or Pepsi or probably even Mrs Butterworth is to gain 100% market share. Pretty much every American corporation wants to dominate and preferably monopolize its market...just like Islam.
If they had hated our freedoms, they would have crashed into the Statue of Liberty, or perhaps the Congress building.
But no, they targeted the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, because that is what they hated most about the US.
Should we target the Ka'aba, then?
-
Should we target the Ka'aba, then?
Probly not , we could destroy it , but would that actually have a positive effect?
-
Probly not , we could destroy it , but would that actually have a positive effect?
==============================================================
I don't think destroying the WTC could be said to have produce a positive effect.
If they did this because 'they hate our freedoms', then they have made it difficult for us to get on a plane without a shoe inspection, and many have lost nail clippers, pocketknives and small bottles of lotion and other toiletries.
I am guessing that destroying the Ka'aba would provoke more resentment than destroying Disneyland.
-
Probly not , we could destroy it , but would that actually have a positive effect?
==============================================================
I don't think destroying the WTC could be said to have produce a positive effect.
If they did this because 'they hate our freedoms', then they have made it difficult for us to get on a plane without a shoe inspection, and many have lost nail clippers, pocketknives and small bottles of lotion and other toiletries.
I am guessing that destroying the Ka'aba would provoke more resentment than destroying Disneyland.
I have to suppose that they thought that slamming a few of our landmarks would bring us to fight on their turf, Osama seems to have desired a fight with us on ground he had prepared .
As far as I know we don't want to destroy the Ka'ba , we have freinds who hold it dear ,not just enemys.
-
I am basically opposed to destroying anything other than pesky microorganisms. I can see myself shooting a pack of hooting and whooping wild hyenas should they appear at my door. I deem this very unlikely, however.
-
<<If only Chirchill could be consulted presently.
<<He had a lot of success blawsteing Facism , I shouldn't suppose that he would understand the threat of Islamo fascism simularly.>>
I think you'd really like Prof. Richard Overy's short book On the Origins of the Second World War. In a nutshell, British concerns (Churchill's included) had a lot to do with maintaining the balance of power in Europe and not allowing any one power to become dominant there, and with the defence and maintenance of a far-flung British Empire which was vulnerable to Japanese and Italian imperialism and really required a tough-guy image to discourage potential enemies from even discussing an attack on it. When Hitler attacked Poland after promising the British and French that Czechoslovakia was his last territorial demand in Europe, they could either ignore the insult, signalling to Japan and Italy that they might not fight for their Empire in the Mediterranean, Africa or Asia, or show some backbone and declare war on Germany, which they finally did.
Militant Islam controls no territories or armies. It's not a threat to any European or American state. Its long-term goal, far as I can see, is to goad the U.S. and Britain into mass killings of Muslims and other atrocities (torture was a bonus that I'm sure they never foresaw) in the hopes of inflaming the citizens of U.S. puppet states in the region and provoking the overthrow of the puppet regimes. So far the chief effect seems to be recruitment of more bodies into so-called "terrorist" activities, which relatively speaking, is a dead-end street. While it keeps the pot boiling, the focus of the movement ought to be revolution and regime change, cutting the strings to Washington, and so far, that ain't happening.